Superfund: Non-Time-Critical Removals as a Tool for Faster and Less
Costly Cleanups (Testimony, 04/17/96, GAO/T-RCED-96-137).

GAO discussed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) use of
non-time-critical removals for hazardous waste cleanups, focusing on:
(1) the advantages and disadvantages of non-time-critical removals; (2)
the potential use of non-time-critical removals in Superfund cleanups;
and (3) factors that inhibit the use of non-time-critical removals. GAO
noted that: (1) on average the use of non-time-critical removals could
expedite environmental cleanups by 2 years and reduce costs by about
$500,000 over similar cleanup actions using the remedial removal
process; (2) non-time-critical removals are successful because they have
a streamlined planning process; (3) non-time-critical removals would
require EPA to spend more time overseeing cleanup contracts and shift
costs from states to EPA; (4) non-time-critical removals are a
potentially useful tool in cleaning up portions of most of the 3,000
sites in the EPA Superfund inventory; (5) non-time-critical removals
have not been used for a wide variety of cleanups because most Superfund
funding has been spent on emergency removals; (6) additional factors
that have limited non-time-critical removal use include EPA inability to
shift funds between accounts and regions, and statutory limits on the
duration and cost of non-time-critical removals; and (7) the proposed
Superfund reauthorization legislation would ease the statutory
limitations on non-time-critical removals.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-96-137
     TITLE:  Superfund: Non-Time-Critical Removals as a Tool for Faster 
             and Less Costly Cleanups
      DATE:  04/17/96
   SUBJECT:  Environmental legislation
             Environmental policies
             Pollution control
             Proposed legislation
             Water pollution control
             Cost effectiveness analysis
             Hazardous substances
             Waste disposal
             Intergovernmental fiscal relations
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


Before the Subcommittee on VA,
HUD, and Independent Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations,
House of Representatives

For release
on Delivery
Expected at
2:30 p.m.  EST
Wednesday,
April 17, 1996

SUPERFUND - NON-TIME-CRITICAL
REMOVALS AS A TOOL FOR
FASTER AND LESS COSTLY CLEANUPS

Statement of Peter F.  Guerrero
Director, Environmental Protection Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-96-137

GAO/RCED-96-137T


(160350)


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

  GAO -
  EPA -
  NTC -
  NPL -
  CERCLA -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

Since Superfund was created in 1980, the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has obligated more than $15 billion but has completed
cleanups at only about 300 of the 1,300 sites on its list of the most
contaminated sites in the country.  Today, we would like to discuss
an EPA initiative with the potential to clean up portions of sites
more quickly and at less cost.  EPA is expanding the use of its
removal program, which it typically uses to respond to urgent
situations, to conduct substantial nonemergency cleanup actions at
portions of sites.  These Non-Time-Critical (NTC) removals result in
quicker cleanups than EPA's traditional remedial program because they
streamline the steps used to study a site's contamination and design
a cleanup method. 

Last year, EPA surveyed site managers in the regions to obtain their
estimates of the benefits and lessons learned from conducting NTC
removals.  Our testimony today is based on the results of that survey
and interviews of EPA removal program officials, state cleanup
managers, and private parties that have used the NTC process.  Our
testimony addresses three issues associated with EPA's initiative to
use NTC removals:  (1) the major benefits and potential disadvantages
of using NTC removals, (2) the extent to which NTC removals can be
used in more Superfund cleanups, and (3) the factors that constrain
the use of NTC removals. 

In summary, Mr.  Chairman,

  -- Using NTC removals at portions of Superfund sites can accelerate
     cleanups, reduce costs, and better protect human health and the
     environment.  EPA site managers estimate that using NTC removals
     can, on average, save 2 years and about half a million dollars
     from a remedial action that would have taken 4 years and cost
     about $4.1 million.  These savings are achieved primarily by
     streamlining the cleanup's study and design steps.  NTC removals
     also address hazardous wastes at a site sooner, thereby,
     reducing risks to human health and preventing contaminants from
     spreading further in the environment.  However, NTC removals
     require more staff time for supervising contractors, and the
     states are not required to fund a portion of the costs, as they
     are for remedial actions. 

