Superfund: Trends in Spending for Site Cleanups (Letter Report, 09/04/97,
GAO/RCED-97-211).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO analyzed the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund spending from fiscal year (FY) 1987
through FY 1996 to determine: (1) of total Superfund spending, how much
was for contractor cleanup work, in contrast with other activities; (2)
of the money spent on contractor cleanup work, how much was spent on the
actual cleanups, in contrast with cleanup preparation; and (3) whether a
trend in spending for the actual cleanup could be determined for the
years examined, and, if so, what accounted for that trend.
GAO noted that: (1) both the amount and share of money spent on
contractor cleanup work increased from FY 1987 through FY 1996; (2) in
FY 1987, $261 million (in constant 1996 dollars) was spent on contractor
cleanup work, or 37 percent of the total Superfund spending of $702
million; (3) in FY 1996, $696 million was spent on contractor cleanup
work, or 49 percent of the total Superfund spending of $1.4 billion; (4)
in both years, the remaining funds were spent on administration,
enforcement, and other Superfund activities; (5) of the money spent on
contractor cleanup work, the amount and share spent on the actual
cleanups also increased from FY 1987 through FY 1996; (6) in FY 1987, of
the $261 million the EPA spent on contractor cleanup work, $142 million
was for the actual cleanups, or 54 percent of the total; (7) in FY 1996,
of the $696 million the agency spent on contractor cleanup work, $614
million went to the actual cleanups, or 88 percent of the total; (8) in
both years, the remaining funds for contractor cleanup work were spent
for cleanup preparation--that is, to study site contamination and design
the cleanup action; (9) annual spending for the actual cleanups
increased by about $472 million from FY 1987 through FY 1996; (10) about
half of this increase resulted from spending at a few large-dollar sites
(defined as those with $10 million or more in spending during any 1
year); (11) there were no large-dollar sites in 1987 or 1988; but by
1989, two large-dollar sites accounted for $28 million in annual
spending; and by 1996, nine such sites accounted for $238 million in
annual spending; (12) two other factors each contributed about 25
percent to the increased in the spending for the actual cleanups; (13)
first, the remedial action spending at sites other than the large-dollar
sites increased from $61 million in 1987 to $180 million in 1996,
primarily because the number of these sites grew from 38 in 1987 to 165
in 1996; and (14) second, the amount of money spent on removal actions
increased from $80 million in 1987 to $196 million in 1996, primarily to
address the immediate threats at sites that were not on the National
Priorities List.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-97-211
TITLE: Superfund: Trends in Spending for Site Cleanups
DATE: 09/04/97
SUBJECT: Waste disposal
Health hazards
Waste management
Hazardous substances
Funds management
Contract costs
Environmental monitoring
Pollution control
IDENTIFIER: Superfund Program
EPA National Priorities List
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
September 1997
SUPERFUND - TRENDS IN SPENDING FOR
SITE CLEANUPS
GAO/RCED-97-211
Superfund Cleanup Spending
(160375)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
FMS - Financial Management System
IFMS - Integrated Financial Management System
NPL - National Priorities List
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-277456
September 4, 1997
Congressional Requesters
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spends about $1.4 billion a
year on the Superfund program to address the potential threats to
human health and the environment resulting from hazardous waste
sites. The Superfund program is focused on cleaning up the nation's
worst hazardous waste sites, known as the National Priorities List
(NPL) sites, although Superfund money may also be used to address
other releases of hazardous substances into the environment. The
Congress is considering proposals to reauthorize the program.
EPA does not clean up hazardous waste sites by itself. Instead, it
uses Superfund money to prepare for and implement the cleanups
through others. EPA may compel private parties to clean up the
contamination for which they are responsible (an action referred to
as enforcement). Alternatively, EPA may pay contractors, states, or
other federal agencies to prepare for and implement the site
cleanups. (In this report, these alternatives are referred to as
contractor cleanup work.) Actual cleanups are of two basic types:
remedial actions, which are generally long-term, comprehensive
cleanups, and removal actions, which are generally shorter-term
measures to address immediate health threats. EPA also uses
Superfund money to pay for the program's administration and
management, research and development, and laboratory analysis.
