Superfund: Times to Assess and Clean Up Hazardous Waste Sites Exceed
Program Goals (Testimony, 02/13/97, GAO/T-RCED-97-69).

GAO discussed the results of its examination of trends in the time taken
to complete: (1) evaluations of hazardous waste sites for placement on
the National Priorities List (NPL), the Superfund Program's list of the
nation's worst hazardous waste sites; and (2) cleanup of sites following
their listing.

GAO noted that: (1) for sites listed in 1996, it took an average of 9.4
years from site discovery to final listing on the NPL; (2) while this is
some improvement over 1995, it is still longer than earlier listing
times; (3) for sites listed from 1986 to 1990, it took an average of 5.8
years from discovery to listing; (4) the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) requires the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to evaluate nonfederal sites for listing, where warranted, within
4 years of their discovery; (5) listing decisions were made within 4
years of discovery for 43 percent of the sites discovered from 1987
through 1991; (6) a number of factors contributed to the long time
needed to list a site, including a backlog of sites awaiting evaluation
and EPA's emphasis on completing already listed sites; (7) cleanup
completion times have also lengthened; (8) from 1986 to 1989, cleanup
projects were finished, on average, 3.9 years after sites were placed on
the NPL; (9) by 1996, however, cleanup completions were averaging 10.6
years; (10) SARA did not set deadlines for completing cleanups within a
certain number of years, but EPA set an expectation for fiscal year 1993
for its regions to complete cleanup within 5 years of a site's listing;
(11) much of the time taken to complete cleanups is attributable to the
early planning phases of the cleanup process, when cleanup remedies are
selected; (12) less time has been spent on actual construction work at
sites than on selecting remedies; and (13) EPA officials attributed the
increased completion times for cleanups to the growing complexity of
sites, efforts to reach settlements with parties responsible for site
contamination, and resource constraints.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-97-69
     TITLE:  Superfund: Times to Assess and Clean Up Hazardous Waste 
             Sites Exceed Program Goals
      DATE:  02/13/97
   SUBJECT:  Environmental monitoring
             Environmental policies
             Environment evaluation
             Pollution control
             Site selection
             Hazardous substances
IDENTIFIER:  Superfund Program
             EPA National Priorities List
             EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 
             Liability Information System
             
******************************************************************
** 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 National Economic Growth, Natural
Resources, and Regulatory Affairs, Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
9 a.m.  EST
Thursday
February 13, 1997

SUPERFUND - TIMES TO ASSESS AND
CLEAN UP HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
EXCEED PROGRAM GOALS

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

GAO/T-RCED-97-69

GAO/RCED-97-69T


(160383)


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


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

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to present the results of our examination of trends in
the time taken to complete (1) evaluations of hazardous waste sites
for placement on the National Priorities List (NPL)--the Superfund
program's list of the nation's worst hazardous waste sites--and (2)
cleanup of sites following their listing.  This work was done at the
request of the Chairman, House Government Reform and Oversight
Committee.  We plan to issue a report on our findings to the
Committee within the next month.  The pace of Superfund cleanups has
been a long-standing concern of the Congress and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).  In the 1986 Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA), the Congress set time goals for EPA to
(1) evaluate sites for possible placement on the NPL and (2) begin
various cleanup actions.  EPA has also established targets for
processing Superfund sites for budgeting and planning purposes. 

In summary, we found that: 

  -- For sites listed in 1996, it took an average of 9.4 years from
     site discovery to final listing on the National Priorities List. 
     While this is some improvement over 1995, it is still longer
     than earlier listing times.  For sites listed from 1986 to 1990,
     it took an average of 5.8 years from discovery to listing.  SARA
     requires EPA to evaluate nonfederal sites for listing, where
     warranted, within four years of their discovery.\1 Listing
     decisions were made within four years of discovery for 43
     percent of the sites discovered from 1987 through 1991.  A
     number of factors contributed to the long time needed to list a
     site, including a backlog of sites awaiting evaluation and EPA's
     emphasis on completing already listed sites. 

  -- Cleanup completion times have also lengthened.  From 1986 to
     1989, cleanup projects were finished, on average, 3.9 years
     after sites were placed on the National Priorities List.  By
     1996, however, cleanup completions were averaging 10.6 years. 
     SARA did not set deadlines for completing cleanups within a
     certain number of years, but EPA set an expectation for fiscal
     year 1993 for its regions to complete cleanup within 5 years of
     a site's listing.  At ten percent of sites listed from 1986
     through 1990, cleanup projects were completed within 5 years of
     listing.  Much of the time taken to complete cleanups is
     attributable to the early planning phases of the cleanup
     process, when cleanup remedies are selected.  Less time has been
     spent on actual construction work at sites than on selecting
     remedies.  EPA officials attributed the increased completion
     times for cleanups to the growing complexity of sites, efforts
     to reach settlements with parties responsible for site
     contamination, and resource constraints. 


