Superfund: Progress and Challenges (Statement/Record, 05/25/1999,
GAO/T-RCED-99-202).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the Superfund
hazardous waste cleanup program, focusing on: (1) the progress, cleanup
pace, and accomplishments of the program; (2) trends in the amount of
funds that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spends on
administrative and support activities in the program and the amount of
these costs that it recovers from parties contributing to contamination
at Superfund sites; (3) the number and types of waste sites that may be
cleaned up by the program in the future; and (4) barriers to the
redevelopment of brownfields--abandoned and idled industrial properties,
often located in economically distressed urban areas--and federal
efforts to remove these barriers.
GAO noted that: (1) the Superfund program has made progress in cleaning
up a number of the nation's hazardous waste sites; (2) preliminary
results from GAO's ongoing work to assess the status of cleanups are
consistent with EPA's statements about the number of sites that have
completed, or will soon complete, construction of the cleanup remedy;
(3) EPA credits this progress in part to its administrative reforms; (4)
the agency has stated that recent cleanups are faster, with some sites
spending 8 years in the program; (5) because GAO has not recently done
work assessing the pace of cleanup activities, GAO cannot validate EPA's
statements that cleanups are completed more quickly; (6) from fiscal
year 1996 to 1997, spending for support activities increased from about
51 to 54 percent of total Superfund expenditures, while spending for
cleanup activities decreased from about 48 to 46 percent; (7) at the
same time, EPA has not recovered large portions of its administrative
costs from responsible parties; (8) EPA lost the opportunity to collect
almost $2 billion since the program began because it did not assess
parties more of the costs the agency incurred to run the program; (9)
the future Superfund cleanup workload depends largely on the number and
types of sites that states decide to manage within their own cleanup
programs, rather than refer them to EPA for Superfund consideration;
(10) GAO's recent survey of EPA's inventory of potential Superfund sites
indicated that about 1,800 sites still need cleanup, but the states and
EPA have not determined who will manage these sites; (11) fears of being
held liable under Superfund law for extensive cleanup costs and facing
high costs to assess a site for possible contamination are major
barriers to the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields; (12) states
want both the authority to relieve parties that clean up sites under
state programs from Superfund liability and federal financial support to
address brownfields; (13) federal agencies have provided limited
liability relief and hundreds of million of dollars in financial
support, most recently through an initiative called the Brownfield
National Partnership Action Agenda; and (14) however, the agencies do
not have the comprehensive data needed to measure the extent to which
the Partnership achieved its intended economic outcomes of increased
jobs, private sector investment in brownfields, and acres of preserved
green space.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: T-RCED-99-202
TITLE: Superfund: Progress and Challenges
DATE: 05/25/1999
SUBJECT: Liability (legal)
Reimbursements to government
Program evaluation
Environmental monitoring
Waste disposal
Pollution control
Cost control
Site selection
Industrial pollution
Federal/state relations
IDENTIFIER: Brownfield National Partnership Action Agenda
EPA National Priorities List
Superfund Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Before the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate
To Be Released
at 10:00 a.m. EDT
Tuesday
May 25, 1999
SUPERFUND - PROGRESS AND
CHALLENGES
Statement for the Record by
David G. Wood, Associate Director,
Environmental Protection Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division
GAO/T-RCED-99-202
GAO/RCED-99-202T
(160492)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
CERCLA -
EPA -
NPL -
============================================================ Chapter 0
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
As you deliberate possible legislative changes to the Superfund
hazardous waste cleanup program, we appreciate the opportunity to
present this statement for the record, which discusses (1) the
progress, cleanup pace, and accomplishments of the program; (2)
trends in the amount of funds that EPA spends on administrative and
support activities in the program and the amount of these costs that
it recovers from parties contributing to contamination at Superfund
sites; (3) the number and types of waste sites that may be cleaned up
by the program in the future; and (4) barriers to the redevelopment
of brownfields--abandoned and idled industrial properties, often
located in economically distressed urban areas--and federal efforts
to remove these barriers.
