Hazardous Waste: Progress Under the Corrective Action Program Is Limited,
but New Initiatives May Accelerate Cleanups (Letter Report, 10/21/97,
GAO/RCED-98-3).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Corrective Action Program, focusing on: (1) the progress made in
cleaning up facilities under the program; (2) factors affecting
progress; and (3) any initiatives that EPA, the states, and industry
have taken to accomplish cleanups.

GAO noted that: (1) only about 8 percent of the nonfederal facilities
nationwide that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste, including
about 5 percent of the facilities considered to pose the highest risk,
have completed cleanup actions, according to EPA's data; (2) about 56
percent of the facilities, including about 35 percent of those posing
the highest risk, have yet to begin the formal cleanup process; (3) some
facilities have undertaken cleanup actions outside of the program;
however, the extent of these efforts is unknown because they are not
reflected in EPA's program data; (4) according to EPA, state, and
company cleanup managers: (a) cleaning up the contaminated facilities
under the program is time-consuming and costly because the process EPA
developed for cleanups, and which some states authorized to implement
the program have adopted, has multiple reporting and review
requirements; (b) EPA, the states, and companies often disagree on how
cleanup should be pursued, which prolongs the cleanup process because
more time is needed to negotiate cleanup terms, and companies must
sometimes meet the duplicate requirements of both federal and state
regulators; (c) unless EPA or the states direct the companies to begin
cleanup, the companies appear to perform cleanups only when they have
business incentives to do so; and (d) EPA and the states lack the
resources they need to direct more companies to begin their cleanups and
to provide timely oversight at the facilities already performing
cleanups; (5) EPA, some states, and industry have undertaken initiatives
to streamline the cleanup process and make cleanup decisions on the
basis of risk, rather than on the basis of the more generic process
specified for the program; (6) EPA and the states are looking for ways
to leverage their limited resources to accomplish cleanups more quickly,
including putting facilities into alternative programs that streamline
cleanups; (7) while these initiatives promise to allow faster and
cheaper cleanups, some of them may involve tradeoffs in the stringency
of the standards applied, the permanence of the remedies selected, and
the level of public participation required; (8) these tradeoffs increase
the need for long-term oversight to ensure that the remedies continue to
protect human health and the environment; (9) although companies'
cleanup managers favor many of the initiatives, several of them
expressed reservations about EPA's and the states' willingness to use
these initiatives; and (10) EPA's strategy of adopting new approaches to
corrective action may not be sufficient to ensure that the approaches
are implemented nationwide.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-98-3
     TITLE:  Hazardous Waste: Progress Under the Corrective Action 
             Program Is Limited, but New Initiatives May Accelerate
             Cleanups
      DATE:  10/21/97
   SUBJECT:  Hazardous substances
             Waste disposal
             Environmental policies
             Environmental law
             Federal/state relations
             Liability (legal)
             Industrial wastes
             Pollution control
             State programs
IDENTIFIER:  EPA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Program
             EPA RCRA Corrective Action Program
             Superfund Program
             
******************************************************************
** 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 the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Commerce, House
of Representatives

October 1997

HAZARDOUS WASTE - PROGRESS UNDER
THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM IS
LIMITED, BUT NEW INITIATIVES MAY
ACCELERATE CLEANUPS

GAO/RCED-98-3

RCRA Corrective Action Program

(160370)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
  RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
  RCRIS - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System
  RBCA -

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-277878

October 21, 1997

The Honorable John D.  Dingell
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Commerce
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Dingell: 

Under the requirements of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act's Corrective Action Program, the nearly 3,700 nonfederal
facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste in the
United States could spend about $16 billion to clean up their
properties contaminated by hazardous substances.\1 The Corrective
Action Program attempts to minimize the federal cleanup burden by
having current operating facilities clean up their hazardous waste
contamination, thereby preventing them from becoming Superfund
sites.\2 The companies that perform cleanups under the program
include, for example, chemical manufacturers and waste disposal
companies.  Although the Corrective Action Program has been in effect
since 1984, concerns have been raised that companies are not cleaning
up their facilities quickly enough and that the properties remain
contaminated, posing risks to public health and the environment. 

To assess the current status of the Corrective Action Program, you
asked us to determine (1) the progress made in cleaning up facilities
under the program, (2) factors affecting progress, and (3) any
initiatives that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
states, and industry have taken to accomplish cleanups.  As agreed
with your office, we limited our review to nonfederal facilities. 


--------------------
\1 The number of facilities is based on our analysis of the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) data.  In addition, we
adjusted EPA's 1992 estimated cost for cleanups to 1996 dollars. 

\2 Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980, also known as Superfund, EPA may compel
companies responsible for hazardous waste contamination to perform a
cleanup.  Alternatively, the agency may perform the cleanup itself
and seek reimbursement from the responsible company.  As we recently
reported in Superfund:  Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup
of Hazardous Waste Sites (GAO/RCED-97-20, Mar.  31, 1997), a
significant backlog of facilities are awaiting cleanup under the
Superfund program. 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

As of March 31, 1997, only about 8 percent of the approximately 3,700
nonfederal facilities nationwide that treat, store, or dispose of
hazardous waste--including about 5 percent of the approximately 1,300
facilities considered to pose the highest risk--have completed
cleanup actions under the Corrective Action Program, according to
EPA's data.  Many of the remaining facilities are in various stages
of the cleanup process:  About 17 percent are implementing cleanup
remedies; another 14 percent have taken actions to contain on-site
contamination so that it does not pose an immediate threat to human
health or the environment; and 14 percent are still investigating the
extent of contamination.  Finally, about 56 percent of the
facilities--including about 35 percent of those posing the highest
risk--have yet to begin the formal cleanup process.  Some facilities
have undertaken cleanup actions outside of the program; however, the
extent of these efforts is unknown because they are not reflected in
the agency's program data. 

Four key factors are hampering progress under the Corrective Action
Program, according to EPA, state, and company cleanup managers we
contacted.  First, cleaning up the contaminated facilities under the
program is time-consuming and costly because the process EPA
developed for cleanups, and which some states authorized to implement
the program have adopted, has multiple reporting and review
requirements.  Second, the agency, the states, and companies often
disagree on how cleanup should be pursued.  These disagreements
prolong the cleanup process because more time is needed to negotiate
cleanup terms, and companies must sometimes meet the duplicate
requirements of both federal and state regulators.  Third, unless EPA
or the states direct the companies to begin cleanup, the companies
appear to perform cleanups at their facilities only when they have
business incentives to do so, such as an interest in selling or
redeveloping the property.  Finally, cleanup has been hampered
because EPA, as well as the states in the regions we reviewed, lack
the resources they need to direct more companies to begin their
cleanups and to provide timely oversight at the facilities already
performing cleanups under the program. 

Recently, EPA, some states, and industry have undertaken initiatives
to, among other things, streamline the cleanup process and make
cleanup decisions on the basis of the level of the risk to public
health and the environment posed at the individual facility, rather
than on the basis of the more generic process specified for the
program.  In addition, the agency and the states are looking for ways
to leverage their limited resources to accomplish cleanups more
quickly.  These efforts include putting facilities into alternative
programs that streamline cleanups--such as states' voluntary cleanup
programs.  While these initiatives promise to allow faster and
cheaper cleanups, some of them, such as the voluntary programs, may
involve tradeoffs in the stringency of the standards applied, the
permanence of the remedies selected, and the level of public
participation required.  These tradeoffs increase the need for
long-term oversight to ensure that the remedies continue to protect
human health and the environment.  Furthermore, although companies'
cleanup managers favor many of the initiatives, several of
them--citing their experience with cleanups under the program to
date--expressed reservations about the agency's and the states'
willingness to use these initiatives.  Therefore, the agency's
current strategy of adopting new approaches to corrective action by
issuing guidance or final regulations may not be sufficient to ensure
that the approaches are implemented nationwide. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) requires
companies that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste to obtain
a permit specifying how their facilities will safely manage that
waste.  EPA may authorize states to administer their own permitting
programs for hazardous waste in lieu of the federal program, as long
as these programs are equivalent to and consistent with the federal
program and provide for adequate enforcement.  Currently, almost all
states are authorized to issue operating permits.  Existing
facilities, under certain conditions, can operate while EPA or the
state authorized to implement the program reviews their permit
applications.  These facilities operate in "interim status."

