Superfund Program: Activities of the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry and the Department of Justice (Letter Report, 03/18/99,
GAO/RCED-99-85).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO evaluated the use of Superfund
resources by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), focusing on the: (1) amount
and purpose of Superfund money provided to ATSDR for fiscal years (FY)
1996 and 1997 and the processes this agency follows to ensure that
Superfund funds are used for authorized activities; (2) ways in which
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses ATSDR's health
consultations and assessments in making cleanup decisions for Superfund
sites; and (3) amount and purpose of Superfund money provided to DOJ in
fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and the processes DOJ follows to ensure that
Superfund funds are used for authorized purposes.

GAO noted that: (1) EPA provided ATSDR with about $59 million in
Superfund funds in FY 1996 and $64 million in FY 1997; (2) these funds
were used to conduct health assessments at Superfund sites, provide
consultations on health issues unique to a site, and research the health
effects of hazardous substances; (3) the Department of Health and Human
Services' Inspector General annually audits the use of these funds and
has reported that these resources were generally used in accordance with
applicable requirements; (4) EPA regional officials told GAO that many
of ATSDR's products and services were useful in EPA's efforts to clean
up hazardous waste sites; (5) however, these officials also said that
the health assessments had little or no impact on EPA's cleanup
decisions because they were not used when needed and were not conclusive
about the health effects of Superfund sites; (6) Superfund legislation
requires the ATSDR to conduct health assessments at all sites proposed
or listed on the nation's list of the worst hazardous waste sites; (7)
recognizing the problems with assessments, ATSDR undertook an initiative
to address these concerns; (8) although EPA and ATSDR officials believe
that the initiative has resolved some of the problems, they questioned
the continuing need for the legislative requirement that full health
assessments be prepared for all Superfund sites; (9) they also believed
that the ATSDR's resources could be used for consultations or other
services that better meet EPA's and other users' needs; (10) EPA
provided DOJ with about $32 million in FY 1996 and about $30 million in
FY 1997 to represent the federal government in litigation involving the
cleanup of hazardous waste sites; (11) DOJ's actions included
negotiating with responsible parties to compel the cleanup of Superfund
sites and recovering the federal government's costs when EPA cleans up
sites; and (12) DOJ's annual Inspector General audits have found no
major problems in DOJ's use of Superfund resources during the 1990s.

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

 REPORTNUM:  RCED-99-85
     TITLE:  Superfund Program: Activities of the Agency for Toxic 
             Substances and Disease Registry and the Department of
             Justice
      DATE:  03/18/99
   SUBJECT:  Interagency relations
             Environmental monitoring
             Health hazards
             Industrial wastes
             Toxic substances
             Reporting requirements
             Public health research
             Funds management
             Waste disposal
IDENTIFIER:  Superfund Program
             EPA National Priorities List
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1999

SUPERFUND PROGRAM - ACTIVITIES OF
THE AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES
AND DISEASE REGISTRY AND
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

GAO/RCED-99-85

Superfund Program Activities

(160451)


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

  ATSDR - Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
  CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
     Liability Act of 1980
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

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


B-281999

March 18, 1999

The Honorable John H.  Chafee
Chairman, Committee on Environment
 and Public Works
United States Senate

The Honorable Robert C.  Smith
Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund,
 Waste Control, and Risk Assessment
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) created the Superfund program to clean up the
nation's most hazardous waste sites.  While the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has primary responsibility for administering
the Superfund program, other federal agencies also play important
roles.  These include the Department of Health and Human Services'
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the
Department of Justice (Justice). 

CERCLA authorized the establishment of the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry to implement its provisions relating
primarily to public health.  The Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 expanded the agency's health-related
responsibilities to require, among other things, that it conduct a
public health assessment at each site proposed for or on the National
Priorities List.  Justice is responsible for conducting all Superfund
litigation involving the cleanup of hazardous waste sites.  EPA
reimburses both of these agencies for their Superfund-related costs. 