  -- NTC removals show a high potential for use in cleaning up
     portions of most of the approximately 3,000 sites in EPA's
     inventory of current or expected Superfund sites, especially the
     portions that pose the highest health and environmental risks. 
     NTC removals have been used at many different types of sites and
     for all environmental media.  These removals have employed many
     of the same kinds of cleanup actions as the remedial program and
     usually include an action that treats or extracts the
     contaminants.  EPA data indicate that for about one-third of the
     sites in the survey, no further action will be required.  To the
     extent that the remaining sites contain more complex
     contamination, the NTC removal will not be the final action. 
     These sites will require more extensive study and design
     actions. 

  -- EPA budgetary issues and legal factors have constrained the use
     of NTC removals.  Overall spending for removals, while gradually
     increasing, has ranged from only 9 to 17 percent of all
     Superfund spending.  Regions spend these funds first to cover
     the hundreds of emergency removals EPA conducts each year,
     leaving little funding for NTC removals.  Also, because EPA
     headquarters must account for removal and remedial funds
     separately, regions cannot move funds between these two budgets
     to pay for more NTC actions.  Finally, statutory limits on the
     duration and cost of federally funded NTC removals have
     precluded their wider use.  Proposed legislation to reauthorize
     the Superfund program, H.R.  2500 and S.  1285, both include
     provisions that would ease these limits. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

The Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980 to clean up
hazardous waste sites.  The act gives EPA the authority to compel the
parties responsible for these sites to clean them up.  The act also
created a $1.6 billion trust fund, known as Superfund, for EPA to
implement the program and pay for cleanups.  The Superfund program
has two basic types of cleanups:  (1) remedial cleanups, which are
long-term cleanup actions at sites on the National Priorities List
(NPL), EPA's list of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites, and
(2) removal cleanups, which mitigate more immediate threats at both
NPL and non-NPL sites.  EPA's removal cleanups include (1) emergency
removals for threats requiring immediate action, (2) time-critical
removals for threats requiring action within 6 months, and (3) NTC
removals for threats where action can be delayed for at least 6
months in order to adequately plan for cleanups. 

In March 1995, EPA surveyed site managers in the regions to obtain
their estimates of the benefits and lessons learned from conducting
NTC removals.  EPA had initiated 81 such actions by then, and 40 were
beyond the study phase.  Our testimony today is based on the results
of that survey and interviews of EPA headquarters and regional
officials in charge of removals, state cleanup managers, private
parties that used the NTC process, and representatives of
environmental advocacy organizations.  We did not independently
validate EPA's survey results.  We performed our work from September
1995 through March 1996 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. 


   NTC REMOVALS CAN PROVIDE
   VALUABLE BENEFITS BUT MAY HAVE
   SOME DISADVANTAGES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

Compared to traditional remediation, NTC removals significantly
accelerate the study and design steps of cleanups at portions of
sites, thereby reducing overall cleanup costs and more quickly
protecting human health and the environment.  However, increasing the
use of NTC removals may increase the amount of EPA staff time
required to oversee contractors.  Also, using these removals could
shift a portion of the cleanup costs from the states to EPA. 


      NTC REMOVALS SAVE TIME AND
      MONEY AND IMPROVE
      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.1

According to the site managers EPA surveyed, using the NTC program
instead of the remedial program reduced the overall time spent on
cleaning up portions of sites from about 4 years to 2 years, on
average.  In many cases, site managers reported time savings of more
than 3 years.  These savings occur primarily because NTC actions take
much less time than remedial actions to study the contamination and
design a cleanup method. 

According to EPA technical and regional staff who manage cleanups,
they use NTC actions when they are relatively certain about the
nature of the contamination that is present and the type of cleanup
method they should use.  For such cleanups, they do not need to use
the extensive study and design steps that the remedial program calls
for.  Like remedial actions, NTC actions also include steps, although
abbreviated, for the public and the state to participate in planning
the cleanup.  Also, because EPA's guidance requires that NTC removals
generally meet states' cleanup standards, the level of cleanup
achieved with these removals is not expected to be significantly
different from the level achieved with remedial cleanups. 