In summary, our work has shown that:
-- The Superfund program has made progress in cleaning up a number
of our nation's hazardous waste sites. Preliminary results from
our ongoing work to assess the status of cleanups are consistent
with EPA's statements about the number of sites that have
completed, or will soon complete, construction of the cleanup
remedy. EPA credits this progress in part to its administrative
reforms, such as those intended to improve the selection of
cleanup remedies at sites, which were intended to result in a
fairer and more efficient and effective program. The agency has
stated that recent cleanups are faster, with some sites spending
8 years in the program. We last reported on the pace of
cleanups in March 1997, when we found that the most
recently-completed sites had spent an average of 10.6 years in
the Superfund program.\1 Because we have not recently done work
assessing the pace of cleanup activities, we cannot validate
EPA's statements that cleanups are completed more quickly.
However, we also reported in 1997 that EPA had difficulties
measuring the results achieved by most of its administrative
reforms, including whether they made the program fairer, more
efficient, or more effective.\2
-- EPA has been spending more of its Superfund dollars on cleanup
support, including administrative and support activities, in
recent years. From fiscal years 1996 to 1997, spending for
support activities increased from about 51 to 54 percent of
total Superfund expenditures, while spending for cleanup
activities decreased from about 48 to 46 percent. At the same
time, EPA has not recovered large portions of its administrative
costs from responsible parties. EPA lost the opportunity to
collect almost $2 billion since the program began because it did
not assess parties more of the costs the agency incurred to run
the program, called indirect costs. To increase the amount of
indirect costs recovered, we recommended in an April 1999 report
that EPA use new indirect cost rates that the agency has
developed.\3 Cost recovery program managers stated that they
plan to use the rates as soon as they are approved within the
agency, which they expect to occur by September 30, 1999.
-- The future Superfund cleanup workload depends largely on the
number and types of sites that states decide to manage within
their own cleanup programs, rather than refer them to EPA for
Superfund consideration. In recent years, EPA decreased the
number of sites it proposed to clean up under Superfund, while
many states were simultaneously taking on more sites under their
own cleanup programs. EPA officials expect future Superfund
sites to be ones that the states cannot address, such as large,
complex, and costly sites, or those where no responsible party
is available to pay for cleanup. Our recent survey of EPA's
inventory of potential Superfund sites indicated that about
1,800 sites still need cleanup, but the states and EPA have not
determined who will manage these sites. We recommended that EPA
work with the states to assign responsibility for these sites
and to better share information on the status of state cleanups
at sites posing high health and environmental risks. The agency
agreed with our recommendation and is taking actions to
implement it.
-- Fears of being held liable under Superfund law for extensive
cleanup costs and facing high costs to assess a site for
possible contamination are major barriers to the cleanup and
redevelopment of brownfields. States want both (1) the
authority to relieve parties that clean up sites under state
programs from Superfund liability and (2) federal financial
support to address brownfields. Federal agencies have provided
limited liability relief and hundreds of millions of dollars in
financial support, most recently through an initiative called
the Brownfield National Partnership Action Agenda. However, the
agencies do not have the comprehensive data needed to measure
the extent to which the Partnership achieved its intended
economic outcomes of increased jobs, private sector investment
in brownfields, and acres of preserved green space.
--------------------
\1 Superfund: Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of
Hazardous Waste Sites (GAO/RCED-97-20, Mar. 31, 1997).
\2 Superfund: Information on EPA's Administrative Reforms
(GAO/RCED-97-174R, May 30, 1997).
\3 Superfund: Progress Made by EPA and Other Federal Agencies to
Resolve Program Management Issues (GAO/RCED-99-111, Apr. 29, 1999).
BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1
In 1980, the Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), creating the
Superfund program to clean up highly-contaminated hazardous waste
sites. CERCLA authorizes EPA to compel the parties responsible for
the contaminated sites to clean them up. Under CERCLA, parties are
liable regardless of fault, and at some sites, each party involved
can be held responsible for the entire cost of the cleanup. The law
also allows EPA to pay for cleanups and seek reimbursement from the
parties. EPA places sites that it determines need long-term cleanup
actions, called remedial actions, on its National Priorities List
(NPL). EPA or private parties then study the sites for risks and
select, design, and construct cleanup remedies. Beginning in 1993,
EPA began three rounds of administrative actions it could take to
reform the program, short of legislative changes, partly in response
to criticisms that cleanups were long and costly.