You asked us to evaluate the use of Superfund resources by the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and Justice.  Specifically,
we examined (1) the amount and purpose of Superfund money provided to
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry for fiscal years
1996 and 1997 and the processes this agency follows to ensure that
Superfund funds are used for authorized activities, (2) the ways in
which EPA uses the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's
health consultations and assessments in making cleanup decisions for
Superfund sites, and (3) the amount and purpose of Superfund money
provided to Justice in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and the processes
Justice follows to ensure that Superfund funds are used for
authorized purposes. 


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

EPA provided the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
with about $59 million in Superfund funds in fiscal year 1996 and $64
million in fiscal year 1997.  These funds were used to conduct health
assessments at Superfund sites, provide consultations on health
issues unique to a site, and research the health effects of hazardous
substances.  The Department of Health and Human Services' Inspector
General annually audits the use of these funds and has reported that
these resources were generally used in accordance with applicable
requirements. 

EPA regional officials told us that many of the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry's products and services were useful
in EPA's efforts to clean up hazardous waste sites, especially the
consultations that EPA requests to address unique health concerns at
sites, such as sampling surface and groundwater for toxic chemicals,
and other services, such as attending public meetings and conducting
blood tests.  However, these officials also said that the health
assessments had little or no impact on EPA's cleanup decisions
because they were not issued when needed and were not conclusive
about the health effects of Superfund sites.  Superfund legislation
requires the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry to
conduct health assessments at all sites proposed or listed on the
nation's list of the worst hazardous waste sites.  Recognizing the
problems with assessments, the Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry undertook an initiative to address these concerns. 
Although EPA and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
officials believe that the initiative has resolved some of the
problems, they questioned the continuing need for the legislative
requirement that full health assessments be prepared for all
Superfund sites.  They also believed that the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry's resources could be used for
consultations or other services that better meet EPA's and other
users' needs. 

EPA provided Justice with about $32 million in fiscal year 1996 and
about $30 million in fiscal year 1997 to represent the federal
government in litigation involving the cleanup of hazardous waste
sites.  Justice's actions included negotiating with responsible
parties to compel the cleanup of Superfund sites and recovering the
federal government's costs when EPA cleans up sites.  Justice's
annual Inspector General audits have found no major problems in
Justice's use of Superfund resources during the 1990s. 


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

Over the last several years, the Congress has provided EPA with an
average of about $1.5 billion annually for the Superfund program. 
The nation's worst hazardous waste sites, those on EPA's National
Priorities List, generally undergo long-term comprehensive cleanup
actions, called remedial actions.  A remedial action starts with a
detailed study of the contamination, including assessing the risks to
the environment and human health posed by a site.  After this,
alternative cleanup methods are reviewed, and EPA, or the parties
responsible for the contaminated site, design and conduct the
cleanup.  The Superfund program also addresses immediate health
threats from hazardous substances by actions such as removing the
hazardous waste.  These shorter-term measures are referred to as
removal actions.  EPA has the authority to compel parties responsible
for the contaminated site to perform the cleanup, or it may pay for
the cleanup and attempt to recover the costs.  EPA's cleanup and
enforcement activities are financed through a trust fund, commonly
called the Superfund. 


   ATSDR'S SUPERFUND ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

EPA provided ATSDR with $59 million in fiscal year 1996 and $64
million in fiscal year 1997 for products and services that were
related to the human health effects of exposure to the hazardous
substances at hazardous waste sites.  Recent audits performed by the
Department of Health and Human Services' Inspector General showed
that ATSDR is generally complying with applicable laws, regulations,
and other requirements in its spending of Superfund money. 