The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 revised RCRA to
include new provisions for cleaning up the contamination at
facilities seeking permits to treat, store, and dispose of hazardous
waste.  The corrective actions can be specified in the facility's
operating permit or in a separate corrective action permit.  EPA may
also use its enforcement authority to require facilities to clean up
hazardous waste contamination by issuing to the facility an
enforcement order specifying the corrective actions it must take. 
The agency's offices of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, and
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance implement the Corrective Action
Program through EPA's 10 regional offices.  In addition to giving 47
states the authority to issue operating permits to facilities, EPA
has, to date, given 32 states the authority to issue permits to
facilities to undertake corrective action cleanups.\3 The states
authorized to issue these corrective action permits must also, as
part of the authorization process, demonstrate that they have
adequate authority under state laws to enforce the program at all
applicable facilities. 

RCRA, as amended, did not set any deadlines for completing cleanups
under the Corrective Action Program.  In response to the planning
requirements established for all federal agencies under the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, EPA has set two
performance targets for all high-priority RCRA facilities by 2005. 
These two targets are to control the (1) human exposure to hazardous
contamination at 95 percent of them and (2) release of contaminated
groundwater at 70 percent. 

To implement the Corrective Action Program, EPA designed a cleanup
process that generally includes four stages.  (See fig.  1.)

   Figure 1:  The Four Primary
   Phases of the RCRA Corrective
   Action Process

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  At any point in this process, the facility may be required to
take interim measures to address contamination that poses an
immediate threat to human health or the environment. 

Source:  EPA. 

In the first phase--initial facility assessment--EPA or the state
assesses the facility to characterize the risk posed and determine
the need for immediate action.  In the second phase--detailed
investigation--the company that owns the RCRA facility conducts a
more detailed investigation to establish the nature and extent of
contamination released to groundwater, surface water, air, and soil;
this phase can be complex and take years to complete.  This
investigation is conducted under EPA's or the state's review and
monitoring and with the agency's or state's approval.  If corrective
action is needed, a third phase--remedy study--is started.  During
this phase, the company must complete a corrective measures study
that describes the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of various
cleanup options; EPA solicits public comments on the selected option
and approves a final method.  Finally, in the fourth phase--remedy
implementation--the company implements the corrective measure
selected; it is required to design, construct, operate, maintain, and
monitor this remedy. 

To examine cleanup issues under the Corrective Action Program, we
analyzed RCRA's program data and interviewed cleanup managers from 23
companies that are responsible for corrective action cleanups.  For
these 23 companies, we visited 20 facilities selected from the 2
largest industry groups subject to cleanup under the
program--chemical and metal manufacturers--and interviewed their
cleanup managers at these facilities.  We also interviewed cleanup
managers of five corporations that are among those with the most
facilities subject to corrective action cleanup nationwide.  In
addition, we interviewed EPA and state program managers who directly
oversee the 20 facilities.  Appendix I provides additional details on
our scope and methodology. 


--------------------
\3 EPA has authorized 31 states and 1 territory--Guam--to implement
the Corrective Action Program. 


   FEW FACILITIES HAVE COMPLETED
   CLEANUPS UNDER THE PROGRAM
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Since 1984, companies have completed cleanup action at about 8
percent (301) of the universe of 3,698 nonfederal facilities that
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste, according to EPA's data. 
These cleanups include about 5 percent (69) of the 1,304 facilities
that EPA considers to be a high priority because they pose the
highest potential risk to human health or the environment.\4 EPA or
the states have certified these facilities as having completed all
cleanup action and needing no further monitoring. 

Of the 573 facilities that are implementing remedies, 395 of
them--including 215 high-priority facilities--have put remedies in
place to control human exposure to on-site contaminants.  Another 34
facilities--including 18 high-priority facilities--have completed
construction of at least one on-site remedy and are monitoring the
effectiveness of that remedy.  The rest have, at a minimum, presented
their suggested remedies to the public for consideration and comment
and subsequently received approval from EPA or the state to implement
those remedies.  EPA expects that a number of facilities, such as
those designed specifically as waste disposal facilities, will remain
in this category because they will require monitoring far into the
future. 

The 461 facilities that are controlling contamination--297 of them
high priority--have taken interim steps at the location to abate
threats to human health and the environment and to prevent or
minimize the further spread of contamination by, for example, halting
the migration of contaminated groundwater.  The interim measures are
specific to the contaminated portions of the property and may not be
facilitywide.  The facility may need to take additional corrective
measures to complete the cleanup. 

The 477 facilities--including 197 high-priority facilities--that are
investigating contamination are completing, or have completed, a
thorough study of the types and extent of on-site contamination. 
During this investigation, EPA or the state becomes actively involved
with the cleanup, and the facility is considered to be participating
in the Corrective Action Program. 

The 1,886 facilities that have not begun their cleanups under the
Corrective Action Program may have been assessed by EPA or the state
and ranked as high, medium, or low priority; however, the facility,
EPA, or the state has not taken any further action under the program. 
Of these facilities, 427 are high priority. 

Figure 2 illustrates the number and percent of total and
high-priority facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
waste in each of the corrective action categories. 

   Figure 2:  Status of Facilities
   in the Corrective Action
   Process by Cleanup Phase--All
   Facilities and High-Priority
   Facilities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  EPA data, as of March 31, 1997. 

Companies have made some progress since 1993, when we last examined
the Corrective Action Program.  At that time, EPA data showed that
only about 1 percent of the facilities that needed cleanups had
undertaken cleanup actions.\5

In addition, some companies have undertaken cleanup actions outside
of the Corrective Action Program, under state environmental programs,
such as state Superfund or voluntary cleanup programs, and these are
not reflected in EPA's data.  While some of these cleanup activities
are likely to qualify as corrective action, according to EPA program
managers, the extent of these types of cleanup actions is unknown. 

We also examined facilities in two categories of the program--the
cleanup begun and cleanup completed categories--to determine
differences in progress among the states that are authorized to
implement the program and those that are not, EPA's 10 regions, and
the major industry groups that are responsible for corrective action. 
(See app.  II for a detailed explanation of our analysis and the
results.) Some of the significant variations in progress include the
following: 

  -- States.  Facilities in the states authorized to implement the
     Corrective Action Program have achieved more progress in both
     categories than facilities in the states not authorized,
     regardless of the industry or cleanup priority of the facility. 
     For example, 53 percent of the facilities in the states
     authorized to implement the program have their cleanups under
     way, compared with 41 percent in the states not authorized for
     the program. 

  -- EPA regions.\6 The regions differ significantly in the
     percentage of cleanups they have under way or completed.  For
     example, the Denver region has cleanups under way at about 92
     percent of its facilities, while the Boston region has about 23
     percent of its cleanups under way.  The Denver region has
     completed cleanups at 12 percent of its high-priority
     facilities, while each of the Boston, Philadelphia, and Atlanta
     regions has completed less than 5 percent of its facility
     cleanups, regardless of priority. 

  -- Industry.  Industry's progress also varies.  Petroleum and coal
     facilities have the largest percentage of cleanups under way at
     high-priority facilities--87 percent--while metals manufacturing
     facilities have the smallest--51 percent.  Electrical, gas, and
     sanitary facilities have the highest percentage of completed
     cleanups--11 percent--regardless of priority, while metal
     manufacturing facilities have the lowest--5 percent. 

Appendix III details cleanup progress, by category, for states, EPA
regions, and industries. 


--------------------
\4 We obtained EPA's database as of March 31, 1997, and, using a
methodology we designed in conjunction with the EPA program managers,
placed each of the facilities subject to corrective action into one
of five cleanup categories, such as remedy implementation. 

\5 Hazardous Waste:  Much Work Remains to Accelerate Facility
Cleanups (GAO/RCED-93-15, Jan.  19, 1993).  The analysis in this
report was based on data in the EPA database, as of June 1992.  At
that time, EPA estimated that about 3,400 facilities needed cleanups. 
Because the data used for both reports are not fully comparable, we
could not analyze progress by cleanup category. 