All states have established their own enforcement cleanup programs
similar to Superfund and many have created voluntary programs that
handle sites ranging from smaller, less contaminated sites, including
brownfields, to more highly contaminated sites that could qualify for
a Superfund cleanup. States maintain that these programs accomplish
site cleanups more quickly and efficiently than Superfund.
To help states and localities clean up and redevelop more
brownfields, in July 1996 EPA created the Interagency Working Group
on Brownfields, with staff from more than 20 federal departments and
agencies. In developing a national strategy for brownfields,
agencies identified specific actions they would take to support
brownfield redevelopment and the funding they would provide for these
activities during fiscal years 1997 and 1998. On May 13, 1997, the
administration publicly announced that agencies planned to take more
than 100 actions and provide about $469 million for brownfields under
its new Brownfield National Partnership Action Agenda.
SUPERFUND HAS MADE PROGRESS
CLEANING UP SITES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2
In May 12, 1999, testimony before the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and the Environment, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, EPA's Administrator reported considerable progress in
completing cleanups at those sites already in the Superfund program.
Specifically, the Administrator noted that EPA had made final cleanup
decisions for 990, or 80 percent, of the 1,233 sites already on the
NPL. She further noted that 90 percent of NPL sites had begun or
completed cleanup construction: construction had begun at 464 sites,
construction was complete at 599 sites, and shorter-term cleanup
actions, called removals, were underway at an additional 208 sites.
Earlier EPA projections indicated that it would complete construction
of cleanup remedies at almost all sites by 2005, although some
remedies, such as systems to pump and treat groundwater, would
continue to operate for a number of years until all contamination had
been addressed. Finally, according to the Administrator's testimony,
the Superfund program has cleaned more than 132 million cubic yards
of hazardous soil, solid waste, and sediment and more than 341
billion gallons of hazardous liquid waste, groundwater, and surface
water. The program has also provided hundreds of thousands of people
with alternative drinking water supplies. EPA credits much of this
success to its administrative reforms of the program.
Our recent reports and ongoing work show similar rates of progress in
the program. For example, last year, we reported that EPA expected
to have final cleanup decisions in place at 95 percent of nonfederal
sites by the end of fiscal year 1999.\4
In ongoing work, we have obtained information on the status and
accomplishments of all nonfederal NPL sites at which the construction
of cleanup remedies is not yet complete.\5 We asked the EPA cleanup
managers for each of the sites to provide information on the site's
cleanup status, the number and types of cleanup actions taken, and
the amount of contamination they addressed. While we have not fully
analyzed this data, our preliminary results show progress in the
program similar to EPA's recent statistics.
One reason for this progress may be EPA's decision, in 1993, to make
the completion of construction at existing sites the Superfund
program's top priority and to reduce the number of sites it brought
into the program, as shown in figure 1.
Figure 1: Numbers of Sites
Listed on the NPL Each Year
Compared to the Number of Sites
that Completed Construction of
Final Cleanup Remedies, 1986
Through 1998
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Compiled by GAO from Environmental Protection Agency data.
The agency also attributes this progress to its administrative reform
efforts that were intended to make the program faster, fairer, and
more efficient and effective. We reviewed these reform efforts and,
in a 1997 report, found that for most of them, EPA had not identified
specific, measurable accomplishments to be able to determine if the
program had achieved these results. At that time, EPA reported
estimated cost savings and other measurable benefits for only 6 of
its 45 reforms. EPA could fully document these accomplishments for
only 3 of these 6 reforms, including establishing the National Remedy
Review Board. The agency could partially document that it achieved
cost savings from one other reform--using more advanced cleanup
technologies. However, EPA could not document the extent to which
the final two of the six reforms had the intended effect of reducing
cleanup costs for responsible parties. Furthermore, EPA officials
told us that they did not expect to be able to quantify the
accomplishments attributable to many of the remaining reforms. We
anticipate reviewing the administrative reforms in the near future to
determine if these limitations in measuring their results continue.