--------------------
\1 This statement focuses on nonfederal sites, since they make up
about 87 percent of all Superfund sites.  However, our upcoming
report to the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee on
Superfund evaluation and cleanup times will present data on both
federal and nonfederal sites. 


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

In 1980, the Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as
Superfund, to clean up highly contaminated hazardous waste sites. 
The act gave EPA the authority to clean up the sites or to compel the
parties responsible for the contamination to perform the cleanups. 
As of November 6, 1996, there were 1,205 sites on the NPL and another
52 had been proposed for listing.  One hundred fifty-one of the
currently listed sites are federal sites.  Currently, EPA has
completed constructing cleanup remedies at 418 sites and has
construction underway at another 491 sites. 

Cleanup actions fall into two broad categories:  removal actions and
remedial actions.  Removal actions are usually short-term actions
designed to stabilize or clean up a hazardous site that poses an
immediate threat to human health or the environment.  Remedial
actions are generally longer-term and usually costlier actions aimed
at implementing a permanent remedy.  Sites referred to EPA for
consideration under Superfund are screened through a number of
evaluations leading to a decision about whether to place the site on
the NPL.  Once listed, sites are further studied for risks and
cleanup remedies are chosen, designed, and constructed.  (See app.  I
for a more detailed description of the Superfund evaluation and
cleanup processes.)

To promote timely cleanups, SARA required EPA to evaluate sites for
listing within four years of their discovery if EPA determines that
such evaluation is warranted.\2 In 1992, EPA developed techniques to
speed up the evaluation and cleanup of sites.  These techniques
included the expanded use of removal actions and the merging of
certain site evaluations.  EPA pilot-tested these techniques in 1992
and declared them operational in 1994.  For planning its Superfund
activities, EPA set an expectation for 1993 that sites would be
cleaned up within 5 years of being listed.  EPA officials said that
they have not formally revised the expectation, but now believe that
sites will be cleaned up within 7 or 8 years of their listing. 

For our review, we asked EPA to provide us with data on the time
taken to evaluate sites for possible placement on the NPL and to
complete cleanups of listed sites.  The source of the data was EPA's
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System (CERCLIS), which is the official repository of
Superfund data.  To measure the time taken to evaluate sites for
listing, we identified sites that were added to the NPL each year and
calculated the time between their listing and their "discovery",
i.e., their entry into CERCLIS.  To measure the time for the cleanup
process following listing, we identified the "operable units"\3 at
which remedial actions had been completed each year and calculated
the time between the end of the remedial action and the date the site
was added to the NPL. 

This use of a "date of event" analysis (NPL listing, completion of
cleanup) was chosen because of its usefulness in showing the
productivity and management of Superfund resources over time.  It
takes into consideration the actual number of listings or cleanup
completions in a given year regardless of when sites were first
discovered or listed on the NPL.  Our approach is consistent with how
EPA has measured the program's accomplishments. 

We also attempted to measure the trends in time taken to complete
listings and cleanups, using SARA's and EPA's own standards as
benchmarks.  Because these standards set four and five year
completion goals, our analysis was limited to sites discovered or
listed not later than 1991.  Because EPA's initiatives to speed up
cleanups were introduced after this time, their effect on achieving
the standards cannot yet be determined.  We are, however, currently
reviewing the implementation and possible effects of these
initiatives. 


--------------------
\2 SARA requires that this determination be made on the basis of a
site inspection or a preliminary assessment. 

\3 EPA may divide a site into two or more "operable units"
corresponding to different physical areas at a site or different
environmental media (such as soil or groundwater) to be cleaned up. 
There are an average of 1.8 operable units at nonfederal Superfund
sites. 


   PLACING A SITE ON THE NPL TAKES
   LONGER
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

The time between discovering a site and placing it on the NPL has
increased over the life of the Superfund program.  (See fig.  1.)

   Figure 1:  How Long It Took on
   Average to Place Sites on the
   NPL

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As figure 1 indicates, sites listed in fiscal year 1996 had been
discovered an average of 9.4 years earlier, down from 11.4 years in
fiscal year 1995.\4 SARA required EPA to evaluate nonfederal sites
for listing, where warranted, within four years of their discovery. 
For those sites discovered from fiscal years 1987 through 1991, 43
percent had decisions regarding whether or not to list the site made
within four years of discovery.  However, the percentage of sites for
which decisions were made within four years of discovery decreased in
each succeeding year from 51 percent in fiscal year 1987 to 36
percent in fiscal year 1991. 