As agreed with your offices, we analyzed Superfund spending from
fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996 to determine (1) of total
Superfund spending, how much was for contractor cleanup work, in
contrast with other activities; (2) of the money spent on contractor
cleanup work, how much was spent on the actual cleanups, in contrast
with cleanup preparation; and (3) whether a trend in spending for the
actual cleanups could be determined for the years examined, and, if
so, what accounted for that trend.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Both the amount and share of money spent on contractor cleanup work
increased from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996. In fiscal
year 1987, $261 million (in constant 1996 dollars) was spent on
contractor cleanup work, or 37 percent of the total Superfund
spending of $702 million. In fiscal year 1996, $696 million was
spent on contractor cleanup work, or 49 percent of the total
Superfund spending of $1.4 billion. In both years, the remaining
funds were spent on administration, enforcement, and other Superfund
activities.
Of the money spent on contractor cleanup work, the amount and share
spent on the actual cleanups also increased from fiscal year 1987
through fiscal year 1996. In fiscal year 1987, of the $261 million
the Environmental Protection Agency spent on contractor cleanup work,
$142 million was for the actual cleanups, or 54 percent of the total.
In fiscal year 1996, of the $696 million the agency spent on
contractor cleanup work, $614 million went to the actual cleanups, or
88 percent of the total. In both years, the remaining funds for
contractor cleanup work were spent for cleanup preparation--that is,
to study site contamination and design the cleanup action.
Annual spending for the actual cleanups increased by about $472
million from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996. About half
of this increase resulted from spending at a few large-dollar sites
(defined as those with $10 million or more in spending during any 1
year). There were no large-dollar sites in 1987 or 1988; but by
1989, two large-dollar sites accounted for $28 million in annual
spending; and by 1996, nine such sites accounted for $238 million in
annual spending. Two other factors each contributed about 25 percent
to the increase in the spending for the actual cleanups. First, the
remedial action spending at sites other than the large-dollar sites
increased from $61 million in 1987 to $180 million in 1996, primarily
because the number of these sites grew from 38 in 1987 to 165 in
1996. Second, the amount of money spent on removal actions increased
from $80 million in 1987 to $196 million in 1996, primarily to
address the immediate threats at sites that were not on the National
Priorities List.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
In 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act created the Superfund program to clean up highly
contaminated hazardous waste sites. To pay for the activities under
the Superfund program, the act established a trust fund, financed
primarily by taxes on crude oil and certain chemicals. Under the
act, EPA has the authority to compel the parties responsible for the
contamination to perform the cleanup. EPA may also pay for the
cleanup and attempt to recover the cleanup costs in those cases in
which a responsible party can be identified. In 1986, amendments to
the act added new provisions regarding cleanup methods, community
participation, and enforcement actions, among other things.
EPA arranges to have cleanup preparation and the actual cleanups
conducted through one of several entities. EPA may directly hire a
contractor to conduct the work, or it may arrange to have the work
conducted by another federal agency, usually the Army Corps of
Engineers, or a state. Under agreements with other federal agencies
or states, EPA transfers the cleanup funds to them, and they in turn
generally hire a contractor to conduct the actual site work.
A number of phases occur in cleaning up an NPL site. First, once a
site is determined to be contaminated enough to be placed on the NPL,
the type and extent of contamination is studied and the alternative
remedial actions are analyzed. This phase is known as the study
phase. Second, after a cleanup action is selected, technical
drawings and specifications for the remedial action are developed.
This phase is known as the design phase. (We define spending for
these first two steps as "cleanup preparation spending.") Finally,
the remedial action is constructed or implemented; this action is
usually a long-term project that can continue over several years. In
addition, EPA can use Superfund funds to pay for removal
actions--shorter-term actions that generally address immediate
threats from hazardous substances.\1 Removal actions may occur at NPL
sites, or more commonly, at non-NPL sites. (We define spending for
remedial and removal actions as "actual cleanup spending." According
to the director of the Superfund program office, EPA uses the term
"cleanup" generally to refer to both cleanup preparation spending and
actual cleanup spending.)