\6 See fig.  III.2 in app.  III for a listing of all EPA regions. 


   SEVERAL FACTORS AFFECT CLEANUP
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Four key factors are hampering cleanups, according to the cleanup
managers we spoke with at EPA and the companies.  First, the RCRA
cleanup process is time-consuming and costly.  Second, EPA, the
states, and companies often disagree on how to approach cleanup at a
facility, including the standards and remedies that facilities should
use.  Third, because cleanups under the Corrective Action Program are
expensive and drawn-out, unless EPA or a state directs a company to
begin cleanup under the program, a company tends to initiate cleanup
at its facilities only when it has economic incentives to do so. 
Finally, EPA and some states lack the resources needed to direct more
companies to begin cleanups at the facilities not yet in the program
and to provide timely oversight of cleanups already under way. 


      THE RCRA PROCESS CAN BE
      TIME-CONSUMING AND COSTLY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

According to cleanup managers from each of the 23 companies we
reviewed, the RCRA cleanup process is sometimes unnecessarily
time-consuming and costly.  According to EPA officials, the
complexity of many RCRA facilities--especially the high-priority
ones--adds to the time and cost of cleanups.  However, the industry
representatives stated that the duplicative and restrictive nature of
the cleanup process EPA and the states have implemented adds more
time and cost than warranted.  These representatives believe that the
corrective action process forces EPA's cleanup managers to become
overly prescriptive in monitoring a cleanup, concentrating on whether
the facility has complied with every step in the cleanup process
rather than on whether it has met the cleanup's overall goals and
objectives.  For example, according to the cleanup managers of one
chemical company, the company has numerous, similar facilities with
underground storage tanks that need to be cleaned up.  The managers
commented that, although EPA and the states typically require the
same cleanup method at each facility, program protocol requires each
facility to conduct a thorough investigation and corrective measures
study, with all of the requisite data collection, reports, and plans. 
The managers believe that this is a heavy, costly, and unnecessary
paperwork burden.  Similarly, representatives of a chemical facility
we visited reported that prior to EPA's involvement in the cleanup,
the facility spent $10 million to investigate the contamination and
initiate its own cleanup activities, which EPA later approved as
sufficient.  Once EPA became involved, the facility spent an
additional $28 million, a substantial portion of which, in their
view, was to comply with EPA's procedural requirements rather than to
substantially increase the amount of cleanup.  EPA regional officials
believe that the company's estimate includes more work than EPA
requires for RCRA cleanups; however, they could not determine how
much the company spent for RCRA requirements because EPA does not
track the cost of cleanups. 

Representatives of a steel manufacturing facility told us that they
cannot deviate from the schedule of consecutive steps detailed in
their facility's corrective action order.  As a result, the facility
will not begin actual cleanup activities until about 7 years after
the order was signed.  Furthermore, they stated that the order
specifies that the facility must submit a workplan and obtain EPA's
approval for each interim measure taken at the facility.  The
company's representatives noted that it took about 7 months to obtain
EPA's approval to place fencing and propane-powered cannons, an
interim measure, around one contaminated pit to keep wildlife out. 
They believe that the interim measure was a simple one that could
have been implemented much more quickly without a formal workplan. 
These representatives' experience with cleaning up similar facilities
more quickly under other programs, such as state voluntary programs,
leads them to believe that RCRA's process-oriented approach is
unnecessarily delaying cleanup. 

Several of the EPA officials in the regions and at headquarters
agreed that the corrective action process can be cumbersome and
unnecessarily time-consuming.  They explained that EPA somewhat
modeled the RCRA cleanup process--with its extensive documentation
requirements and prescribed, consecutive steps--after the Superfund
process.  According to these officials, Superfund cleanups follow
detailed procedural steps so that the agency can document cleanup
costs because, under Superfund, EPA needs the documentation to pursue
reimbursement for cleanup costs from the parties that are responsible
for the contamination.  In addition, in the early days of both
Superfund and RCRA, when the agency was relatively inexperienced with
cleaning up hazardous contamination, agency decisionmakers designed
the cleanup processes to be thorough to ensure that facilities choose
the best cleanup solutions.  Furthermore, they thought that it was
important to make the requirements of the two programs consistent
because Superfund and RCRA cleanups can be similar in the types and
extent of contamination they must address.  As a result, they noted,
RCRA cleanups became very process-oriented, and the authorized states
usually adopted this approach. 

Some EPA officials commented that the extensive process for dealing
with RCRA cleanups may not always be appropriate today.  EPA and the
state agencies and industry have gained experience with cleanups and
tend to know more about the success of various cleanup methods,
decreasing the need for extensive investigation and analysis.  In
addition, the managers pointed out that other approaches to cleanups
have been developed, such as state voluntary programs, which they
believe can achieve results comparable with RCRA's in terms of the
standards and remedies applied but with less adherence to a
step-by-step process. 


      DISAGREEMENTS ON APPROACHES,
      STANDARDS, AND REMEDIES CAN
      HAMPER CLEANUPS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

EPA, the states, and companies frequently disagree on how to approach
cleanups as well as on the standards and remedies that should be
used, according to cleanup managers from each of the 23 companies in
our review.  This lack of agreement, some of them said, tends to
hamper cleanup progress because the regulators and companies spend
more time negotiating cleanup terms. 

For example, according to some of the company cleanup managers, some
EPA regions and states may disagree with a company and require a
comprehensive, facilitywide investigation prior to beginning the
corrective measures study, while others may agree to allow a company
to investigate and remediate its facility in phases.  Likewise, some
EPA and state officials may disagree with a company's preference to
clean up a facility to less stringent standards, assuming that the
land will be put to industrial rather than residential uses in the
future.  Finally, some EPA and state officials may push the company
to use permanent remedies, such as removing all sources of
contamination, rather than simply containing the waste.  Some of the
companies that have facilities in different parts of the nation said
that they experience these disagreements first-hand; another cleanup
manager said that the company became aware of them through the
consultants it uses who have national experience in managing the
corrective action process. 

According to company cleanup managers representing 8 of the 23
companies in our review, delays can occur at facilities where both
EPA and the state have oversight because the regulators disagree or
impose duplicate requirements.  Usually, either EPA or the state
monitors cleanup activity conducted under the Corrective Action
Program; however, sometimes both EPA and the state are involved in
portions of a facility's cleanup.  For example, a company could close
a landfill or surface impoundment under the state's
oversight--because almost all states are authorized to oversee those
types of closures outside of the Corrective Action Program--and later
enter into facilitywide corrective action under EPA's oversight. 
This was the case at one chemical facility that we visited.  The
company wanted to close numerous similar surface impoundments.  It
closed some of them under the state's oversight prior to beginning
corrective action.  The state allowed the company to meet industrial
land-use standards.  The company closed the remaining impoundments
under EPA's oversight in the Corrective Action Program, however, and
EPA initially insisted upon more stringent standards that would not
restrict the future use of the land.  The company argued that all of
the surface impoundment closures should meet the same risk-based
criteria.  It was 4 years before EPA and the company agreed to
cleanup specifications that mirrored those of the state. 


      COMPANIES APPEAR TO INITIATE
      EXTENSIVE CLEANUPS ONLY WITH
      ECONOMIC INCENTIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

According to several cleanup managers we spoke with, companies will
generally ensure that the contamination at their facilities does not
pose an immediate danger to public health or the environment, whether
or not EPA or a state has directed the facility to enter the
Corrective Action Program.  For example, two of the companies we
visited were addressing identified groundwater contamination before
EPA or the state had approached them with a permit or order to begin
corrective action.  They were working with the facility's neighbors
to ensure that they had safe drinking water and keeping the neighbors
informed of cleanup actions.  One of the facility managers explained
that it was very important for the company to avoid the liability of
future problems from contamination that could migrate off of the
property and to maintain a good public image. 