Many of ATSDR's products and services are useful to EPA in its
efforts to clean up hazardous waste sites, according to EPA regional
officials.  These include ATSDR's (1) consultations, which are
typically issue-specific, short-term efforts addressing unique health
issues at sites; (2) participation at public meetings about sites;
and (3) collection and analysis of blood samples from residents near
sites.  However, EPA officials said that ATSDR's health assessments,
which are typically long-term, extensive efforts, generally had
little or no impact on EPA's cleanup decisions because they
duplicated or were inconsistent with EPA's information, were not
issued when EPA needed them, and did not take definitive positions
about the health effects of hazardous waste sites.  Recognizing the
need to improve its health assessment process, ATSDR began a health
assessment enhancement initiative in 1994, which EPA officials
believe has addressed several of their concerns.  However, both
agencies believe that the requirement that ATSDR conduct a full
health assessment at all Superfund sites may not make the best use of
ATSDR's funds. 


      ATSDR USES SUPERFUND FUNDS
      FOR A VARIETY OF
      HEALTH-RELATED ACTIVITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

To carry out its responsibilities, ATSDR is organized into the
following four divisions: 

  -- The Division of Health Assessments and Consultations.  This
     division prepares health assessments and/or consultations for
     individual hazardous waste sites.  To complete an assessment,
     ATSDR reviews available information about the (1) nature and
     extent of contamination, (2) ways in which humans are exposed to
     the contamination, (3) size and susceptibility of the community
     exposed, (4) exposure limits for the substances involved, and
     (5) diseases associated with the observed levels of exposure. 
     This division also performs health consultations, which are
     usually requested by EPA or the communities near waste sites and
     are more focused than health assessments.  Consultations address
     specific health issues at sites and are provided on an as-needed
     basis throughout the cleanup process. 

  -- The Division of Toxicology.  This division prepares and updates
     the toxicology profiles of the 275 hazardous substances on the
     CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous Substances.  These profiles
     interpret available toxicological and epidemiological
     information in order to identify exposure levels that are
     harmful to humans.  According to ATSDR, state and local health
     agencies, as well as EPA, use the profiles to estimate the
     potential human health risks that may result from exposure to
     hazardous substances. 

  -- The Division of Health Studies.  This division performs and
     supports health studies that evaluate the relationship between
     exposure to a hazardous substance and adverse health effects. 
     For example, one study looked at the long-term effect of lead
     exposure on the health of women who worked in a lead smelter
     facility.  The division also maintains a national registry of
     persons exposed to hazardous substances as an aid in assessing
     the long-term health consequences of this exposure. 

  -- The Division of Health Education and Promotions.  This division
     conducts and supports health education activities, such as
     working at specific sites to develop and promote strategies to
     mitigate the health impacts of exposure to hazardous substances
     at specific Superfund sites.  For example, ATSDR works with the
     medical professionals near hazardous waste sites to improve
     their ability to identify, evaluate, and treat persons who have
     been exposed to the site's hazardous substances.  ATSDR often
     works with federal, state, and local health agencies to develop
     and implement these public health activities. 

In addition, ATSDR uses grantees and contractors to perform many of
its Superfund activities.  ATSDR has cooperative agreements with 23
state health agencies, referred to as Cooperative Agreement States,
that it uses to address health-related issues at specific sites. 
Approximately 60 percent of ATSDR's Superfund obligations for fiscal
years 1996 and 1997 were for cooperative agreements, interagency
agreements, and contracts. 

ATSDR reports its Superfund obligations by budget activities that are
closely related to the four divisions described above.  ATSDR's
Superfund obligations by budget activity for fiscal years 1996 and
1997 are shown in table 1. 



                                Table 1
                
                ATSDR's Superfund Obligations, by Budget
                  Activity, Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997

                         (Dollars in millions)

                                         Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                             1996            1997
                                        --------------  --------------
                                                Percen          Percen
                                                  t of            t of
                                                 total           total
                                        Dollar  fundin  Dollar  fundin
Budget activity                              s       g       s       g
--------------------------------------  ------  ------  ------  ------
Public health assessments, health        $22.4    38.0   $25.2    39.4
 consultations, and site-specific
 health activities
Scientific assessment, research, and      16.0    27.1    13.9    21.7
 information dissemination
Surveillance/epidemiologic/health         14.3    24.2    13.8    21.6
 studies and registries
Health education and promotion             6.3    10.7    11.1    17.3
======================================================================
Total                                    $59.0   100.0   $64.0   100.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Audits performed by the Department of Health and Human Services'
Inspector General for fiscal years 1994 through 1997 found that ATSDR
generally administered Superfund funds in accordance with the federal
government's applicable laws, regulations, and other requirements. 