Other Superfund spending covers (1) costs directly related to
cleanups, including EPA's salaries and travel for cleanup oversight
and the costs associated with screening sites for inclusion on the
NPL; (2) enforcement, including costs related to the oversight of
responsible parties' cleanups and to EPA's legal staff for
negotiating and settling with responsible parties; (3) research and
development, and laboratory analysis, including the costs of EPA's
scientists, innovative technology programs, and the evaluation of
hazardous waste samples; and (4) administration and support,
including indirect costs for the Superfund program, such as rent,
utilities, and accounting systems.
All dollar amounts in this report have been converted to constant
1996 dollars. Appendix I provides both the constant and the current
dollar amounts of Superfund expenditures from fiscal year 1987
through fiscal year 1996.
--------------------
\1 In 1996, we reported that using the removal process instead of the
remedial process at portions of Superfund sites can save time and
money and expedite the protection of human health and the
environment. See A Superfund Tool for More Efficient Cleanups
(GAO/RCED-96-134R, Apr. 15, 1996).
SPENDING ON CONTRACTOR CLEANUP
WORK INCREASED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
From fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996, Superfund spending
for contractor cleanup work increased from $261 million to $696
million (in constant 1996 dollars). As figure 1 shows, the funds
spent for contractor cleanup work generally increased each year. The
amount spent on other Superfund activities increased each year from
1987 through 1991, but decreased each year from 1991 through 1996.
Figure 1: Contractor Cleanup
Work and Other Superfund
Expenses in 1996 Constant
Dollars, Fiscal Year 1987
Through Fiscal Year 1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Over the same period, the spending on contractor cleanup work also
increased as a percentage of total Superfund spending. Contractor
cleanup work accounted for 37 percent of total spending in fiscal
year 1987 and 49 percent in fiscal year 1996. The spending for the
other Superfund activities declined during the period, from 63
percent in 1987 to 51 percent in 1996. Within this category, the
percentages spent on directly related costs and research and
development and laboratory analysis decreased, while the percentages
spent on enforcement and administration and support increased, as
shown in figure 2.
Figure 2: Changes in the
Composition of Superfund
Spending, Fiscal Years 1987 and
1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
SPENDING FOR ACTUAL CLEANUPS
ALSO INCREASED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
EPA's spending on the actual cleanups increased from fiscal year 1987
through fiscal year 1996, while spending on cleanup preparation
declined. As figure 3 shows, spending on the actual cleanups rose
from $142 million in 1987 to $614 million in 1996. In contrast,
spending on cleanup preparation increased from $120 million in 1987
to $169 million in 1988 but generally decreased each year thereafter,
dropping to $81 million in 1996.
Figure 3: Cleanup Preparation
Spending and Actual Cleanup
Spending in 1996 Constant
Dollars, Fiscal Year 1987
Through Fiscal Year 1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: The spending for the cleanup preparation and the actual
cleanups may not add to total spending for contractor cleanups
because of rounding.
From fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996, the spending for the
actual cleanups also increased as a percentage of total spending for
contractor cleanup work. The spending for the actual cleanups
accounted for 54 percent of the spending for contractor cleanup work
in 1987 and 88 percent in 1996. Conversely, the spending for cleanup
preparation declined during the period, from 46 to 12 percent.
A FEW LARGE-DOLLAR SITES
PRIMARILY ACCOUNTED FOR
INCREASED SPENDING ON ACTUAL
CLEANUPS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
About half of the increase in the spending on the actual cleanups
from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996 resulted from the
growth in the spending at a few large-dollar sites. The increased
spending at other remedial action sites and for removals accounted
for the remainder.
LARGE-DOLLAR SITES WERE THE
MOST SIGNIFICANT FACTOR IN
THE INCREASE IN ACTUAL
CLEANUP SPENDING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
Of the approximately $472 million increase in spending for the actual
cleanups from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996, about $356
million was for remedial actions and about $116 million was for
removal actions. We found a substantial variation in the annual
spending per site. For example, in 1996, of the 327 sites where EPA
spent money for remedial actions, it spent less than $10,000 at each
of 153 sites,\2 $10,000 to $10 million at each of 165 sites, and $10
million or more at each of 9 sites, as shown in table 1. (App. II
provides a list of the nine large-dollar sites and the amount of
remedial action spending at those sites in 1996.)
