GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2000 SUPERFUND

Extent to Which Most

Reforms Have

Improved the Program

Is Unknown

GAO/RCED-00-118

Page 1 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Contents

Letter 5

Appendixes Appendix I: Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as Fundamental

and as Having Achieved Measurable Results 24

Appendix II: Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did Not

Classify as Both Fundamental and Measurable 78

Appendix III: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 110

Appendix IV: Comments From the Environmental Protection

Agency 113

Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 117

Tables Table 1: Fourteen Fundamental/Measurable Reforms and Their

Output and Outcome Measures 10

Table 2: Performance Goals and Measures for Encouraging the

Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution 24

Table 3: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting

“Enforcement First” 28

Table 4: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting Settlements

With SmallWaste Contributors 31

Table 5: Performance Goals and Measures for Reaching Agreements

With Prospective Purchasers 35

Table 6: Performance Goals and Measures for Providing

Compensation for Orphan Shares 39

Table 7: Performance Goals and Measures for Encouraging the

Use of Site-Specific Accounts 43

Table 8: Performance Goals and Measures for Revised Guidance on

Settlements With Miniscule Waste Contributors 47

Table 9: Performance Goals and Measures for Updating Remedy

Decisions 49

Table 10: Performance Goals and Measures for Increasing Construction

Completions 53

Table 11: Performance Goals and Measures for Establishing the

National Remedy Review Board 57

Table 12: Number of Board Reviews and Estimated Savings, Fiscal

Years 1996-2000 58

Table 13: Performance Goals and Measures for Using the Superfund

Accelerated Cleanup Model 61
Contents

Page 2 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Table 14: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting Community

Involvement 67

Table 15: Performance Goals and Measures for Funding Brownfield

Assessment Pilot Projects 74

Table 16: Six Fundamental Reforms That Lack Performance Measures 79

Table 17: List of 42 Reforms That EPA Did Not Specifically Identify as

Having Fundamentally Changed the Superfund Program 88

Figures Figure 1: Comparison of Four Regions’ Superfund Workloads and

Rates of Implementation for Three Reforms 15

Figure 2: Superfund Liability Cases Initiated Using Alternative

Dispute Resolution, Fiscal Years 1993-98 25

Figure 3: Each Region’s Percentage of National Superfund Cases in

Which Alternative Dispute Resolution Was Used, Fiscal

Years 1993-98 26

Figure 4: Percentage of New Cleanup Actions Funded by Responsible

Parties, Fiscal Years 1987-99 29

Figure 5: Average Percentage of New Cleanups Funded by

Responsible Parties, by Region, Compared With the

National Average, Fiscal Years 1995-99 30

Figure 6: Number of De Minimis Settlements, Fiscal Years 1987-99 32

Figure 7: Each Region’s Percentage of National De Minimis

Settlements, Fiscal Years 1987-99 33

Figure 8: Number of Prospective Purchaser Agreements Completed,

Fiscal Years 1989-99 36

Figure 9: Each Region’s Percentage of National Prospective

Purchaser Agreements, Fiscal Years 1989-99 37

Figure 10: Number of Orphan Share Compensation Offers, Fiscal

Years 1996-99 40

Figure 11: Each Region’s Percentage of National Orphan Share

Compensation Offers, Fiscal Years 1996-99 41

Figure 12: Number of Special Accounts Established, Fiscal

Years 1990-99 44

Figure 13: Each Region’s Percentage of National Special Accounts

Established, Fiscal Years 1990-99, Compared With Its

Percentage of National Superfund Sites 45

Figure 14: Number of Cleanup Remedy Updates per Year, Fiscal Years

1982-99 50

Figure 15: Each Region’s Percentage of National Cleanup Remedy

Updates, Fiscal Years 1996-99, Compared With Its

Percentage of National Superfund Sites 51
Contents

Page 3 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 16: Number of Sites Designated as Construction Complete,

Fiscal Years 1981-99 54

Figure 17: Each Region’s Percentage of National Construction

Complete Sites, Fiscal Years 1981-99, Compared With Its

Percentage of National Superfund Sites 55

Figure 18: Each Region’s Percentage of National Remedy Review

Board Reviews 58

Figure 19: Number of Non-Time-Critical Removals, Fiscal Years 1980-99 62

Figure 20: Each Region’s Percentage of National Non-Time-Critical

Removals, Fiscal Years 1992-99, Compared With Its

Percentage of National Superfund Sites 63

Figure 21: Each Region’s Percentage of National Integrated

Assessments, Fiscal Years 1994-99, Compared With Its

Percentage of National Superfund Sites 64

Figure 22: Community Advisory Groups Established, Through the

End of FiscalYear 1999 68

Figure 23: Technical Assistance Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years