We determined, however, that the companies in our survey appear to
undertake more comprehensive cleanup actions only when they have an
economic incentive to do so because the corrective action process can
be so costly and time-consuming.  For example, two companies we
visited were growing and wanted to expand their operations on the
property.  The company cleanup managers said that they are seeking
program approval of their cleanup actions in order to avoid the risk
of later having to tear down structures to address on-site
contamination.  Representatives of another company, a chemical
manufacturer, told us that the company was motivated to clean up its
facility through the program because it had an agreement with the
prior owner to share in the liability costs for contamination. 
Because the agreement had a time limit on these provisions, the
company wanted to enter the program and obtain EPA's certification
that cleanup was complete before the provisions expired. 

In other cases, a company subject to the Corrective Action Program
may perform more extensive cleanup actions prior to any EPA or state
oversight because it foresees a financial advantage in not waiting
for EPA or the state to initiate the cleanup.  Such a company runs
the risk of having to redo its cleanup or take additional action
later if the cleanup does not meet program requirements once EPA or a
state directs it to enter the program.  For example, one company that
has closed down its steel-making operations is developing the
facility into an industrial park.  The company negotiates cleanup
terms with the prospective tenants as part of each lease and cleans
up without government oversight, retaining liability for any future
cleanup that EPA or the state may require.  Company representatives
explained that the business community demands quicker turnaround
times for real estate transactions than EPA can provide and that,
therefore, the company cannot afford to wait for EPA.  According to
the cleanup managers of two other companies, these companies
purposely began their facility investigations prior to EPA's
involvement as a way to better manage total cleanup costs.  They
explained that the EPA process would usually require an investigation
of each area of the facility thought to be contaminated; however, if
a company can show that some areas are not problematic, those areas
can often be eliminated from the specifications dictated in the
permit or order, making the investigation under the program cheaper. 
One of the managers added that, by getting started prior to EPA's
involvement, the company can better control cleanup costs--more than
$14 million to date--than if EPA dictates the cleanup schedule. 

In contrast, a company may clean up a facility under a state program,
such as a voluntary cleanup program, to gain some assurance that the
cleanup will meet the requirements of the Corrective Action Program. 
For example, a steel manufacturing company we visited is performing
the cleanup of a large facility under a state voluntary program. 
According to company cleanup managers, the company plans to build
extensively on the property and wants to begin as soon as possible. 
Even though company representatives are concerned about building
before EPA certifies that no more cleanup is needed, they do not want
to increase the time or money they expect would be needed to perform
a facility investigation under the Corrective Action Program.  The
company chose the voluntary program because its process requirements
are less extensive, and therefore less expensive, than those of the
Corrective Action Program.  In addition, the representatives expect
that the cleanup under the state program will occur more quickly so
that the redevelopment can begin sooner.  Company representatives
believe that, by meeting the state's requirements, EPA is less likely
to require the company to perform additional cleanup actions later. 

Furthermore, when companies have no immediate economic incentives to
clean up, they wait until the state or EPA pursues corrective action
with them, according to one cleanup manager at a large corporation. 
He explained that the company may not be anxious to pursue cleanup if
the contamination is not posing an immediate threat, the facility is
not losing revenue, or the company is not incurring a financial
liability by delaying cleanup. 

Several company cleanup managers told us that, to some extent,
companies are discouraged from taking more proactive cleanup steps
because the regulatory uncertainty of the program has made it
difficult to predict the cleanup actions EPA or the states might
impose.  For example, although the program began in 1984, EPA did not
issue draft regulations governing how facilities must complete
cleanups until 1990 and has not yet issued final regulations. 


      EPA'S AND SOME STATES' LACK
      OF RESOURCES HAMPER THEIR
      ABILITY TO ADDRESS CLEANUPS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

EPA cites a lack of resources as one of the main reasons it cannot
direct more than a relatively small number of the facilities still
not in the program to begin cleanup each year.  In fiscal year 1997,
the agency expected to direct cleanup at less than 2 percent (46) of
the 1,886 backlogged facilities--427 of them high priority--that have
not yet begun their program cleanups.  Several company cleanup
managers said that they had waited years for EPA to oversee their
cleanups.  For example, EPA did not approach one steel company to
begin negotiating cleanup under an order until 8 years after EPA had
initially assessed the company's facility. 

The resource shortfall delays ongoing cleanups because agency staff
are slow to review the documentation submitted by the companies. 
While EPA generally requires that companies respond to requests for
reports and documents for each step of the corrective action process
within 30 to 60 days of the requests, it is not uncommon for EPA to
take much longer to respond to the documents that companies submit,
according to company cleanup managers.  For example, representatives
of one steel company told us that it regularly took some EPA regional
staff 9 to 12 months to respond when the company submitted drafts or
workplans, and representatives of a chemical company said that they
have been waiting since 1994 for EPA to respond to information that
the company provided on the risks at its facility. 

This gap between workload and available resources has affected the
progress of the program since its inception.  After the Corrective
Action Program was created in 1984, the agency received a flood of
applications from facilities requesting a permit to operate in
compliance with the RCRA requirements.  RCRA established earlier
deadlines for final decisions on permit applications for certain
types of facilities, such as landfills, than for other types of
facilities.  Because of these earlier deadlines, EPA used available
resources to address the applications from those facilities first and
delayed addressing other types of facilities or taking additional
enforcement actions.  EPA was not able to conduct facility
assessments at many of these other facilities or to begin the more
detailed facility investigations until the early 1990s.  In an effort
to enlist states' assistance with cleanups, EPA authorized states to
implement the program.  This strategy appears to have helped to some
extent.  About 47 percent of the facilities in the 32 states
authorized to implement the program are awaiting cleanup, compared
with about 59 percent in the states not authorized to implement the
program.  In states that are not authorized to implement the program,
EPA's regional staff must issue all corrective action permits and
enforcement orders. 

Generally, EPA relies on its regions to decide how many corrective
actions to initiate each year and which facilities to pursue, given
their budget and available staff.  However, limited resources is
still an issue in both of the regions we reviewed.  In fiscal year
1997, program managers in the Philadelphia region projected that the
region would have enough resources to direct companies to begin
cleanups at 4 of the 69 high-priority facilities awaiting cleanup. 
These resources will address none of the remaining 86 lower-priority
facilities.  Because none of the states in the region are authorized
to issue either corrective action permits or orders, the region must
perform these actions. 

Program managers in the Philadelphia region told us that they often
rely on the states to identify those facilities (1) that they believe
have contamination problems that must be addressed, especially since
the region has only limited information about the facilities that was
collected during the initial assessment, and (2) for which the states
might issue operating permits so that EPA can add corrective action
requirements to the operating permits.  The regional program managers
told us that their states currently supplement EPA's activities by
performing limited corrective action activities that were agreed to
at the beginning of the year; however, the managers said that they
cannot rely on their states for additional corrective action
assistance because the states do not have the resources to do more. 
Furthermore, these officials told us that the limited program
resources contributed to the fact that few cleanups are initiated and
the agency is slow to review and approve companies' submissions. 

Similarly, in addition to its current enforcement workload of 50
cases, the Chicago region has 377 facilities, including 82
high-priority facilities, that are eligible for corrective action. 
The region relies on its states to issue most new corrective action
permits and enforcement orders for those permits since all of its
states are authorized to do so.  Because of EPA's and the states'
resource shortfalls, however, regional officials projected that the
region will undertake corrective action enforcement at only three of
the facilities during fiscal year 1997 and anticipated that the
states will undertake only a limited number of new cleanup actions. 

Furthermore, several of EPA's program managers in headquarters and
the two regions noted that they may never have the resources to get
to the 1,459 lower-priority sites that are in EPA's corrective action
workload.  They said that facilities need to address their
contamination issues on their own or perhaps with the help of state
regulators by working through other state cleanup programs, such as
voluntary programs.  The managers expect that, because most
low-priority facilities will not need much cleaning up and the
cleanup of medium-priority facilities will be much less extensive
than at high-priority facilities, the facilities probably are not
taking a significant risk in pursuing cleanups without EPA's or the
states' oversight under the Corrective Action Program.  We did not
contact state environmental agencies nationwide to examine the extent
to which they may have additional resources or capabilities to help
fill the gap between EPA's workload and the resources the agency has
available to manage its workload. 