Table 1
Distribution of Remedial Action
Spending, by Amount of Spending per
Site, Fiscal Year 1996
Spending
(dollars Percentage
Annual spending per Number of in Percentage of
site sites millions) of sites spending
---------------------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----------
Less than $10,000 153 $0.3 46.8 0.1
$10,000 to $10 million 165 179.9 50.4 43.0
$10 million or more 9 237.9 2.8 56.9
======================================================================
Total 327 $418.0 100.0 100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding.
The number of large-dollar sites generally increased from fiscal year
1987 through fiscal year 1996, as shown in figure 4. There were no
such sites in 1987 or 1988, two in 1989, and nine in 1996. In dollar
terms, $28 million was spent on large-dollar sites in 1989 and $238
million in 1996. Thus, large-dollar sites accounted for half of the
$472 million increase in spending for the actual cleanups that
occurred from 1987 through 1996.
Moreover, the percentage of the spending on remedial actions at such
sites generally increased from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year
1996. There was no spending for remedial action at such sites in
1987 or 1988, 21 percent in 1989, and 57 percent in 1996, as also
shown in figure 4.
Figure 4: Remedial Action
Spending at Large-Dollar Sites,
Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal
Year 1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Large-dollar sites are those with annual spending of $10
million or more in 1996 constant dollars for at least 1 year. There
were no such sites in 1987 or 1988.
--------------------
\2 According to EPA's officials, charges this small were most likely
to represent adjustments to previous years' expenditures at a site,
not ongoing activity. Therefore, we excluded these sites from the
following analysis of site-by-site spending patterns.
SPENDING AT OTHER REMEDIAL
ACTION SITES ALSO
CONTRIBUTED TO THE INCREASE
IN ACTUAL CLEANUP SPENDING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
At sites other than those in the large-dollar category, spending
increased from $61 million in fiscal year 1987 to $180 million in
fiscal year 1996. This $119 million increase accounted for 25
percent of the growth in the spending for the actual cleanups. This
increase resulted primarily from a growth in the number of such sites
at which EPA spent money, although the number of sites leveled off
after 1993. The average annual amount spent at sites other than the
large-dollar sites changed little during this period.
Excluding the large-dollar sites and the sites with annual spending
of less than $10,000,\3 the number of sites receiving funds for
remedial action increased from 38 in fiscal year 1987 to 165 in
fiscal year 1996. However, the increase was not steady. The number
of these sites increased from 38 to 155 from fiscal year 1987 through
fiscal year 1993, and from 155 to 165 from fiscal year 1993 through
fiscal year 1996, as shown in figure 5.
Figure 5: Number of Sites With
Spending for Remedial Action,
Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal
Year 1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: We excluded (1) sites with annual spending of $10 million or
more and (2) sites with annual spending of less than $10,000, both in
1996 constant dollars.
Moreover, when the large-dollar sites and those with little spending
are excluded, the average annual amount spent per site changed only
slightly during this period. Specifically, the average spending
ranged between $0.9 million and $1.3 million, except in 1987, when
the average annual spending per site was $1.6 million. (See fig.
6.)
Figure 6: Average Annual
Spending for Remedial Action
per Site, in 1996 Constant
Dollars, Fiscal Year 1987
Through Fiscal Year 1996
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: We excluded (1) sites with annual spending of $10 million or
more and (2) sites with annual spending of less than $10,000, both in
1996 constant dollars.
--------------------
\3 Spending at sites with annual disbursements of less than $10,000
amounted to 0.04 percent of total spending during the 10-year period.
SPENDING ON REMOVAL ACTIONS
ALSO INCREASED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3
The spending on removal actions also contributed to the increase in
actual cleanup spending from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year
1996. This spending increased from $80 million in fiscal year 1987
to $196 million in fiscal year 1996. This $116 million increase
accounted for 25 percent of the overall $472 million increase in
actual cleanup spending.