1988-99 69

Figure 24: Technical Outreach Projects Initiated, Fiscal Years

1994-99 70

Figure 25: Each Region’s Percentage of National Community

Involvement Activities, Through the End of Fiscal

Year 1999 71

Abbreviations

CERCLA Comprehensive Emergency Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GAO General Accounting Office

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

NPL National Priorities List

OMB Office of Management and Budget
Page 4 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms
Page 5 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-284890 Letr

May 12, 2000

Congressional Requesters

For years, the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Superfund

program has been criticized for a number of problems. These have included

the pace and cost of cleaning up hazardous waste sites, the agency’s

approach for holding waste contributors liable for cleaning up sites, and

the overall effectiveness of the program. Responding to these criticisms, in

June 1993, EPA began implementing a series of 62 administrative reforms—

actions that it could take under its existing legal authority to improve the

program’s fairness, efficiency, and effectiveness. According to EPA, these

reforms have led to faster cleanups of more sites, thereby better protecting

public health and the environment. In addition, EPA maintains that the

reforms have promoted the selection of more cost-effective cleanup

methods and fairer enforcement of the law. The agency has publicly stated

that, because of the administrative reforms, comprehensive legislative

reform of the Superfund program is no longer necessary, although the

agency is willing to support certain targeted legislative changes.

As the Congress considers reauthorizing the Superfund law, it has been

debating the extent to which legislative changes to the program would be

desirable. A key factor in making this determination is the extent to which

EPA’s administrative reforms have addressed previously identified

weaknesses in the program. In this context, you requested that we review

EPA’s reforms to

• determine their demonstrated results and evaluate the performance

measures the agency uses to gauge these results and

• identify legislative changes to the program that either the agency or key

stakeholders—including, among others, officials representing parties

responsible for cleanups, environmental groups, and states—believe are

still necessary.

We obtained basic information from EPA for all 62 reforms, including their

characteristics, scope, implementation status, overall goals, and

performance measures, where available.We also conducted a more

detailed analysis of a subset of 14 reforms that the agency characterized as

having significantly and measurably improved the program. Appendix I

provides a summary of our analysis of each of the 14 reforms. Appendix II
B-284890

Page 6 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

provides a summary of the information we collected on the remaining 48

reforms. To determine the results of the reforms and any legislative

changes needed, we met with a judgmental sample of officials representing

key stakeholders affected by the Superfund program, including various

industry groups, state cleanup agencies, and environmental groups.

Officials representing industry and state cleanup agencies provided the

majority of the comments about the reforms. (App. III provides a listing of

the stakeholders we contacted and a more detailed discussion of our scope

and methodology.)

Results in Brief EPA claims and stakeholders agree that, in general, the Superfund program

has improved and the administrative reforms have collectively contributed

to this improvement. However, we determined that, for a majority of the 62

reforms, it is difficult for the agency to demonstrate the extent to which

they are working and have met the goals set for them—to make the

program faster, fairer, and more efficient. While maintaining that all the

reforms are important, EPA reform managers acknowledged that

• 42 reforms did not have a fundamental effect, andEPA could not easily

collect the data to measure the results achieved for most of them;

• 20 reforms had a fundamental effect; for these reforms,

• the agency’s performance measures demonstrated that 7 had

achieved benefits, such as dollar savings—EPA has saved $70 million

to date by identifying less costly cleanup alternatives—and greater

community involvement in cleanups;

• the agency’s measures counted the number of times that 7 were

implemented but did not demonstrate the results achieved; and

• the agency did not have measures to demonstrate the results that 6

had achieved.

Furthermore, EPA’s data for the 14 fundamental and measurable reforms

show two trends suggesting that the progress made to date may be eroding.

First, the implementation rates for almost half of these reforms peaked in

fiscal year 1997 and declined in subsequent years. Second, the

implementation rates for some reforms varied widely among the regions,

possibly indicating inconsistent application. Moreover, stakeholders

identified regional inconsistency as a problem with some reforms, and EPA

acknowledged that ensuring such consistency is a challenge. Therefore,

better measurement and oversight of the key reforms, as well as better

understanding of the reasons for regional variation in the implementation

of some, could help EPA obtain the maximum benefits possible from its
B-284890

Page 7 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

reform initiative. We are making recommendations that the agency take

such actions.

EPA and stakeholders agree that targeted legislative changes would do

more than the agency’s administrative reforms to protect certain parties

from the current Superfund law’s liability provisions; however, they

disagree on the extent of change. According to EPA, it is not seeking any

legislation to codify its reforms, but it would support legislative proposals

to limit liability for some parties that stakeholders have identified. These

parties include prospective purchasers of contaminated property and

current owners who are not responsible for or aware of contamination on

their property. EPA does not see a need for other legislative changes, such

as limiting liability for small businesses, because it believes its reforms

have created the tools needed to provide relief for these parties.