The streamlined NTC process also results in reduced cleanup costs. 
According to EPA's survey, conducting an NTC action costs, on
average, about $3.6 million, or about $0.5 million less than a
similar remedial action would have cost.  In many cases, larger
savings have been reported.  For example, one private party estimated
that conducting the cleanup as an NTC action instead of a remedial
action reduced the cleanup costs by about $2 million--at least half
of the total cleanup costs.  Savings of more than $1 million have
also been reported for federally funded cleanups. 

Faster cleanups through the use of NTC removals also mean better
protection of human health and the environment.  According to EPA
site managers, NTC removals can be used to clean up the portions of
Superfund sites where contaminants pose a current risk to human
health or could spread further in the environment.  For example, EPA
used the NTC process to accelerate a cleanup by more than 4 years at
a chemical processing plant where contaminants in the soil were
migrating toward a schoolyard.  In another case, a private party used
the NTC process to accelerate a cleanup by more than 4 years,
removing contaminants from the soil and shallow groundwater before
they could spread to deep groundwater, which is difficult and costly
to clean up. 


      NTC REMOVALS HAVE POTENTIAL
      DISADVANTAGES
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.2

While NTC removals demonstrate valuable benefits, they may also
present some disadvantages, including the need for more staff time to
monitor NTC cleanups, less ability for EPA to enforce cleanup
agreements with private parties, and a potential for states to
decrease their funding of a portion of the cleanup costs.  Opinions
vary about the significance of these disadvantages. 

Under a remedial cleanup contract, EPA pays a contractor to conduct a
fixed set of actions that both parties have agreed to at the start of
the cleanup.  In contrast, under an NTC cleanup contract, EPA pays a
contractor for the company's time and materials, but an EPA site
manager directs the contractor's actions.  EPA technical and regional
staff involved in NTC removals agree that time and materials
contracts require almost daily on-site supervision, whereas remedial
cleanup contracts do not.  However, EPA site managers argue that
close supervision of the contractor offers EPA greater control over
the work and more flexibility to make adjustments. 

Under its NTC removal authority, EPA may have more difficulty
enforcing private party cleanup agreements than it would under its
remedial authority.  For a remedial action, EPA uses a consent decree
issued by a court, whereas, for an NTC removal, it uses an
administrative order issued by its regional management.  EPA
headquarters and regional officials involved in both processes are
concerned about the potential for a private party to default on an
NTC removal because an administrative order does not provide EPA with
immediate penalties for enforcing a cleanup agreement.  If a party
does default, EPA may then have to fund the rest of the cleanup while
the matter is being resolved in the courts.  Private parties have
told us, however, that even with the consent decree for remedial
agreements, a default will also likely have to be resolved in the
courts. 

Finally, NTC cleanups may shift some portion of the cleanup costs
from the states to the federal government.  Under CERCLA and EPA's
regulations, a federally funded remedial action cannot proceed until
the state in which the site is located agrees to pay 10 percent of
the cleanup costs and to handle most of the follow-on operations and
maintenance activities.  Because the law generally does not require
such state participation in removals, including NTC removals, the
federal government may have to bear the costs of NTC removals without
state support.  However, some states already have voluntarily shared
the cost of NTC removals and assumed the responsibility for
operations and maintenance in exchange for quicker and less costly
cleanups.  Also, EPA removal guidance advises regions to obtain such
state participation. 


   NTC REMOVALS CAN BE USED TO
   CLEAN UP THE HIGH-RISK PORTIONS
   OF MOST SUPERFUND SITES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

The variety of sites, media, and actions addressed under the NTC
process to date indicate a strong potential for using NTC removals to
clean up portions of most Superfund sites, especially the high-risk
portions.  However, the remaining portions of many of these sites may
still require some long-term action, such as groundwater restoration,
which is more appropriately conducted under the full remedial
process. 