Although average processing times have lengthened, EPA can move
quickly to list some sites if circumstances warrant.  For example, in
1996, it listed three sites within about 9 to 12 months of their
discovery when the Public Health Service's Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry issued a public health advisory
concerning the sites.  EPA used an expedited process that bypassed
its normal evaluation process to list these sites.  In addition, EPA
may undertake removal actions at sites to deal with imminent threats
before the sites are listed.  However, listing is necessary before
the full range of problems presented by many sites can be addressed
under Superfund. 

The increase in the time taken to complete site listing is primarily
a result of delays in processing sites during the end stage of the
listing process, that is, after the sites have been inspected and the
final analysis needed to evaluate their eligibility is done.  (See
app.I for a description of the Superfund process for evaluating sites
for listing and cleanup.) The time to complete this end stage rose
from 1.7 years for sites proposed for the NPL in fiscal year 1986 to
about 6 years for sites proposed for the NPL in fiscal year 1996. 


--------------------
\4 Sites listed in the first quarter of fiscal year 1997 had
discovery dates averaging 11.2 years before listing.  The sites added
to the NPL during this first quarter were discovered as recently as
1993 and as long ago as 1979. 


   CLEANING UP SITES IS TAKING
   LONGER
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

The average time between placing sites on the NPL and completing
cleanups at these sites increased from 2.4 years for sites completed
in 1986 to 10.6 years for sites completed in 1996.  Figure 2 shows,
for fiscal years 1986 through 1996, the average time between placing
sites on the NPL and completing the cleanups at the operable units at
these sites. 

   Figure 2:  How Long It Took on
   Average to Complete Superfund
   Cleanup Projects

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As the figure shows, the average time taken to complete cleanups of
operable units has grown progressively longer.  In 1996, cleanup
completions averaged 10.6 years for operable units.  SARA did not set
deadlines for completing cleanups within a certain number of years,
but EPA set an expectation for fiscal year 1993 that its regions
would complete cleanup within five years of a site's listing.  Ten
percent of sites listed from 1986 through 1990 had cleanup
completions on at least one operable unit within 5 years of
listing.\5 The percentage of sites with five-year completions
increased from 7 percent for sites listed in fiscal year 1986 to 15
percent for sites listed in fiscal year 1990. 

The increase in overall cleanup times was accompanied by a marked
increase in the time it has taken to complete the selection of
cleanup remedies--the study phase of the cleanup process and a time
during which attempts are made to reach settlements with parties
responsible for contaminating sites.  Sites that completed this phase
in 1986 had been listed an average of about 2-1/2 years earlier and
sites that completed the phase in 1996 had been listed an average of
about 8 years earlier. 


--------------------
\5 Four percent of the sites listed from 1986 to 1990 had cleanups at
all operable units within five years of listing. 


   FACTORS INFLUENCING THE TIME
   TAKEN TO LIST AND CLEAN UP
   SITES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

The Superfund database, which was the primary source for the data
presented in this statement, does not contain all of the information
needed to fully explain the reasons for the changes in
evaluation/listing and cleanup times over the history of the program. 
However, our past reviews and discussions with EPA officials indicate
some of the factors that have lengthened listing and cleanup times. 

There are a number of reasons why the time from discovery to listing
has increased over the years.  A major factor was that the Superfund
program started with a backlog of sites awaiting evaluation so that
not all sites could be processed at once.\6 In addition, program
changes--such as revisions to eligibility standards requiring the
reevaluation of many sites, the need to seek state concurrence for
listing sites, and reductions in the annual number of sites that EPA
added to Superfund--have also caused delays.  In addition, EPA
reallocated its budget between 1994 and 1996, cutting funds for
assessing sites by some 50 percent.  EPA officials said that the
agency's current priority is to finish cleaning up sites that have
already been listed.  The challenge for the future is indicated by
the large number of sites that could enter the program in the future
and the small number of sites that have been admitted to the
Superfund program in recent years.  In a 1996 report,\7 we estimated
that between 1,400 and 2,300 sites could be added to Superfund in the
future.  In contrast, an average of 16 sites per year were admitted
to the program in the period from 1992 through 1996. 