   EPA'S USE OF ATSDR'S HEALTH
   CONSULTATIONS, HEALTH
   ASSESSMENTS, AND OTHER SERVICES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

EPA regional officials told us that many of ATSDR's products and
services were useful in EPA's efforts to clean up hazardous waste
sites, especially the consultations that EPA requests to address
unique health concerns at sites and other services, such as attending
public meetings and conducting blood tests.  However, these officials
also said that ATSDR's health assessments had little or no impact on
EPA's cleanup decisions because, among other things, they were not
issued when needed and were not conclusive about the health effects
of Superfund sites.  Recognizing the problems with assessments, ATSDR
undertook an initiative to address these concerns.  Although they
believe that the initiative has resolved some of the problems, EPA
and ATSDR officials questioned the continuing need for the
legislative requirement that full health assessments be prepared for
all Superfund sites. 


      EPA VIEWS HEALTH
      CONSULTATIONS AND OTHER
      SERVICES AS USEFUL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

Superfund officials in EPA's regional offices found ATSDR's health
consultations very helpful in making cleanup decisions.  ATSDR's
consultations range from a one-day, one-page summary of the latest
research on a certain chemical to months of work by a team of ATSDR
officials evaluating a specific health hazard at a site.  EPA
officials noted that they relied on ATSDR to provide up-to-date
expertise on the health effects of many chemicals--expertise that
some EPA regions may not have. 

Because consultations fill data gaps and ATSDR usually responds
quickly, EPA regional officials reported that almost all
consultations were useful.  They said that the extent to which they
used ATSDR's consultations depended on the types of sites and the
staff's capabilities in the regions.  Regions may have ATSDR advise
on the type of action needed to protect human health or ways to
implement that action.  ATSDR also helps determine (1) what the
appropriate cleanup levels are for certain chemicals and (2) whether
site contamination is the cause for nearby residents' health
problems.  It may also help educate the public about a site's
hazards.  In emergency situations, such as train wrecks and chemical
plant accidents, some officials said they depend heavily on a quick
response from ATSDR on a number of issues.  Emergencies often involve
chemicals that EPA is less familiar with, and officials need ATSDR's
advice on the toxicity of the chemicals, their possible effect on
human health, the symptoms doctors might see in local residents, and
the treatment of those symptoms. 

EPA regional officials also spoke highly of other types of ATSDR's
assistance, such as its participation in public meetings that EPA
conducts at various stages of the hazardous waste cleanup process. 
Because ATSDR's representatives have medical expertise, the public
often considers them more credible than EPA on health issues.  EPA
regional officials also rely on ATSDR to design blood tests for
residents living near sites.  For example, at one site, lead
screening for area children demonstrated that their blood levels of
lead were 20 to 30 times higher than the state average.  ATSDR also
worked with state and local health agencies to educate the public on
how to prevent the health hazards of lead.  Some EPA regional
officials said that they would like ATSDR to expand these types of
assistance at sites that have effects on human health and at those
where the issue of health effects is controversial. 


      EPA QUESTIONS THE UTILITY OF
      HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

In 1991, we reported that ATSDR's health assessments generally had
not been useful to EPA and others because the assessments duplicated
EPA's own information, did not add to EPA's own analysis of site
risks, and recommended actions that EPA had already planned.\1 We
also reported that EPA officials found ATSDR's health consultations
useful.  During our current work, we found that these observations
have not materially changed.  Most EPA regional officials responsible
for managing the cleanup of Superfund sites continue to question the
utility of ATSDR's health assessments.  EPA regional officials said
that while some health assessments have been useful to EPA, most had
little or no impact on its cleanup decisions because they (1)
duplicated or were inconsistent with EPA's own health-related
information, (2) were not issued when EPA needed them, and (3) did
not take definitive positions about the health effects of hazardous
waste sites. 