Background 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. EPA

places sites that it determines may need long-term cleanup actions, called

remedial actions, on its National Priorities List (NPL). For sites needing

cleanup, EPA or private parties conduct studies to assess the risks and

select, design, and construct cleanup remedies. CERCLA authorizes EPA to

compel the parties responsible for the contaminated sites to clean them up.

Under CERCLA, any responsible party at a site can, under some

circumstances, be held responsible for the entire cost of the cleanup.1

Responsible parties can, in turn, sue other parties to recoup some of their

own expenses. Through this process, parties can incur high legal costs. The

law also allows EPA to pay for cleanups and seek reimbursement from the

parties, and it established a trust fund, financed primarily by taxes on crude

oil and chemicals, to help EPA pay for its cleanups and related activities.

The Superfund program’s authorization and the authority for the taxes

financing the trust fund expired in 1995 and have not been renewed. The

Congress continues to fund the program through annual appropriations

from the Superfund trust fund and general revenues.

1

Responsible parties include present (and some former) site owners, operators,

transporters, and persons who arrange for the treatment or disposal of hazardous

substances.
B-284890

Page 8 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Meanwhile, to address concerns about the high costs and long duration of

cleanups, EPA, beginning in 1993, publicly announced three separate

rounds of administrative reforms—actions it could take within its existing

legislative authority. These include

• 17 reforms announced in June 1993,

• 19 reforms announced in February 1995, and

• 26 reforms announced in October 1995.

These 62 reforms were intended to cover a range of activities, such as (1)

providing liability relief to certain parties, including contributors of small

volumes of waste or innocent landowners and purchasers, (2) selecting

more technologically advanced and cost-effective cleanup remedies, (3)

providing funds to assess brownfield sites to promote their economic

redevelopment,2 (4) providing technical assistance so that communities

and tribes located near sites can better participate in cleanup decisions,

and (5) providing for an expanded role for states and tribes in the

performance of the program.

In 1997, we reviewed the 45 reforms from the second and third rounds and

reported that EPA regarded 25 of them, or 56 percent, as fundamental

changes to the Superfund program but could quantify accomplishments for

only 6 of them, or 13 percent.3 EPA stated that, overall, it did not need

additional legislative authority to achieve the reforms’ goals but that

targeted new authority would enhance their implementation.

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act)

requires that agencies, among other actions, (1) establish strategic plans

containing general goals for the agencies and (2) prepare annual

performance plans that establish goals and measures to assess the results

of individual programs. Therefore, in response to requirements of the Act,

EPA established three general goals for the reforms—faster, fairer, and

cost-effective cleanups—and performance measures for a number of the

reforms, all of which support the agency’s strategic and annual goals for the

Superfund program overall. The performance measures for the reforms are

2

EPA defines brownfields as abandoned or underused facilities, usually in industrial or

commercial areas, where redevelopment is hampered by real or perceived environmental

contamination.

3

Superfund: Information on EPA’s Administrative Reforms (GAO/RCED-97-174R, May 30,

1997).
B-284890

Page 9 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

intended to demonstrate progress toward achievement of their goals,

which include, among others, increasing the number of sites where the

construction of the cleanup remedy has been completed and maximizing

the participation in cleanups of the parties responsible for contamination at

sites.

EPA Does Not Have

Performance Measures

to Link Most Reforms

to Improvements in the

Program

EPA claims that as a result of the administrative reforms, the program is

fairer and cleanups are 20 percent faster and cheaper.4 The stakeholders we

contacted also commented that overall, after 20 years, they have a better

working relationship with EPA, the agency is fairer in dealing with

responsible parties, and it is easier to use remedies that are, in their

opinion, more reasonable and cost-effective. But stakeholders also had

questions about the extent to which some of the administrative reforms

had really improved the program. We reviewed EPA’ s performance

measures for each reform and found that the agency has more measures in

place since our last review, and for a small number of reforms, the

measures demonstrate results such as cost savings. However, EPA cannot

directly link the majority of its reforms to improvements in the program.

According to EPA reform managers, all 62 reforms are important and have

helped to improve the program, but 42 of them involve activities that (1)

did not have a fundamental impact on the program and (2) could not easily

be measured for any results achieved. EPA reform managers identified the

remaining 20 reforms as activities that have had a fundamental effect on

the program. EPA has established performance measures for 14 of them—

an increase since our prior review, when EPA had measures for 6 of its key

reforms. As table 1 illustrates, EPA’s measures for all 14 reforms track the

number of times they were implemented, but measures for only 7 reforms

demonstrate how they have improved the program.