Despite the progress in the program, the Congress has been concerned
that it takes too much time for sites to complete construction of
their cleanup remedies. In March 1997, we reported that the sites
that completed construction in 1996 had been added to the NPL an
average of 10.6 years previously. We also found that much of the
time taken to complete cleanups was spent during the early planning
phases of the cleanup process, including the selection of the cleanup
remedies to be used at the site, with relatively less time spent on
construction work.
The Administrator's May 12 testimony included information on the 175
sites that completed construction in 1997 and 1998 combined.
According to the testimony, 111 of these sites, or about two-thirds,
were added to the NPL during the 1990s and had completed construction
in less than 8 years indicating that the pace of the Superfund
cleanups had improved. However, we note that this is likely a
minimum average; 447 sites were added to the NPL between 1990 and
1998, inclusive, and it is not possible today to calculate an average
duration time for all of these sites because most of them have not
yet reached the construction complete milestone. Conclusive data on
how the average durations of Superfund sites may have changed over
time will not be available until definitive completion dates are
available for all sites.
--------------------
\4 Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites (GAO/RCED-98-241,
Aug. 28, 1998).
\5 At the request of Representative John Dingell, Ranking Minority
Member, House Commerce Committee.
EPA IS INCURRING MORE AND
RECOVERING LESS ADMINISTRATIVE
COSTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3
Based on our detailed analyses of spending in the Superfund
program,\6 we have reported that the share of Superfund expenditures
that go to cleanup contractors for the study, design, and
implementation of cleanups increased from fiscal years 1987 through
1996, but declined in fiscal year 1997. We also reported that
between fiscal years 1996 and 1997, EPA's Superfund costs for
administrative and support activities correspondingly increased (see
fig. 2).
Figure 2: Superfund Spending
for Contractor Cleanup Work and
Other Program Activities,
Fiscal Years 1996-97, Dollars
in Millions
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Other costs includes costs for enforcement activities,
research and development/laboratories, and other directly related
costs.
Source: Superfund: Analysis of Contractor Cleanup Spending
(GAO/RCED-98-221, Aug. 4, 1998).
At the same time, we reported that EPA has lost the opportunity to
recover about $2 billion of its indirect coststhe administrative
costs of operating the program--from responsible parties. This is
because the methodology that EPA used to calculate the amount of
indirect costs it would charge parties excluded a large portion of
these costs.
For the past several years, EPA has consistently succeeded in getting
responsible parties to conduct cleanups at about 70 percent of
Superfund sites. Since the beginning of the Superfund program
through fiscal year 1998, EPA estimates that responsible parties have
committed to perform $15.5 billion worth of cleanups, not counting
their administrative expenses, and the agency has spent about $16
billion in the Superfund program. EPA considers about $5 billion of
its costs as unrecoverable because, for example, the agency could not
find any financially viable responsible parties or had agreed during
settlement negotiations that parties did not have to pay all past
costs owed to the agency. Of the remaining approximately $11 billion
that the agency spent, parties had agreed to reimburse EPA about $2.4
billion, or about a quarter of its expenditures, as of the end of
fiscal year 1998 (see fig. 3).
Figure 3: Status of EPA's
Efforts to Recover $11 billion
in Superfund Program Costs From
Fiscal Year 1981 Through Fiscal
Year 1998 (Dollars in billions)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: GAO presentation of EPA data
However, EPA lost the opportunity to recover $1.9 billion of indirect
costs because it did not revise its indirect cost rate to include all
appropriate costs before it entered into a final recovery settlement
with these parties. Now, in order to comply with federal accounting
standards, EPA has developed a new methodology that more accurately
accounts for these indirect costs. Cost recovery program managers
estimate that if EPA used the new methodology, the agency could
recover about $629 million of the $1.3 billion in indirect costs that
are still potentially recoverable because EPA has not entered into
final settlements. According to cost recovery program officials,
they have not yet implemented the new methodology because they are
awaiting approval from EPA; the Department of Justice, which
litigates cost-recovery cases; and an independent accounting firm
hired to review the methodology. Until EPA uses the new methodology,
it will continue to lose the opportunity to recover these funds.