Several regional officials stated that ATSDR's health assessments
often included health information that duplicated the information
that EPA already had available.  In other instances, regional
officials said that the health assessment information was
inconsistent with the information that EPA had already developed
about the health effects of Superfund sites, thus requiring EPA and
ATSDR to reconcile the differences.  For example, according to
officials in EPA's regional office in New York City, ATSDR's health
assessments were generally not useful because they duplicated the
health-related information that EPA already had in its own risk
assessments.  They also said that inconsistencies between EPA's risk
assessment and ATSDR's health assessment can surprise and confuse the
public if the health assessment is prepared in a vacuum rather than
in cooperation with EPA. 

The timing of ATSDR's health assessments also limited their
usefulness to EPA in making cleanup decisions.  According to EPA
regional officials, ATSDR's health assessments were often completed
after EPA had decided on the appropriate cleanup measures for a site. 
In other instances, ATSDR sometimes issued health assessments before
EPA needed the information; in these cases as well, the health
information in the assessments was not useful to EPA.  For example,
officials in EPA's regional office in Seattle stated that sometimes
ATSDR issued assessments too early, without complete information, and
therefore reached a conclusion about a site's adverse health effects
that was different from the conclusion that it and EPA might have
reached with more complete information. 

In addition, according to EPA regional officials, some health
assessments were not definitive enough in quantifying or qualifying
the adverse health effects of hazardous waste sites, and other
assessments did not have enough health information for EPA to draw
conclusions about the health effects caused by a site.  For example,
according to officials in EPA's regional office in New York City,
some health assessments were not useful because they were
inconclusive about the health risks from exposure to hazardous
substances.  According to these officials, it would have been better
not to issue health assessments than to have inconclusive
information.  According to officials in EPA's regional office in San
Francisco, ATSDR seldom had enough information in the health
assessments to serve as the basis for EPA's decisions about cleaning
up sites.  Furthermore, according to officials in EPA's regional
office in Chicago, the health assessments tended to oversimplify the
issues because the information was written to be understandable for
all audiences, including the general public, and therefore the
information was not specific enough to be useful to EPA. 

EPA officials in most EPA regional offices noted that, because of the
problems with timeliness, completeness and other concerns about
ATSDR's health assessments, the health information in the assessments
often had little or no effect on EPA's final cleanup decisions for
hazardous waste sites.  For example, officials in EPA's regional
office in Denver believed that the health assessments did not add
anything to the information the region already had about the sites. 
Even though health assessments may not be used directly in EPA's
cleanup decisions, some regional officials said that the information
was useful because it provided additional support for the cleanup
decisions that EPA had already made at some hazardous waste sites. 


--------------------
\1 Superfund:  Public Health Assessments Incomplete and of
Questionable Value (GAO/RCED-91-178, Aug.  1, 1991). 


      ATSDR RECOGNIZES THE NEED TO
      AMEND THE HEALTH ASSESSMENT
      PROCESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

EPA regional and ATSDR officials attributed the problems with health
assessments largely to inadequate communication between ATSDR and EPA
and the statutory requirement for preparing full health assessments
for all sites listed or proposed for listing on EPA' s National
Priorities List.  ATSDR officials also said that increased
flexibility would allow them to provide more focused or customized
products, such as health consultations, that may be more appropriate
for a given site. 