   EPA'S AND STATES' INITIATIVES
   MAY BEGIN TO ADDRESS THE
   CLEANUP BACKLOG
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

EPA, the states, and industry have recognized the need to improve the
cleanup process.  They have taken actions designed to, among other
things, streamline the process, apply more flexible approaches,
standards, and cleanup methods, and allow for better use of EPA's and
the states' limited resources.  By beginning to address some of the
factors that hamper cleanup progress, these actions may help to
reduce some of the economic disincentives that tend to keep companies
from cleaning up their facilities. 


      EPA HEADQUARTERS'
      INITIATIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

EPA has taken several initiatives over the years to help leverage its
resources.  In 1991, EPA decided to use its resources to ensure that,
until it can direct more facilities to begin the formal corrective
action process, it has at least controlled or abated any immediate
threats to human health and the environment at all facilities.  The
agency also has decided to focus first on those facilities it ranked
as high priority for corrective action.  Furthermore, in November
1994, the agency proposed a rule that it believes should help more
effectively integrate corrective action and closure activities at a
facility, which should help to address some of the problems that can
occur when both the state and EPA are involved in a cleanup. 

In May 1996, in its advance notice of proposed rulemaking for
implementing the Corrective Action Program, the agency announced
plans to design new regulations for the program and introduced
various revised techniques, standards, and remedies that regions and
states can use to focus cleanups more on the level of the risk posed
by the facilities.  In addition, the notice suggested using
alternative environmental programs, such as state Superfund or
voluntary cleanup programs, to accomplish corrective action cleanups,
when appropriate, as a way to leverage EPA's and the states'
resources for program oversight.  While program managers said that
the agency plans to proceed with the rulemaking, the agency's other
priorities may delay the rulemaking process.  Therefore, until these
regulations become final, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response has directed EPA regions and the states authorized to
implement the Corrective Action Program to use the notice as guidance
when implementing the program.  In addition, headquarters managers
told us that the agency plans to conduct regional training sessions
on the provisions in early 1998.  The regions, in turn, are to
provide the training to the states. 

In September 1996, the agency issued new guidance to its regions for
coordinating cleanup activities among RCRA, Superfund, and state
cleanup programs.  The guidance describes how regions can accept
cleanup decisions made by other programs, defer cleanups to other
programs, coordinate when more than one program applies at a
facility, and integrate the RCRA closure and post-closure activities
with other cleanup activities.  The guidance is intended to eliminate
duplication of effort, streamline cleanup processes, and build more
effective relationships between EPA and the states. 

Finally, EPA's 1997 response to the planning requirements under the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 may help the agency to
better leverage its resources by focusing on performance targets. 
However, while EPA headquarters managers expect that these targets
will help to direct the program, they commented that it is too early
to determine what effect this action will have on the program.  The
managers explained that, by the end of 1997, the agency plans to have
determined the number of facilities currently meeting these targets
in order to establish a baseline for its indicators.  After several
years of experience with the indicators, the agency will determine
what modifications are necessary. 


      EPA'S REGIONAL INITIATIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

EPA regions are also taking steps to streamline the cleanup process. 
For example, project managers in the Philadelphia region explained
that they sometimes help those companies that want to undertake
cleanup actions before the region has sufficient resources to monitor
them under the Corrective Action Program.  Regional staff help a
company by answering its questions about cleanup approaches and
methods, thereby serving as consultants.  The region and a company
engage in this informal relationship, hoping that when the company is
under the program, the actions it has taken will meet the program's
requirements and the region can bypass many of the process steps and
more quickly certify that cleanup is complete.  In addition, on a
case-by-case basis, some project managers in the Philadelphia region
are allowing companies to combine phases of the process and are
informally reviewing companies' draft plans in an effort to shorten
cleanup process times and to allow the companies to cut unnecessary
costs.  Similarly, program managers in the Chicago region have
drafted procedures designed to expedite the cleanup process by, for
example, encouraging companies to submit the investigation and
cleanup design reports together. 

Furthermore, EPA enforcement managers noted that some regions are
beginning to use enforcement orders, instead of permits, for
facilities that are high priority and are not likely to get a permit
soon.  They explained that enforcement orders tend to be more
flexible than permits.  For example, EPA can issue an order at any
time, regardless of whether the company has an operating permit; in
contrast, specifications for corrective action permits must be
attached to an existing operating permit.  Although enforcement
orders may provide more administrative flexibility, EPA intends to
have both orders and permits include the same substantive
requirements for cleanup and public participation and achieve the
same environmental results.  One company cleanup manager added that
companies sometimes find it easier to justify extensive cleanup costs
to stockholders if these costs are part of an enforcement action
because stockholders perceive that EPA is forcing the company to take
the expensive actions. 


      STATES' INITIATIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3

States are also taking several new approaches.  For example, after
Illinois was authorized to implement the Corrective Action Program,
it developed a tiered approach to cleanup standards.  Depending upon
the results of a risk assessment, a company may (1) meet the most
stringent standards and not have to impose any restrictions on the
future use of the land or (2) clean up to the less stringent
standards allowed for industrial use of the land but restrict the
land to that use, perhaps through a deed restriction.  The state has
also streamlined the process by which companies must ensure the
quality of their cleanup work.  Instead of requiring quality
assurance reports at every step of the cleanup process, the state
will accept a single certification by a company that it has complied
with EPA's quality assurance requirements. 

Similarly, Pennsylvania, although not authorized to implement the
Corrective Action Program, developed a state voluntary cleanup
program that applies a risk-based approach to the cleanup of a
facility as well as to the standards and remedies chosen.  Under
EPA's advance notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA encourages companies
to clean up their facilities under programs such as Pennsylvania's,
when appropriate, in lieu of the Corrective Action Program, with some
modifications to meet the corrective action requirements. 


      JOINT INITIATIVE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.4

The American Society for Testing and Materials, in consultation with
EPA, the states, and industry, is developing a new standard way to
perform risk-based corrective action for facilities with chemical
contamination.  This standard, called Risk Based Corrective Action
(RBCA), will establish a framework, with specified cleanup levels and
methods, for assessing the level of risk posed by a facility and
selecting the appropriate level of cleanup on the basis of that risk
and on the future expected use of the land.  A subgroup in the
Society is currently reviewing the standard, and the Society's
endorsement of the standard is intended to, according to the
subgroup's co-chair, help institutionalize the standard's use
nationwide.  EPA has commented on the draft standard and is working
with the Society to revise the standard so that it can be applied to
corrective action cleanups under RCRA.  According to the subgroup's
co-chair, a similar standard tested by one state has resulted in
cleanups that were completed more quickly and at much less cost than
would have occurred under the corrective action process.  The RBCA
Leadership Council, a consortium of industry representatives formed
to promote use of the standard by EPA and the states has, in
conjunction with EPA representatives, made presentations to the
program mangers in 9 of the 10 EPA regions to educate them on the
standard and how it can be used to expedite the corrective action
process. 


      TRADEOFFS OF INITIATIVES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.5

While all of these initiatives should help to accelerate cleanups and
reduce costs, some of them accomplish this goal by making tradeoffs
in the controls they place on cleanups--controls designed to ensure
the long-term effectiveness of remedies.  For example, in April of
this year, we reported that state voluntary cleanup programs more
frequently employ industrial land-use standards and less-permanent
remedies than federal or state enforcement programs, thereby reducing
costs.\7 As a result, these types of cleanups more frequently
require, for example, a deed restriction to ensure that the land use
remains industrial, as well as long-term operations and maintenance
to ensure that the remedies do not fail.  In addition, some of the
voluntary programs we reviewed in the April report did not provide
for monitoring future land-use restrictions.  We also reported that
some voluntary cleanup programs reduced their requirements for
meaningful public participation in cleanup decisions because these
are time-consuming steps.  While these tradeoffs may be appropriate
for less-contaminated, lower-risk facilities, we concluded that care
must be taken before voluntary programs are applied at more complex
and highly contaminated facilities or at those surrounded by
residential neighborhoods.  In this regard, according to cleanup
managers in EPA's Philadelphia region, they believe that one of the
state voluntary programs in their region does not have public
participation requirements that will satisfy the RCRA requirements. 
Therefore, when the region agreed to let a high-priority facility
proceed through the program, the region stipulated that it will
monitor the cleanup to ensure that the company creates more
opportunities for public participation. 