--------------------
\6 Superfund: Trends in Spending for Site Cleanups (GAO/RCED-97-211,
Sept. 4, 1997) and Superfund: Analysis of Contractor Cleanup
Spending (GAO/RCED-98-221, Aug. 4, 1998).
NUMBER AND TYPE OF FUTURE
SUPERFUND SITES IS UNCERTAIN
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4
More than 3,000 potential Superfund sites in EPA's inventory have
been waiting several years or more for the agency to decide whether
it will add them to the NPL. EPA and state officials believe that
more than half of these sites need cleanup work, but they have not
divided cleanup responsibilities for these sites between them.
Whether EPA adds these sites to the NPL depends on how risky they are
and whether EPA or the states have cleanup plans for them, have
already taken some cleanup actions at them, and states agree to add
them.
In November 1998, we reported on the results of a survey that we
conducted with EPA regions, other federal agencies, and the states,
asking them about the characteristics of the 3,036 potential NPL
sites, the status of any cleanup actions at them, and respondents'
opinions on whether they would be added to the NPL.\7 We determined
that 1,789, or more than one half, could still be added, and that
many of them presented human health and environmental risks. For
example, respondents reported that about one-third of the 1,789 sites
are already contaminating drinking water and another half could
contaminate drinking water in the future. About 96 percent of the
sites are located in populated areas within a half-mile of residences
or places of regular employment. The remaining 1,234 sites were not
likely to be listed because they already have final cleanup actions
underway or they aren't risky enough.
When we asked respondents to rank the overall risk of these sites,
the respondents judged that for about 17 percent, the current risks
posed to human health and the environment were high and for another
10 percent, the sites may pose high risks in the future if they are
not cleaned up. For another third of these sites, respondents could
not or did not provide information on the type or severity of the
risks that they posed, as shown in figure 4.
Figure 4: Number of Sites
Potentially Eligible for the
NPL With High, Average, and Low
Potential Risks
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Hazardous Waste: Unaddressed Risks at Many Potential
Superfund Sites (GAO/RCED-99-8, Nov. 30, 1998).
According to respondents, interim cleanup actions have been taken at
686, or more than a third, of the 1,789 sites, and more often at
sites considered to pose high risks. For the remaining two-thirds of
the sites, either no cleanup actions have been taken or respondents
did not provide information on such actions. Many of the sites with
no cleanup actions have been in either EPA's or a state's inventory
for a long time, as much as 10 years or more.
As to whether cleanup actions will be taken in the future at these
sites and whether EPA, states, or responsible parties would take
them, we are not forecasting how many of the 1,789 sites EPA would
address by adding them to the NPL. However, for 232, or 13 percent
of them, either EPA or a state respondent believed that they might be
added to the NPL. Only 26 of the 232 sites were cited by both the
EPA and state officials as likely to be placed on the NPL (see
fig.5).
Figure 5: Estimates of the
Likely Final Cleanup Outcome
for 1,789 Potentially Eligible
Sites
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Other sites includes sites likely to be cleaned up under
other EPA programs (43), sites that either EPA or state programs may
clean up (13), and sites that are reportedly unlikely to be cleaned
up (19).
Source: Hazardous Waste: Unaddressed Risks at Many Potential
Superfund Sites (GAO/RCED-99-8, Nov. 30, 1998).
For another one third of the 1,789 sites, respondents estimated that
states would take responsibility for them but did not know to what
extent responsible parties would participate in the cleanups at most
of these sites. Such participation is important because about half
of the states reported that they did not have sufficient financial
capability to address many additional sites. However, about 20
percent also reported that they did not have sufficient enforcement
authority to get private parties to pay either. We did not receive
enough information on one half of the sites to determine whether
future cleanup actions would be taken and who would take them.