In December 1994, ATSDR began an effort--known as the Health
Assessment Enhancement Initiative--to revise its health assessment
process and better integrate it into EPA's Superfund process.  The
initiative was implemented as a pilot program at 24 hazardous waste
sites.  One of the initiative's key features was the use of site
teams--composed of staff from ATSDR and state health agencies--and
the adoption of a customer-oriented, phased approach for the health
assessment process.  The teams focused their efforts on the specific
circumstances at each waste site and provided health-related products
and services when EPA and other stakeholders needed them rather
waiting to issue a final health assessment.  The site teams preferred
health consultations to assessments because they considered
consultations more focused, shorter, and more responsive to EPA's and
other stakeholders' needs.  In contrast, many site teams considered
health assessments to be bulky, inflexible, and complex, producing
information that did not respond to many of the stakeholders' needs
in a timely manner. 

EPA regional officials generally told us that they had a positive
impression of the health-related products and services provided under
the initiative, such as consultations, blood testing, and
participation at public meetings.  For example, officials in EPA's
regional office in Philadelphia believed that the initiative had
increased ATSDR's level of involvement at hazardous waste sites by
making ATSDR a full partner in governmental efforts to assess health
hazards and address community concerns.  Several other regions stated
that ATSDR was more timely and responsive in addressing site-specific
health issues.  EPA regional officials also said that under the
initiative, communication between ATSDR and EPA officials had
improved.  Nevertheless, most regional officials stated that if ATSDR
had the flexibility to prepare other health-related products and
services in lieu of assessments, EPA's needs would be better met. 
Many of the EPA officials we interviewed believed that ATSDR should
have the option of preparing full health assessments only when they
are needed rather than requiring them for each site. 

According to its draft report, ATSDR has changed the health
assessment process as a result of the initiative to include (1)
requiring site teams for all sites and (2) keeping EPA, the public,
and other stakeholders involved in and informed about the site teams'
activities and findings.\2 Taken together, the actions resulting from
the initiative and EPA's overall favorable reaction to them indicate
that a number of the past shortcomings for the health assessment
process are being addressed.  Nevertheless, it is doubtful whether
the changes made by the initiative will address all of EPA's concerns
about the overall health assessment process--specifically, the
statutory requirement that ATSDR prepare health assessments for all
Superfund sites. 

The Acting Assistant Administrator of ATSDR told us it would be
beneficial if ATSDR had more flexibility to decide which
health-related products and services would best meet EPA's and other
users' needs for each Superfund site.  In fact, in 1998, ATSDR
proposed amending CERCLA to allow it more flexibility in designing
the appropriate response to individual sites.  ATSDR noted that
because sites vary in their physical, chemical, and demographic
characteristics, other health-related activities--such as health
consultations, health education, and health studies--may be more
appropriate than health assessments.  Furthermore, persons living
near a Superfund site would benefit by a more timely and appropriate
response than would be feasible with the time required for a health
assessment.  Finally, the proposal said that increased flexibility
would be cost beneficial, potentially reducing the average unit cost
of ATSDR's involvement at individual sites. 


--------------------
\2 ï¿½Public Health Assessment Enhancement Initiative Close-Out Reportï¿½
(draft), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Jan.  11,
1999. 


   JUSTICE'S SUPERFUND ACTIVITIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

As the litigator for EPA, Justice conducts work in a wide variety of
areas associated with the Superfund program, from compelling
responsible parties to clean up hazardous waste sites to defending
EPA in lawsuits concerning EPA's implementation of the program. 
Justice received about $32 and $30 million from EPA in fiscal years
1996 and 1997, respectively, to conduct this work.  To help ensure
that the Superfund funds it receives are used only for authorized
Superfund litigation, Justice uses an independent accounting firm to
allocate costs to cases and bill EPA.  Moreover, CERCLA requires
Justice's Inspector General to audit Justice's Superfund expenditures
annually to determine the adequacy of Justice's internal controls. 
These audits have revealed no material problems during the 1990s. 