While the spending on remedial action is limited to the NPL sites by
EPA's regulations, the spending on removal action usually occurs at
non-NPL sites. In fact, from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year
1996, about 80 percent of the removals EPA funded were at non-NPL
sites. EPA undertakes removals at non-NPL sites if it determines
that an immediate threat exists to human health or the environment.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for review and
comment. EPA said that the report's analysis is sound. EPA also
commented that, in representations to the Congress and the public, it
uses the term "cleanup" to include studying and designing cleanups
(which we refer to as "cleanup preparation"), as well as field work
to implement site remedies (which we refer to as "actual cleanups").
We added this clarification where appropriate. (App. IV contains
EPA's comments.)
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
We conducted our review from January through August 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
See appendix III for the details of our scope and methodology.
As arranged with your offices, we plan no further distribution of
this report until 15 days after the date of this letter unless you
publicly announce its contents earlier. At that time, we will send
copies of the report to other appropriate congressional committees
and to the Administrator of EPA. We will also make copies available
to others upon request.
Should you need further information, please call me at (202)
512-6111. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
V.
Lawrence J. Dyckman
Associate Director, Environmental
Protection Issues
Congressional Requesters
The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Michael G. Oxley
Chairman, Subcommittee on Finance
and Hazardous Materials
Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives
The Honorable Bud Shuster
Chairman, Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
The Honorable Sherwood C. Boehlert
Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment
Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
SUPERFUND SPENDING CATEGORIES
=========================================================== Appendix I
This appendix provides detailed information on Superfund
disbursements for fiscal years 1987 through 1996 in constant 1996
dollars (table I.1) and in current dollars (table I.2).
Table I.1
Superfund Net Disbursements, Fiscal Year
1987 Through Fiscal Year 1996, in 1996
Constant Dollars
(Dollars in millions)
Fiscal year
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inflatio
n factor
and type
of
disburse
ment 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Total
-------- ----- ------ ----- ------ ----- ------ ---- ------ ------ ------ ------
Inflatio 0.754 0.7810 0.814 0.8473 0.883 0.9099 0.93 0.9555 0.9793 1.0000
n 6 0 9 38
factor
Contractor cleanup work
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remedial $105. $142.7 $128. $108.8 $105. $81.3 $55. $55.9 $48.9 $41.3 $874.7
investi 5 7 8 7
gation/
feasibi
lity
study
Remedial 14.4 26.7 38.3 35.5 49.6 64.6 48.8 45.1 43.1 39.8 $405.8
design
Remedial 61.4 60.7 185.8 207.4 321.0 300.7 250. 337.3 312.7 418.5 $2,456
actions 5 .0
Removal 80.2 115.8 102.0 111.1 127.6 127.2 180. 188.4 261.6 195.9 $1,490
actions 9 .6
===========================================================================================
Subtotal $261. $345.9 $454. $462.8 $604. $573.7 $535 $626.7 $666.4 $695.5 $5,227
4 8 0 .9 .2
Directly related cleanup costs
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal $35.2 $58.5 $59.4 $61.7 $64.4 $84.4 $64. $91.0 $54.9 $45.4 $619.7
support 7
and
managem
ent
Remedial 85.8 98.5 111.0 103.2 90.0 81.1 96.7 71.4 78.6 53.5 $869.8
support
and
managem
ent
Site 22.6 37.4 34.2 39.3 32.3 51.4 52.1 52.7 53.6 43.1 $418.5
assessm
ent
Other 1.2 (13.2) 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.7 (0.4 7.7 12.7 16.9 $26.7
)
===========================================================================================
Subtotal $144. $181.3 $204. $204.3 $187. $217.6 $213 $222.7 $199.8 $158.9 $1,934
7 9 4 .1 .6
General administrative and support management
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