In our April 1999 report, we discussed the changing role of states in
Superfund. According to cleanup managers in 4 of EPA's 10 regions,
the states have taken on a greater role in determining which sites
will be added to the NPL. First, some state cleanup programs have
extensive experience at managing more cleanups. Furthermore,
voluntary programs get around states' limited financial capabilities
because in most cases, parties must pay a fee to clean up a site
under a voluntary program. In some states, the fees are high enough
so that the programs are self financed. Therefore, some states more
often prefer to use their own programs to address sites, including
sites risky enough to qualify for the NPL. Furthermore, as a matter
of policy, EPA now seeks concurrence from the relevant state governor
before proposing to add a site to the NPL. Since adopting this
policy in 1995, EPA proposed to add another 154 sites to the NPL
through February 1999, but governors did not agree to add 31, or
one-fifth, of these sites.
The regions also stated that if EPA anticipates that the state will
clean up the site, the agency usually assigns the site a low priority
for Superfund consideration. Also, EPA will not take further action
at the site unless the state asks the agency to do so. As a result,
the regions expect that states will turn sites over to EPA if the
states have difficulty in getting responsible parties to pay for the
cleanup, for example, or when the states encounter a complex, and,
therefore, costly cleanup, such as one addressing groundwater
problems.
Recognizing the changing role of states and the resulting need for
EPA and the states to better coordinate cleanups, we recommended that
EPA review its inventory of potential NPL sites to determine which of
them need immediate action and which will require long-term cleanup
action. We further recommended that EPA, in consultation with the
states, develop a timetable for taking these actions. Finally, we
recommended that EPA regions work with the states to determine how to
share information on the progress of state cleanups at high-risk
sites. In this way, EPA regions can better plan their cleanup
workload and be more responsive to local communities' concerns about
sites in their areas. EPA agreed with these recommendations and has
initiated activities in response.
--------------------
\7 Hazardous Waste: Unaddressed Risks at Many Potential Superfund
Sites (GAO/RCED-98-8, Nov. 30, 1998).
FEDERAL EFFORTS HAVE REMOVED
SOME BARRIERS TO BROWNFIELD
REDEVELOPMENT POSED BY
SUPERFUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5
Reforming the stringent liability provisions governing Superfund
cleanups has been a key issue in the reauthorization debate,
especially because these provisions can make it difficult for
communities to clean up and redevelop brownfields. To some extent,
the provisions serve as an incentive for parties to clean up sites,
especially under state programs. Parties don't want to face what
they perceive to be a longer and more costly cleanup under CERCLA, so
they initiate cleanups either in compliance with a state enforcement
action or under state voluntary programs. But states reported that
these liability provisions can also be a barrier to the cleanup and
redevelopment of brownfields, especially since these sites are
typically less contaminated than sites that qualify for Superfund.
Investors are wary of purchasing properties and owners of selling
them because these parties could be held liable for cleanup costs.\8
In addition, the substantial expenditure parties may need to make to
establish whether any contamination is present at a brownfield can
also discourage redevelopment. Site assessments can cost on average
$60,000 to $85,000 and as much as $200,000 or more for complicated
sites.
To help remove these liability and cost barriers, we found that
states want to be able to relieve parties that clean up sites under
state programs from further CERCLA liability. States would also like
federal financial assistance to help pay for site assessment and
cleanup costs and to support their voluntary programs. In response,
the Congress and EPA have provided limited liability relief to some
parties and hundreds of millions of dollars in financial support, but
states do not think the assistance goes far enough.
In terms of liability, the Congress passed a law providing lenders
protection from liability as a means to encourage investments in
brownfields.\9 In addition, prospective purchasers can now reach
agreements with EPA that limit their liability at a site, although
the costs of obtaining such an agreement may be too high for some
brownfield sites, according to EPA's brownfield program manager.