      JUSTICE CARRIES OUT
      LITIGATION FOR EPA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

EPA begins the enforcement process at hazardous waste sites by
identifying the parties responsible for the contamination and
collecting evidence to show that the government has a valid claim
against them.  EPA then refers cases to Justice for initiating a
lawsuit or negotiating a settlement.  Once a case is referred, EPA
attorneys continue to support the case, but Justice takes the lead in
negotiating and settling or litigating the case. 

Justice's Superfund efforts include three major areas.  First,
Justice negotiates with responsible parties about performing
cleanups.  Justice attempts to settle the case by having the
responsible parties agree to conduct and/or finance cleanup
activities and pay the government's cleanup costs.  If the
negotiation is successful, EPA and the responsible parties must sign
a consent decree--that is, a legal document filed in court that sets
forth the requirements for cleanup and/or payment.  Because these
cases often involve many responsible parties and complex technical
issues, they are resource-intensive, consuming a significant
percentage of resources on Justice's Superfund docket. 

Second, when EPA has cleaned up sites because the responsible parties
were unwilling or unable to do so, Justice files suit against the
responsible parties, when practicable, to recover EPA's cleanup
costs.  These cases range from very small cases of emergency removals
to very large cases with many responsible parties.  This area of work
currently constitutes the largest number of Superfund cases on
Justice's docket. 

Third, to support its attempts to locate responsible parties and
establish liability at hazardous waste sites, EPA has the authority
to request financial or other records from responsible parties.  EPA
also has the authority to enter properties to, among other reasons,
perform cleanups, inspect contaminated sites, and obtain pertinent
records.  Justice handles cases involving EPA's exercise of these
authorities. 

Justice also conducts other types of work for EPA using Superfund
resources.  For example, the parties responsible for a contaminated
site may challenge EPA's decision to list the site on the National
Priorities List.  In addition, Justice prosecutes criminal violations
of CERCLA, which may occur when a person fails to notify relevant
officials of hazardous substance releases into the environment. 
According to Justice officials, these cases always include additional
charges under other statutes, such as the Clean Water Act.  To
facilitate reimbursing Justice for its Superfund work, EPA and
Justice annually negotiate an interagency agreement, which
establishes the type of activities EPA expects Justice to perform and
an annual estimated amount of funding for Justice. 


      AUDITS IDENTIFY NO MATERIAL
      PROBLEMS WITH JUSTICE'S
      SUPERFUND ACTIVITIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2

In fiscal year 1987, Justice initiated a cost accounting system for
its use of Superfund resources that was developed by an independent
certified public accounting firm.  The accounting firm developed
procedures to ensure that all direct costs are allocated accurately
to cases and a system to fairly allocate indirect costs to cases. 
Since then, Justice has used this accounting system to calculate
charges to the Superfund.  This accounting system, as well as the
costs charged to the Superfund and the requirements of the
interagency agreement, have been audited annually by Justice's
Inspector General.  Since the early 1990s, Justice has received
annual audit reports with no material findings. 

In the early 1990s, EPA was concerned that Superfund resources were
not being used entirely for authorized Superfund activities in cases
that included alleged violations under CERCLA and other environmental
statutes (called mixed-count cases).  At that time, Justice was
charging all mixed-count cases entirely to the Superfund.  Because of
EPA's concerns, Justice changed its accounting for these cases in
1995.  Specifically, when work for the Superfund counts can be
separated out from work on the other counts, Justice charges the
Superfund only for work done for the Superfund counts.  However, when
all the counts are factually linked (work for the Superfund counts
also supports the non-Superfund counts), Justice charges the entire
case to Superfund.  Mixed-count cases charged entirely to Superfund
totaled $2.3 million in fiscal year 1997, or 8 percent of Justice's
total Superfund resources for the year.  EPA and Justice's Inspector
General are satisfied with Justice's current accounting approach for
mixed-count cases and have voiced no further concerns. 