===========================================================================================
Subtotal $126. $214.0 $230. $330.2 $385. $342.1 $279 $296.0 $317.0 $299.4 $2,819
8 0 1 .1 .6
Enforcement
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preenfor $5.6 $14.6 $15.3 $17.0 $15.7 $18.8 $16. $12.2 $8.5 $7.1 $130.8
cement 0
activit
ies
Oversigh 26.3 35.8 38.7 54.5 64.8 79.5 77.3 75.4 64.5 45.4 $562.3
t of
respons
ible
parties
Judicial 3.5 4.8 3.5 34.9 16.1 25.8 24.1 19.2 26.5 26.5 $185.0
enforce
ment
Enforcem 55.4 71.3 70.3 87.9 142.7 117.3 125. 106.2 113.1 122.4 $1,011
ent 0 .6
support
and
managem
ent
Other 0.8 18.4 3.2 5.0 5.9 6.7 6.0 6.9 4.4 2.9 $60.1
===========================================================================================
Subtotal $91.6 $145.0 $131. $199.3 $245. $248.0 $248 $219.9 $216.9 $204.4 $1,949
0 1 .3 .7
R&D/laboratory analysis
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research $25.5 $52.8 $69.5 $77.6 $82.2 $89.2 $103 $113.0 $70.9 $19.5 $703.7
and .6
develop
ment
activit
ies
Laborato 52.2 73.1 75.7 55.9 41.1 32.3 49.0 39.0 36.0 34.1 $488.3
ry
activit
ies
===========================================================================================
Subtotal $77.7 $125.8 $145. $133.5 $123. $121.5 $152 $152.0 $106.9 $53.6 $1,192
2 3 .6 .0
===========================================================================================
Total $702. $1,012 $1,16 $1,330 $1,54 $1,502 $1,4 $1,517 $1,507 $1,411 $13,12
net 1 .0 5.9 .1 5.0 .9 28.9 .2 .0 .9 3.1
disburs
ements
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.2
Superfund Net Disbursements, Fiscal Year
1987 Through Fiscal Year 1996, in
Current Dollars
(Dollars in millions)
Fiscal year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Type of
disburse
nment 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Total
-------- ---- ---- ---- ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ ----- ------ ------
Contractor cleanup work
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Remedial $79. $111 $104 $92.2 $93.5 $74.0 $52.1 $53.4 $47.9 $41.3 $750.2
investi 6 .4 .7
gation/
feasibi
lity
study
Remedial 10.9 20.8 31.2 30.1 43.8 58.7 45.5 43.1 42.2 39.8 $366.2
design
Remedial 46.3 47.4 151. 175.8 283.8 273.6 233.9 322.3 306.2 418.5 $2,259
actions 2 .0
Removal 60.5 90.4 83.0 94.1 112.8 115.7 168.9 180.0 256.2 195.9 $1,357
actions .6
==========================================================================================
Subtotal $197 $270 $370 $392.1 $533.9 $522.1 $500.4 $598.8 $652. $695.5 $4,733
.3 .1 .2 6 .0
Directly related cleanup costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removal $26. $45. $48. $52.2 $56.9 $76.8 $60.4 $86.9 $53.8 $45.4 $553.2
support 5 7 4
and
managem
ent
Remedial 64.7 77.0 90.4 87.4 79.6 73.8 90.3 68.2 77.0 53.5 761.8
support
and
managem
ent
Site 17.0 29.2 27.8 33.3 28.6 46.7 48.6 50.3 52.5 43.1 $377.1
assessm
ent
Other 0.9 (10. 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.6 (0.3) 7.4 12.4 16.9 $28.5
3)
==========================================================================================
Subtotal $109 $141 $166 $173.1 $165.7 $198.0 $199.0 $212.8 $195. $158.9 $1,720
.2 .6 .8 6 .5
General administrative and support management
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
==========================================================================================
Subtotal $95. $167 $187 $279.8 $340.4 $311.3 $260.6 $282.8 $310. $299.4 $2,534
7 .1 .2 4 .7
Enforcement
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Preenfor $4.2 $11. $12. $14.4 $13.8 $17.1 $15.0 $11.7 $8.3 $7.1 $115.5
cement 4 4
activit
ies
Oversigh 19.9 28.0 31.5 46.2 57.3 72.3 72.2 72.0 63.2 45.4 $508.0
t of
respons
ible
parties
Judicial 2.7 3.8 2.9 29.5 14.3 23.5 22.5 18.4 25.9 26.5 $169.9
enforce
ment
Enforcem 41.8 55.7 57.2 74.5 126.1 106.7 116.7 101.4 110.7 122.4 $913.4
ent
support
and
managem
ent
Other 0.6 14.4 2.6 4.2 5.2 6.1 5.6 6.6 4.3 2.9 52.4
==========================================================================================
Subtotal $69. $113 $106 $168.9 $216.7 $225.7 $231.9 $210.1 $212. $204.4 $1,759
1 .3 .7 4 .1
R&D/Laboratory analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research $19. $41. $56. $65.8 $72.7 $81.1 $96.7 $108.0 $69.4 $19.5 $630.2