EPA recognized this variability among state voluntary programs when
implementing its Superfund program and issued draft guidance for
public comment that would outline basic criteria for the state
programs.  If a program met EPA's criteria, the region could enter
into a memorandum of agreement with the state that would provide a
company in a voluntary program with some assurance that EPA will not
plan to take further action at the facility.  This assurance of
limited federal liability is an attractive incentive for volunteers. 
The draft Superfund guidance proposes to restrict facilities
designated as higher-risk facilities or those already under
corrective action permits or orders from being included in the scope
of these agreements.  All other facilities may be included on a
case-by-case basis, and states authorized to implement the Corrective
Action Program can allow these facilities to proceed through an
approved voluntary cleanup program.  The draft guidance also provides
that if voluntary cleanup occurs at a facility prior to permitting,
EPA or the state must determine if the cleanup satisfied all
corrective action requirements. 

While companies' cleanup managers favor the flexibility that many of
these initiatives provide, several of them expressed reservations
about EPA's and the states' willingness to adopt these new approaches
nationwide.  The managers commented that EPA's 1996 advance notice of
proposed rulemaking incorporated many of these changes; however, they
were uncertain about whether EPA will issue regulations in final
form, given that the agency has issued regulations implementing only
limited portions of the program to date.  If the proposals do not
become final and therefore remain solely as guidance, some of the
companies' managers expressed concern that some EPA and state project
managers would be less willing than others to adopt the more flexible
approaches.  Companies' cleanup managers pointed out that the program
has been operating under federal guidance rather than approved
regulations since it began and, as a result, that they have
experienced differences among the regions and states in their cleanup
approaches. 


--------------------
\7 Superfund:  State Voluntary Programs Provide Incentives to
Encourage Cleanups (GAO/RCED-97-66, Apr.  9, 1997). 


   CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

Thirteen years after the Congress created the Corrective Action
Program to clean up contamination at operating facilities, cleanup
progress is limited.  Although some cleanup activity is taking place
under other programs, the fact remains that less than 10 percent of
the facilities have completed cleanups under the Corrective Action
Program, and about half of them have not even begun their cleanups
under the program.  While several factors influence the time it takes
to complete a cleanup, two stand out.  First, the step-by-step
process for cleanup is drawn out and cumbersome, and the cost of
implementing it discourages companies from initiating more cleanups. 
Second, protracted disagreements among EPA, the states, and affected
companies over the cleanup standards to be met and the methods used
to meet them have also delayed cleanups.  Both of these factors can
contribute to the economic disincentives that companies face in
performing cleanups.  Furthermore, these two problems are exacerbated
by the limited resources EPA and the states have for implementing the
program. 

EPA has the ability both to streamline the cleanup process it created
and to better clarify how regions, states, and facilities can
approach cleanups more consistently.  EPA has begun to do this by
publishing an advance notice of proposed rulemaking that incorporates
some of the states', EPA regions', and industry's actions to promote
more flexible cleanup approaches.  While this proposed rule promises
to address problems with the cleanup process, its success in that
regard remains uncertain because the agency's other priorities may
delay the process.  In the meantime, the agency has directed the
regions and states to use the advance notice of proposed rulemaking
as guidance during cleanups.  However, simply directing the staff in
EPA's regions and the states authorized to implement the program to
follow the guidance will not ensure that they consistently use it to
address the factors we identified as impeding cleanups. 


   RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

Whether the agency decides to use program guidance or final
regulations as its vehicle for reforming the program, it will have to
make additional efforts to ensure that the reforms are reflected in
cleanups nationwide.  Therefore, we recommend that the Administrator
of EPA (1) devise a strategy with milestones for ensuring that
cleanup managers in EPA's regions and the states authorized to
implement the program have a consistent understanding of the new
approaches provided by the guidance or regulations as well as how to
apply these approaches to cleanup decisions and (2) oversee program
implementation to determine if cleanup managers are appropriately
using the new approaches as they direct cleanups. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8

We provided a draft of this report to EPA for its review and comment. 
We met with agency officials, including the Acting Deputy Director,
Office of Solid Waste, the division with management responsibility
for the Corrective Action Program.  EPA generally agreed with the
report's findings and suggested some technical revisions to the
report, including some qualifications to the EPA data in our
analyses, which we incorporated.  The agency also identified seven
issues it believed needed further clarification.  First, EPA noted
that, while the body of the report accurately acknowledges that
facilities are taking cleanup actions outside of the Corrective
Action Program that are not captured in EPA's database, the
conclusions section does not.  We agreed with the agency's assessment
and added this point to that section.  The agency also acknowledged
that it needs to devise a process to capture data from the states on
these other cleanup activities in order to fully assess the
accomplishments of the Corrective Action Program.  Second, the agency
believes that one of the major factors affecting the rate of progress
in the program is that the cleanups of many of the high-priority
facilities are very complex and it therefore takes time to assess and
clean up.  We have noted this factor in the report where appropriate. 
Third, EPA made two points about our discussions of state voluntary
cleanup programs:  (1) the agency believes that a significant number
of actions take place at RCRA facilities under state programs, such
as state Superfund or water programs, as well as under state
voluntary programs, and (2) the agency does not want to imply that it
thinks high-priority sites should categorically be excluded from
cleanups conducted under state voluntary programs.  We made these
clarifications in the report. 

Fourth, EPA noted that we should add or clarify information regarding
the following three agency initiatives designed to help address some
of the cleanup problems identified:  (1) EPA's policy on
RCRA/Superfund coordination, intended to prevent the duplication of,
and promote better coordination on, cleanup efforts by the states and
EPA regions; (2) EPA's post-closure rule, which the agency now plans
to submit to the Office of Management and Budget for final review,
intended to more effectively integrate corrective action and closure
activities; and (3) EPA's new guidance on the use of certain
enforcement orders as a more flexible tool for implementing cleanups. 
We made additions or clarifications in the report on the first two
initiatives, but we did not address the third initiative because EPA
has not yet issued the guidance. 

Fifth, EPA disagreed with one company's claim that it spent a
substantial portion of $28 million in cleanup costs to comply with
EPA's procedural requirements.  EPA believes that this company's
claim significantly overestimates the costs related to RCRA's
procedural requirements; however, the agency does not have detailed
cost data on this cleanup.  Regional cleanup managers believe that
the estimate includes work that the company performed at the facility
that was in addition to work that EPA would require for RCRA
cleanups.  In response, we added EPA's view on this estimate to the
report and more clearly attributed the figure to company
representatives. 

Sixth, EPA clarified the point that, in its view, it has conducted
strategic planning efforts for the Corrective Action Program as part
of the agency's RCRA Implementation Study, overall strategic plans
for the Office of Solid Waste, RCRA implementation plans, and annual
operating plans through the budget allocation process.  We changed
the report to reflect this information. 

Finally, in commenting on the report's conclusions and
recommendations, EPA stated that the conclusions lead a reader to
expect that we would recommend that EPA issue final regulations for
the program; however, we did not do so.  The purpose of this report
is to highlight barriers to cleanup progress, and we did not design
our review to take a position on the agency's proposed regulations. 
We did, however, identify that one of the barriers to cleanup is
regulators' inconsistent implementation of the program, in part
because some regulators have used the proposed rules more flexibly as
guidance, while others have used them more stringently.  We believe
that EPA needs to address this issue of how consistently regulators
adopt new cleanup approaches.  EPA can choose to do this either by
issuing guidance or by promulgating final regulations.  However, we
believe that EPA must also go beyond either of these actions and take
the steps necessary to ensure that the guidance or regulations are
being implemented properly. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards from December 1996 through September
1997. 

As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
after the date of this letter.  At that time, we will send copies to
the appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator, EPA; and
other interested parties.  We will also make copies available to
others upon request. 

Should you or your staff need further information, please call me at
(202) 512-6111.  Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V. 