EPA officials said that the upward trend in cleanup times might be
linked to the completion of more difficult cleanups.  Our work
supports this explanation.  In September 1994, we reported\8 that
EPA's data revealed longer average cleanup times for ongoing projects
than for those already completed.  In that report, we said that
despite EPA's efforts to expedite cleanups, cleanup times might grow
longer because these ongoing projects were more complex.  EPA
officials also said that the time taken to find the parties
responsible for contaminating sites and reach cleanup settlements
with them can increase cleanup times.  The officials thought that
funding had affected the pace of cleanups.  For example, they said
that because of budget constraints, EPA was not able to fund $200
million to $300 million in cleanup projects in fiscal year 1996.  In
addition, EPA has shifted funding away from selecting remedies and
toward the design and construction phases of the cleanup process.  As
indicated, the Superfund phase ending in the selection of remedies
has increased greatly over the years. 


--------------------
\6 Of the 40,665 sites referred to EPA for Superfund evaluation
through 1996, 14,697 came into the program by 1982. 

\7 Impact on States of Capping Superfund Sites (GAO/RCED-96-106R,
Mar.  18, 1996). 

\8 Superfund:  Status, Cost, and Timeliness of Hazardous Waste Site
Cleanups (GAO/RCED-94-256, Sept.  21, 1994). 


   OBSERVATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

Sites that have recently completed the Superfund listing process have
taken over 9 years and those that have recently completed the cleanup
process have taken over 10 years.  These completion periods have
generally lengthened over the history of the program.  Increasing
completion times are a concern because of the amount of remaining
listing and cleanup activity still to be addressed in the Superfund
program. 

EPA has made progress at many sites--completing the construction of
remedies at 418 sites--but construction work remains to be completed
at about 800 NPL sites, and 1,400 to 2,300 sites could still be added
to Superfund in the future.  EPA officials believe that recent
initiatives will speed up both the listing and cleanup of sites. 
They told us that they expect to report on the effects of some of
these initiatives in the near future. 

Our analysis identified where times have risen, but further
evaluation is needed to pinpoint the causes.  We will be working with
this Committee and others during the year to help answer some of
these questions.  For example, we are currently reviewing EPA's
recent initiatives to speed up site processing and implement other
administrative reforms. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement.  I will be happy
to respond to your questions or the questions of Committee members. 


THE SUPERFUND PROCESS STEPS IN THE
PROCESS OF LISTING A SITE
=========================================================== Appendix I

The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulation implementing
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA) outlines a formal process for placing hazardous
waste sites on the National Priorities List (NPL).  (See fig.I.1.)

   Figure I.1:  How Sites Get on
   the NPL

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  EPA. 

The listing process starts when EPA receives a report of a
potentially hazardous waste site.  State governments or private
citizens most often report nonfederal sites.  EPA enters potentially
contaminated private sites into a database known as the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System (CERCLIS).  EPA or the state in which a potentially
contaminated site is located then conducts a preliminary assessment
to decide whether the site poses a potential threat to human health
and the environment. 

If the site presents a serious, imminent threat, EPA may take
immediate action.  If the preliminary assessment shows that
contamination exists but does not pose an imminent threat, or if the
site continues to pose a problem following an immediate action, EPA
may proceed to the next step of the evaluation process, the site
inspection, which takes a more detailed look at possible
contamination.  If at any point the site is found not to pose a
potential threat, the site can be eliminated from further
consideration under CERCLA. 

Using information from the site inspection, EPA applies the hazard
ranking system to evaluate the site's potential risk to public health
and the environment.  The hazard ranking system is a numerically
based scoring system that uses information from the preliminary
assessment and the site inspection to assign each site a score
ranging from 0 to 100.  This score is used as a screening tool to
determine whether a site should be considered for further action
under CERCLA.  Sites with a score of 28.50 or higher are considered
for placement on the NPL.  EPA first proposes a site for placement on
the NPL and then, after receiving public comments, either places it
on the NPL or removes it from further consideration.  Hazardous waste
sites on the NPL represent the highest priorities for cleanup
nationwide. 


   STEPS IN THE PROCESS OF
   CLEANING UP SITES
--------------------------------------------------------- Appendix I:1

EPA's regulation implementing CERCLA also outlines the remedial
process for cleaning up sites on the NPL.  (See fig.I.2.)

   Figure I.2:  How Sites Are
   Cleaned Up

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Source:  EPA. 

Remedial responses to NPL sites consist of several phases.  First,
through the remedial investigation and feasibility study, conditions
at a site are studied, problems are identified, and alternative
methods to clean up the site are evaluated.  Then, a final remedy is
selected, and the decision is documented in a record of decision. 
Next, during an engineering phase called the remedial design,
drawings and specifications are developed for the selected remedy. 
Finally, in the remedial action phase, a cleanup contractor begins
constructing the remedies according to the remedial design.  Once EPA
and the state in which the site is located determine that the work at
a site has achieved the desired cleanup goals, the site can be
removed (deleted) from the NPL. 


*** End of document. ***