and 2 2 6
develop
ment
activit
ies
Laborato 39.4 57.1 61.6 47.4 36.3 29.4 45.7 37.2 35.2 34.1 423.5
ry
activit
ies
==========================================================================================
Subtotal $58. $98. $118 $113.1 $109.0 $110.6 $142.5 $145.2 $104. $53.6 $1,053
6 3 .2 6 .7
==========================================================================================
Total $529 $790 $949 $1,127 $1,365. $1,367 $1,334 $1,449 $1,47 $1,411 $11,80
net .8 .4 .1 .0 6 .5 .4 .7 5.7 .9 1.1
disburs
ements
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERFUND SITES WITH $10 MILLION
OR MORE IN REMEDIAL ACTION
SPENDING, FISCAL YEAR 1996
========================================================== Appendix II
(Dollars in millions)
1996
Site State spending
---------------------------------------- -------------- ------------
Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services New Jersey $62.2
Baird & McGuire Massachusetts 40.4
Raymark Industries Connecticut 30.8
Sharon Steel Utah 21.5
Summitville Mine Colorado 20.5
Drake Chemical Corp. Pennsylvania 19.5
Southern Shipbuilders Louisiana 17.2
Portland Cement Utah 13.5
Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical Idaho 12.2
======================================================================
Total $237.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Spending amounts do not add to total because of rounding.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
========================================================= Appendix III
To determine how Superfund spending was apportioned from fiscal year
1987 through fiscal year 1996, we obtained information from the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS) and its predecessor, the Financial
Management System (FMS). (IFMS replaced FMS as the agency's official
financial information system in 1989.) Working with officials from
EPA's Office of the Comptroller, we established categories for
Superfund spending and allocated the Superfund expenditures into
those categories. To identify the factors accounting for increased
spending on the actual cleanups, we analyzed site-by-site Superfund
expenditures for each fiscal year from 1987 through 1996. We
discussed our analysis with EPA officials from both the Comptroller's
office and the Superfund program office. They generally agreed that
our analysis was appropriate.
We did not assess the reliability of the data contained in IFMS as
part of this review. However, in a 1995 review of IFMS, we found
instances of inaccurate and incomplete data in the system.\4 While we
did not consider these instances to be representative of the overall
integrity of the IFMS data, we recommended that EPA conduct
statistical testing of the data, and EPA has done that. To provide
additional assurance about the reliability of the IFMS data, we
verified that, for each fiscal year included in our analysis, the
site-by-site cleanup expenditures added up to the annual cleanup
expenditure totals reported in the system. The sum of the cleanup
expenditures closely matched the annual total for each year, except
1989. Officials from the Office of the Comptroller explained that
the discrepancy for 1989 is related to the conversion from FMS to
IFMS that occurred that year. They stated that reconciling the
differences between the two totals would be very difficult. We did
not attempt such a reconciliation because data for a single year have
a relatively minor effect on the 10-year trends observed in our
analysis.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
--------------------
\4 Superfund: System Enhancements Could Improve the Efficiency of
Cost Recovery (GAO/AIMD-95-177, Aug. 25, 1995).
COMMENTS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
========================================================= Appendix III
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
David Marwick, Assistant Director
Patricia J. Manthe, Evaluator-in-Charge
Donald J. Sangirardi, Evaluator
Cathy L. Helm, Advisor
Annette Wright, Computer Specialist
Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, Communications Analyst
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL
Richard P. Johnson, Senior Attorney
*** End of document. ***