Like Superfund sites in general, NTC sites include manufacturing
sites, landfills, mining sites, and chemical processing sites, among
others.\1 NTC removals have been used on relatively small and large
areas, some exceeding 20 acres.  While these actions have primarily
addressed contaminated soil and shallow sources of groundwater, they
have also been used to clean up sediment, surface water, and site
debris.  NTC removals have employed many of the same kinds of
permanent cleanup actions as have the remedial program, including
extracting contaminants from soil and shallow groundwater and
treating contaminants.  NTC removals have also relied on engineering
controls to contain contamination. 

NTC removals have been performed at so many different kinds of sites
that, according to several site managers, they could be used for
portions of almost any Superfund site.  Currently, about 1,000 NPL
sites await cleanup and about another 1,400 to 2,300 sites are
estimated to be contaminated enough to be listed in the future.  If
we assume that NTC removals could be performed at all of these sites
and that cost savings could average $0.5 million per site, the
federal government and private parties could save from $1.2 to $1.7
billion over the life of the Superfund program by using NTC removals
instead of remedial actions. 

Site managers expected that for about one-third of the sites in the
survey, no further action would be required beyond the NTC removal. 
The remaining sites most likely have portions that contain more
complex contamination.  Such sites would warrant a full remedial
study and design, according to EPA cleanup managers.  For example,
contaminated groundwater may require decades of treatment and
millions of dollars in cleanup costs.  Such an investment would
justify more extensive planning. 


--------------------
\1 We recently testified that the NTC process has also been used
successfully at the Department of Energy's large weapons production
sites.  See Environmental Protection:  Issues Facing the Energy and
Defense Environmental Management Programs (GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-127). 


   SEVERAL FACTORS CONSTRAIN THE
   USE OF NTC REMOVALS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

Several factors have constrained the use of NTC removals, including
the difficulty regions encounter in funding these actions and the
current statutory limits on the time and costs that can be spent on
NTC removals. 


      FUNDING FOR NTC REMOVALS IS
      LIMITED
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

According to regional cleanup managers, funding inflexibility limits
the number of NTC removals they can conduct.  Although spending for
removals has increased gradually since 1992, it has represented only
9 to 17 percent of the total Superfund spending.  Of this percentage,
most must go to fund the hundreds of emergency and time-critical
removals that regions conduct, leaving little for NTC removals. 
Although regions may have unobligated funds in their remedial
budgets, EPA headquarters does not permit the regions to transfer
these funds to their removal budgets.  According to EPA budget
officials in headquarters, the agency must allocate funds among many
competing activities within the Superfund program and has an
obligation to focus on the longer-term remedial program.  Also, since
the agency reports quarterly to the Congress on its Superfund
expenditures, EPA has to account separately for its remedial and
removal activities. 


      TIME AND COST LIMITS SET IN
      LAW CONSTRAIN THE USE OF NTC
      REMOVALS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

CERCLA limits the cost of removal actions financed by the trust fund
to $2 million.  Furthermore, the law states that a removal action
cannot take more than 12 months to complete.  EPA can justify a
waiver of these limits if it demonstrates either that the situation
is an emergency--unlikely for an NTC removal--or that the action is
"consistent with the remedial action to be taken." EPA's regions have
interpreted this latter requirement inconsistently.  For example,
according to a site manager in San Francisco, the regional counsel
advised that an NTC removal be used only if a remedial cleanup plan
had been signed.  This region had conducted only one of the NTC
actions in EPA's survey.  Also, according to the site manager in
Boston, the regional counsel advised that an NTC removal be used only
at an NPL site.  That region had conducted five of the NTC removals. 

More than half of the NTC removals in EPA's survey had exceeded
either the time or the cost limits.\2 Proposed legislation to
reauthorize Superfund, H.R.  2500 and S.  1285, would raise the
limits on removals and relax the consistency requirements. 


--------------------
\2 While the law applies these limits only to NTC removals financed
by Superfund, EPA officials have told us that they also consider
these limits when approving privately funded cleanups, in case the
private party defaults and EPA assumes the cleanup costs. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

Mr.  Chairman, this completes our prepared statement.  We would be
pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
Subcommittee may have. 


*** End of document. ***