However, states continue to seek authority to relieve volunteers from
further liability under CERCLA. So far, EPA, the states, and other
stakeholders have not been able to agree on criteria that state
voluntary cleanup programs should meet in exchange for a memorandum
of agreement with EPA. Such an agreement tells volunteers that if
they successfully complete a cleanup under the state's program, EPA
most likely would not have any further interest in the site. We know
from our work that state voluntary programs vary considerably in the
extent to which they would meet draft criteria that EPA proposed.\10
For example, some programs, partly as a means to achieve faster and
cheaper cleanups, relaxed requirements for community involvement,
cleanup oversight, and long-term monitoring of cleanups that did not
permanently remove contamination. EPA argues that even though it is
authorized to take enforcement action at voluntary cleanup sites, to
date, it has not done so; therefore, parties should not be concerned
about federal Superfund liability when undertaking cleanups under
state programs. Furthermore, EPA maintains that parties should not
fear being held further liable for cleanups if they complete thorough
cleanups under state programs. However, states argue that this is
not sufficient protection and that the parties in their voluntary
programs want full release from federal liability.
In terms of financial assistance, we found that federal agencies have
provided considerable assistance to support voluntary programs and
brownfield cleanup and redevelopment.\11 Agenciesprimarily EPA, the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Economic
Development Administration (EDA) within the Department of
Commerce--could track that they provided overall about $413 million
in assistance to voluntary programs and brownfields during fiscal
years 1997 and 1998, the time span of the Brownfield National
Partnership Action Agenda, compared to their plan to provide $469
million under this Partnership, as table 1 shows.
Table 1
A Comparison of Agencies' Planned
Assistance in the Partnership Agenda and
Reported Assistance Provided for
Brownfields During Fiscal Years 1997 and
1998
(Dollars in millions)
Planned assistance
for
brownfields as Reported
stated in assistance
the Partnership agencies provided
Federal agency Agenda for brownfields
------------------------------ ------------------ ------------------
EPA $125 $128
HUD 155 26
EDA 17 114
Other federal agencies\a 7 4
Subtotal $304 $272
HUD's loan guarantees\b $165 $141
======================================================================
Total $469 $413
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The other federal agencies are the Department of Commerce's
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; the departments of
Energy, Health and Human Services, and Transportation; and the
General Services Administration.
\b Under HUD's Section 108 loan guarantee program, the agency may
guarantee loans to local governments to conduct large-scale economic
revitalization projects. Local governments must pledge the other HUD
grants they have received, such as community development block
grants, as security when obtaining the loans.
Sources: Agencies' documentation supporting the Partnership Agenda
and their brownfield managers.
As a result of this federal financial assistance, agencies reported
that they are better coordinating their actions to address
brownfields, are more aware of each other's brownfield resources, and
can better direct communities to the right agency, depending on the
type of assistance the communities need. The most evident example of
improved coordination is through the Showcase Communities project
where agencies are providing 16 select communities with federal
funding and technical support for brownfield redevelopment. City
managers and professional associations representing state and local
governments we talked with said that they are more aware of available
federal resources and how to access them now. However, they also
noted that little has been done to reduce the burdensome
administrative processes involved in obtaining federal financial
assistance. While coordination has improved, the extent to which
this federal financial assistance will result in the long-term
economic outcomes set out for the Partnershipincreased jobs, private
investment in brownfields, and acres of green space protected from
developmentcannot be determined because federal agencies generally
do not have the comprehensive data necessary to measure these
outcomes.
--------------------
\8 Superfund: Proposals to Remove Barriers to Brownfield
Redevelopment (GAO/T-RCED-97-87, Mar. 4, 1997). Superfund:
Barriers to Brownfield Redevelopment (GAO/RCED-96-125, June 17,
1996).
\9 The Asset Conservation, Lender Liability, and Deposit Insurance
Protection Act of 1996, contained in the Omnibus Appropriations Act,
1997 (P.L. 104-208).
\10 Superfund: State Voluntary Programs Provide Incentives to
Encourage Cleanups (GAO/RCED-97-66, Apr. 9, 1997).
\11 Environmental Protection: Agencies Have Made Progress in
Implementing the Federal Brownfield Partnership Initiative
(GAO/RCED-99-86, Apr. 9, 1999).
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5.1
CONTACT AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:6
For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact David G.
Wood at (202) 512-6111. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony included Eileen R. Larence and Vincent P. Price.
*** End of document. ***