Sincerely yours,

Peter F.  Guerrero
Director, Environmental
 Protection Issues


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

Because the Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on
Commerce was interested in the current status of the Corrective
Action Program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1976 (RCRA), he asked us to determine (1) the progress made in
cleaning up facilities under the program, (2) factors affecting
progress, and (3) any initiatives that the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the states, and industry have taken to accomplish
cleanups.  As agreed, we limited our review to nonfederal facilities. 

To determine the overall progress in cleaning up facilities, we
collected and analyzed information from EPA's national program
management and inventory system of hazardous waste handlers, the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS).  RCRIS
captures identification and location data on facilities that treat,
store, and dispose of hazardous materials, as well as permit/closure
status, compliance with federal and state regulations, and cleanup
activities.  EPA has determined which facilities it considers to be
its universe for cleanups under the Corrective Action Program and has
identified them as the Corrective Action Workload Universe within
RCRIS.  We focused our analysis on that universe.  We categorized
each facility according to its industry type using Standard
Industrial Classification codes in the files.  We also accounted for
corrective action events occurring at each facility, grouping them
into the categories suggested by EPA's program managers:  cleanup not
started, investigating contamination, controlling contamination,
implementing remedies, and cleanup completed.  We compared facilities
by risk category, industry, region, and state to determine whether
there are statistically significant differences.  (See app.  II for
details on our statistical analysis and results.)

We did not independently verify the overall accuracy of the data in
the RCRIS database.  However, a previous GAO report criticizing the
reliability of RCRIS data showed that the data elements that we used
in this analysis had small error rates.\8 Furthermore, we compared
the data that the Philadelphia region maintains independently on its
facilities with selected data for these facilities in RCRIS and found
the RCRIS data to be generally accurate.  Therefore, we concluded
that the RCRIS data in the Corrective Action Workload Universe were
suitable for the aggregate analyses we present in this report. 

To further determine cleanup progress, to identify the factors
affecting corrective action, and to identify any initiatives by EPA,
states, and industry to expedite cleanups, we used a combination of
(1) data and documentation on cleanup progress at individual
facilities; (2) information obtained through interviews with
cognizant EPA regional and state officials, facility program
managers, and EPA headquarters officials responsible for the RCRA
Corrective Action Program; and (3) EPA and state RCRA corrective
action policy and guidance.  We also contacted representatives of
public interest, industry, and environmental groups who have studied
or have extensive experience with RCRA corrective action.  We
judgmentally selected two EPA regional offices that have
representative corrective action workloads and activity and that
oversee the states that are authorized and the states that are not
authorized to implement the Corrective Action Program.  Within each
of the regions, we judgmentally selected two states with varying
experience with corrective action cleanups.  Our selections were EPA
Region III, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the states of
Pennsylvania and West Virginia in that region, neither of which is
authorized to implement the program; and EPA Region V, Chicago,
Illinois, and the states of Illinois and Michigan, both of which are
authorized to implement the program.  Within those states, we
examined 20 facilities that we judgmentally selected from the largest
industry groups nationwide that are responsible for corrective action
cleanups--chemical manufacturing and primary and fabricated metals
manufacturing--and included facilities that were involved in all
phases of the corrective action process.  Finally, in addition to
these 20 facilities, we interviewed and obtained documentation from
representatives of 5 national companies with significant numbers of
facilities nationwide that treat, store, and dispose of hazardous
materials and are subject to the Corrective Action Program to
determine their experience with conducting cleanups across the
nation. 

We conducted our work from October 1996 through September 1997 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


--------------------
\8 Hazardous Waste:  Benefits of EPA's Information System Are Limited
(GAO/AIMD 95-167, Aug.  22, 1995). 


TECHNICAL APPENDIX OF STATISTICAL
RESULTS
========================================================== Appendix II

We used analysis of variance techniques to determine which of the
factors that might affect cleanups under the Corrective Action
Program were statistically significant in explaining the impact on
two categories of the cleanup process:  cleanup begun and cleanup
completed.  We tested the effects of four factors:  (1) region--EPA
regions I through X, (2) authorization--the states authorized by EPA
to implement the Corrective Action Program and the states not
authorized to implement the program, (3) industry--nine major
industrial groups, and (4) priority--the facility's ranking as a
high- or lower-priority.  Because of the sparseness of the data, we
conducted two separate analyses of variance, the first testing the
relationship between region, industry, and priority; and the second
testing the relationship between authorization, industry, and
priority. 

To determine whether the factors in our analyses could explain the
differences in the two cleanup phases or whether the differences in
cleanup progress observed are due strictly to chance, we used
p-values from the analysis of variance.  We interpreted factors to be
statistically significant when the p-value was less than or equal to
0.05.  When a combination of factors was significant, we chose to
discuss only the combination of factors, even if the influence of the
individual factor(s) may have been significant. 

For the analysis using the factors of region, industry, and priority,
we found statistically significant results for both categories of the
process.  Regarding whether cleanups have begun, the analysis showed
significant results for the individual effect of industry and the
combination of factors of region by priority.  Regarding whether
cleanups have been completed, the analysis showed significant results
for the combination of region by industry and for the combination of
region by priority.  Table II.1 contains the results of this
analysis. 



                               Table II.1
                
                Statistical Significance of the Factors
                 of Region, Industry, and Priority Used
                 to Analyze Whether Cleanups Have Begun
                and Whether Cleanups Have Been Completed

                                                           P-value for
                                       P-value for    whether cleanups
Factor that may influence         whether cleanups           have been
cleanup                                 have begun           completed
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Region                                       .0001               .0001
Industry                                     .0001               .0140
Priority                                     .0001               .0730
Region by industry                           .0510               .0010
Region by priority                           .0001               .0001
Industry by priority                         .2530               .8520
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For the analysis using the factors of authorization, industry, and
priority, we also found statistically significant results for both
categories of the process.  Regarding whether cleanups have begun,
the analysis showed significant results for the individual effect of
industry and the combination of authorization by priority.  Regarding
whether cleanups have been completed, the analysis showed significant
results for the individual factors of industry, authorization, and
priority.  Table II.2 contains the results of this analysis. 



                               Table II.2
                
                Statistical Significance of the Factors
                of Authorization, Industry, and Priority
                 Used to Analyze Whether Cleanups Have
                  Begun and Whether Cleanups Have Been
                               Completed

                                                           P-value for
                                       P-value for    whether cleanups
Factor that may influence         whether cleanups           have been
cleanup                                 have begun           completed
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Authorization                                .0001               .0001
Industry                                     .0001               .0020
Priority                                     .0001               .0030
Authorization by industry                    .0850               .8400
Authorization by priority                    .0490               .2010
Industry by priority                         .4100               .0950
----------------------------------------------------------------------

CLEANUP PROGRESS IN EPA REGIONS,
INDUSTRIES, AND STATES
========================================================= Appendix III

This appendix presents information on cleanup progress, by category,
for nonfederal facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
materials in EPA's 10 regions, 9 major industry groups, and the
states.  We categorized facilities using event codes in RCRIS.  Table
III.1 shows the cleanup categories and the event codes included in
each category. 