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

Concerns about the usefulness of ATSDR's health assessments have
persisted for almost a decade.  Recognizing these concerns, ATSDR has
analyzed its process for conducting health assessments and made
several changes that, if properly implemented, should address a
number of past concerns.  Nevertheless, ATSDR is still required to
prepare health assessments for all Superfund sites.  Both ATSDR and
EPA officials believe that increased flexibility would allow ATSDR to
produce alternative products and services, such as health
consultations that would be more timely, effective, and cost
beneficial in addressing the human health effects related to
Superfund sites.  We believe that providing ATSDR with greater
flexibility would enable it to better use its resources for other
health-related products and services, such as health consultations,
health testing, and education. 


   RECOMMENDATION TO THE CONGRESS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

We recommend that the Congress amend the requirement that the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conduct a detailed health
assessment at each site proposed for listing on the National
Priorities List in order to provide the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry with more flexibility in choosing the
appropriate health-related product or service that will best meet
EPA's and other users' needs. 


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

We provided a draft of this report to the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry, EPA, and the Department of Justice for their
review and comment.  The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry and EPA both stated that they agree with our recommendation. 
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry also provided
additional information regarding its health assessment efforts.  See
appendixes II and III, respectively, for the text of the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry's and EPA's comments.  The
Department of Justice stated that it fully concurred with both the
description of its program and our overall findings.  (See app.  IV.)


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

We conducted our review from July 1998 through February 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
See appendix I for our detailed scope and methodology. 

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly 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 other appropriate congressional committees, the Agency
for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the Department of Justice.  We will also make
copies available to others upon request. 

If you have any further questions about this report, please call me
at (202) 512-6111.  Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix V. 

Peter F.  Guerrero
Director, Environmental Protection Issues


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

To determine the amount and purpose of Superfund money provided to
the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the
Department of Justice (Justice) for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, we
reviewed the agencies' financial statements and summary reports of
actual expenditures.  We also interviewed Justice, ATSDR and
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters officials about
the activities that Justice and ATSDR performed with Superfund
resources and reviewed agencies' annual reports.  We were unable to
include complete fiscal year 1998 data because of time lags in the
agencies' reporting of expenditures. 

To determine how EPA uses health assessments and consultations in
making cleanup decisions, we conducted telephone interviews with
remedial and removal officials in EPA's 10 regional offices.  We
asked these officials about, among other things, the usefulness and
timeliness of assessments and consultations that ATSDR completed for
their regions in fiscal years 1996 and 1997.  We also asked them
about the effect of ATSDR's enhancement initiative in their regions. 
We discussed these same issues with the EPA headquarters officials
responsible for coordination with ATSDR and with ATSDR headquarters
officials.  In addition to EPA, other users of ATSDR's products and
services include the public, such as people who live near Superfund
sites.  We did not obtain information from other users about the
usefulness of ATSDR's products and services.  We reviewed ATSDR's
draft report on the results of the enhancement initiative and
discussed them with ATSDR and EPA officials. 

To determine the processes in place at Justice and ATSDR to help
ensure that Superfund funds are used only for authorized activities,
we reviewed the mandated annual Inspector General audits of Justice's
and ATSDR's Superfund activities.  We discussed these reports and the
status of any corrective actions needed with officials in the
Department of Health and Human Services and with Justice's Office of
Inspector General.  We also discussed EPA's implementation of its
interagency agreements with Justice and ATSDR with the EPA officials
responsible for negotiating and carrying out these agreements. 
Finally, we discussed Justice's Superfund accounting system with
representatives of Justice's independent certified public accounting
firm. 

We conducted our review from July 1998 through February 1999 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix II
COMMENTS FROM THE AGENCY FOR TOXIC
SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY
=========================================================== Appendix I



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix III
COMMENTS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
=========================================================== Appendix I




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix IV
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE
=========================================================== Appendix I


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

RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION

Charles Barchok, Assistant Director
Joseph L.  Turlington, Evaluator-in-Charge
Mary Pniewski Marca, Senior Evaluator
David A.  Rogers, Assistant Director

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL

Richard P.  Johnson, Senior Attorney


*** End of document. ***