                              Table III.1
                
                Cleanup Categories, by RCRIS Event Codes

Category                                            Event Codes
--------------------------------------------------  ------------------
Completed cleanup                                   CA999

Implementing remedies                               CA725, CA550,
                                                    CA500, CA450, or
                                                    CA400 but not
                                                    CA999

Controlling contamination                           CA650, CA600, or
                                                    CA750 but not any
                                                    of the codes above

Investigating contamination                         CA200 or CA100 but
                                                    not any of the
                                                    codes above

Cleanup not started                                 Any remaining
                                                    facilities without
                                                    dates in any of
                                                    the codes above
----------------------------------------------------------------------
   Figure III.1:  Percentage of
   Nonfederal Facilities That
   Treat, Store, or Dispose of
   Hazardous Materials in Each
   Phase of the Corrective Action
   Process for EPA Regions I
   Through X, All Facilities and
   High-Priority Facilities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  EPA's Resource
   Conservation and Recovery
   Information System, as of Mar. 
   31, 1997.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.2:  EPA's Regions

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  EPA.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Figure III.3:  Percentage of
   Nonfederal Facilities That
   Treat, Store, or Dispose of
   Hazardous Materials in Each
   Phase of the Corrective Action
   Process for Major Industry
   Groups, All Facilities and
   High-Priority Facilities

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



                                       Table III.2
                         
                          All Nonfederal Facilities That Treat,
                         Store, or Dispose of Hazardous Materials
                            in Each Category of the Corrective
                          Action Process in States Authorized to
                         Implement the Corrective Action Program

                                                                      Percent     Percent
                            Percent                     Percent  investigatin        with
                               with       Percent   controlling             g     cleanup
              Number of     cleanup  implementing  contaminatio  contaminatio         not
State        facilities   completed      remedies             n             n     started
-----------  ----------  ----------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ----------
=========================================================================================
All              ,520 1         0 1           5 1           3 1           5 4           7
 authorized
 2 states
Alabama              64           0            16             9            25          50
Arkansas             41          12            12             7            42          27
Arizona              37           8             3             3             3          84
California          268           8            12            18            15          48
Colorado            166          46            37             2            10           6
Georgia             111           5            41             8            30          15
Guam                  1           0             0           100             0           0
Idaho                13          23            54             8             8           8
Illinois            170          11             5             4            15          65
Indiana              96          13             1            10            26          50
Kentucky             63           0            27            21             8          44
Louisiana            74           3            31            16            16          34
Michigan            107           3             3             9            21          65
Minnesota            42          17            12             2            26          43
Missouri             72           4             8            25            18          44
North                90           4            19            20            16          41
 Carolina
North                 6           0            67             0             0          33
 Dakota
New                   4          25            25            25             0          25
 Hampshire
New Mexico           17           0            41             6             0          53
Nevada               10           0             0            10            20          70
New York            290           6             7            10             7          71
Ohio                184          10             4            13            11          63
Oklahoma             33           3            58             6             0          33
Oregon               32          13            28            19            16          25
South                57          16            21            28            12          23
 Carolina
South                 2           0            50             0             0          50
 Dakota
Texas               317          10            10            16             9          56
Utah                 31          13            71             0             3          13
Vermont               9           0            22             0            11          67
Washington           54           7            11            30            24          28
Wisconsin            45          16             7             4            36          38
Wyoming              14           7            14            50            21           7
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  EPA's RCRIS, as of Mar.  31, 1997. 



                                       Table III.3
                         
                          All Nonfederal Facilities That Treat,
                         Store, or Dispose of Hazardous Materials
                            in Each Category of the Corrective
                         Action Process in States Not Authorized
                            to Implement the Corrective Action
                                         Program

                                                                      Percent     Percent
                            Percent                     Percent  investigatin        with
                               with       Percent   controlling             g     cleanup
              Number of     cleanup  implementing  contaminatio  contaminatio         not
State        facilities   completed      remedies             n             n     started
-----------  ----------  ----------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ----------
=========================================================================================
All               1,178           4            16            13             9          59
 nonauthori
 zed states
Alaska               10          30            10             0            10          50
Connecticut         190           1             1            12             3          84
Delaware             13           0            31             8            23          39
Florida              73           3            23            23            19          32
Hawaii               12           8             0            17            17          58
Iowa                 33          12            67             0             0          21
Kansas               37           3            30             3             8          57
Massachuset          37           3             0            22            14          62
 ts
Maryland             30           3            23             7             7          60
Maine                15           0            20            20             7          53
Mississippi          35           3            34            14            23          26
Montana               6           0             0            17            67          17
Nebraska             28           0             0            18            18          64
New Jersey          279           6            16            12             5          60
Pennsylvani         142           2            23            11             8          56
 a
Puerto Rico          76           7             5             8             9          71
Rhode                 7           0            14            14             0          71
 Island
Tennessee            53           0            15            19             6          60
Virginia             63           3            16             5            19          57
Virgin                1           0             0           100             0           0
 Islands
West                 38           0            18            24            16          42
 Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  EPA's RCRIS, as of Mar.  31, 1997. 



                                       Table III.4
                         
                         High-Priority Nonfederal Facilities That
                          Treat, Store, or Dispose of Hazardous
                            Materials In Each Category of the
                           Corrective Action Process in States
                          Authorized to Implement the Corrective
                                      Action Program

                                                                      Percent     Percent
                            Percent                     Percent  investigatin        with
                               with       Percent   controlling             g     cleanup
              Number of     cleanup  implementing  contaminatio  contaminatio         not
State        facilities   completed      remedies             n             n     started
-----------  ----------  ----------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ----------
=========================================================================================
All                 778           8            25            25            18          24
 authorized
 states
Alabama              34           0            27            18            29          27
Arkansas             18          17            22            11            44           6
Arizona               2          50             0             0             0          50
California           71           9            21            27            21          23
Colorado             21          24            57             5            10           5
Georgia              38           5            53            13            24           5
Guam                  0           0             0             0             0           0
Idaho                 4          14            12             9            23          42
Illinois             43          14            12             9            23          42
Indiana              32           9             3            16            28          44
Kentucky             23           0            48            35             4          13
Louisiana            36           6            47            22            11          14
Michigan             33           6             6            15            18          55
Minnesota             9          11            44             0            22          22
Missouri             31           0            10            45            26          19
North                23           0            30            44            17           9
 Carolina
North                 2           0           100             0             0           0
 Dakota
New                   3          33             0            33             0          33
 Hampshire
New Mexico            4           0            75             0             0          25
Nevada                1           0             0             0           100           0
New York             83           2            15            25            11          47
Ohio                 69          10             7            25            17          41
Oklahoma             14           0            86             7             0           7
Oregon               15          20            20            33             7          20
South                25          12            28            52             8           0
 Carolina
South                 1           0           100             0             0           0
 Dakota
Texas                80          18            19            39             8          18
Utah                  8           0            88             0             0          13
Vermont               3           0            67             0             0          33
Washington           26           4            19            35            39           4
Wisconsin            17          12            18             6            53          12
Wyoming               9           0            22            56            22           0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  EPA's RCRIS, as of Mar.  31, 1997. 



                                        Table III.5
                          
                          High-Priority Nonfederal Facilities That
                           Treat, Store, or Dispose of Hazardous
                             Materials in Each Category of the
                          Corrective Action Process in States Not
                           Authorized to Implement the Corrective
                                       Action Program

                                                                      Percent
                            Percent                     Percent  investigatin
                               with       Percent   controlling             g  Percent with
              Number of     cleanup  implementing  contaminatio  contaminatio   cleanup not
State        facilities   completed      remedies             n             n       started
-----------  ----------  ----------  ------------  ------------  ------------  ------------
===========================================================================================
All                 526           1            23            20            11            45
 nonauthori
 zed states
Alaska                3           0            33             0             0            67
Connecticut         116           0             1            17             4            78
Delaware             10           0            40            10            30            20
Florida              32           3            44            28            19             6
Hawaii                3           0             0            33            33            33
Iowa                  8           0           100             0             0             0
Kansas               15           0            67             7             7            20
Massachuset          20           5             0            30            10            55
 ts
Maryland             15           0            47            13             7            33
Maine                 7           0            14            29            14            43
Mississippi          14           0            43            36            14             7
Montana               2           0             0             0            50            50
Nebraska             14           0             0            36            36            29
New Jersey           80           1            21            20             8            50
Pennsylvani          87           2            35            14             9            40
 a
Puerto Rico           8           0            25            50            13            13
Rhode                 4           0            25            25             0            50
 Island
Tennessee            24           0            29            38             4            29
Virginia             35           0            26             6            17            51
Virgin                1           0             0           100             0             0
 Islands
West                 28           0            18            29            21            32
 Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  EPA's RCRIS, as of Mar.  31, 1997. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V

Lawrence J.  Dyckman, Associate Director
Eileen R.  Larence, Assistant Director
Karla J.  Springer, Evaluator-in-Charge
James B.  Musial, Senior Evaluator
Harriet Drummings, Senior Evaluator
Jennifer W.  Clayborne, Evaluator
William D.  Updegraff, Technical Advisor
Mitchell B.  Karpman, Senior Operations Research Analyst
Richard P.  Johnson, Senior Attorney
Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, Communications Analyst


*** End of document. ***