4

GAO and EPA have, in the past, disagreed on whether the methodology that EPA uses as a

basis for saying that the program is cleaning up sites faster is appropriate (see Superfund:

Times to Assess and Clean Up Hazardous Waste Sites Exceed Program Goals (GAO/TRCED-97-69, Feb. 13, 1997), Superfund: Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of

Hazardous Waste Sites (GAO/RCED-97-20, Mar. 31, 1997), and Superfund: Duration of the

Cleanup Process at Hazardous Waste Sites on the National Priorities List (GAO/RCED-97-

238R, Sept. 24, 1997)). We have not assessed the agency’s estimate of cost savings.
B-284890

Page 10 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Table 1: Fourteen Fundamental/Measurable Reforms and Their Output and Outcome Measures

Fundamental/measurable

reform

Year of

reform

Measures that count frequency of

implementation (output)

Measures that demonstrate results

(outcome)

Encourage greater use of

alternative tools for resolving

liability disputes

1993a EPA has used this tool at 9-24 sites each

year.

The number of settlements that EPA

reached peaked in fiscal year 1997 and

declined slightly the following year. Data for

fiscal year 1999 were not available.

Promote “enforcement first”—

getting private parties to fund most

of the cleanups

1993 a EPA maintains that responsible parties

have funded about 70-84 percent of

cleanups since fiscal year 1992, the year

before EPA announced the reform.

Promote more settlements to

provide liability protection for de

minimis contributors (parties that

contribute small amounts of

waste)

1993 a EPA has achieved more settlements after

the reform (33-105 each year) than before

the reform.

The number of settlements EPA achieved

peaked in fiscal year 1997, significantly

declined in fiscal year 1998, and only

slightly increased in fiscal year 1999.

Negotiate agreements to provide

liability protection for prospective

purchasers of contaminated

property

1995 a EPA has signed 16-28 agreements each

year since the reform.

The number of agreements EPA achieved

peaked in fiscal year 1997 and has been

declining over the past 2 years.

EPA facilitated the purchase of 1,500

acres of contaminated property and the

redevelopment of hundreds of

thousands of adjacent acres.

Provide compensation for cleanup

costs attributable to insolvent and

defunct parties (orphan shares)

1995 EPA has made from 20-30 compensation

offers each year, for a total of $175.3

million.

EPA has reached agreement on a total of

47 of these offers, for $88 million.

Encourage the use of special

accounts for site-specific cleanup

costs

1995 a EPA has set up 18-33 accounts each year

since the reform, making over $570 million

available for site-specific cleanups.

EPA will measure the number and amounts

of disbursements from these acounts

beginning in fiscal year 2000.

The number of accounts EPA established

peaked in fiscal year 1997 and has been

declining over the past 2 years.

Continued
B-284890

Page 11 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Revise guidance on liability

protection settlements for de

micromis parties (parties that

contribute miniscule amounts of

waste)

1995 EPA has made a total of 16 settlements.b

Update cleanup remedy decisions

to take advantage of new science

and technology

1995 a EPA began updating remedies as early as

1983 and has updated 61-85 remedies

each year since fiscal year 1995, the year

before it announced this reform.

The number of remedies EPA updated

peaked in fiscal year 1997, declined in

fiscal year 1998, and remained at about

that level in fiscal year 1999.

EPA estimates the net future cost

savings from the updates conducted

during fiscal years 1996-99 could total

$1.3 billion.c

Increase the number of sites

where the construction of all

cleanup remedies has been

completed

1993 a EPA has completed the construction of all

remedies at 61-88 sites each year since

fiscal year 1992, the year before it

announced this reform.

Establish the National Remedy

Review Board to review high-cost

proposed remedies

1995 EPA has reviewed 9-11 cleanup proposals

each year.

EPA estimates that its reviews have

saved a total of $70.7 million to date.

Use the Superfund Accelerated

Cleanup Model (which allows the

use of shorter-term cleanup

actions, called removals, and

combined site assessment

activities)

1993 a EPA has accomplished 12-27 non-timecritical removals each year since fiscal year

1992, the year before it announced this

reform.

EPA accomplished a total of 442 integrated

assessments and 405 combined

assessments through fiscal year 1999.

EPA estimates that it saves, on

average, about $2,500 and 11 months

by combining assessments at a site.

Fund brownfield assessment pilot

projects

1995 a EPA funded a total of 305 assessment

grants through October 1999.

EPA estimates that over 1,900

properties have been assessed, 120

have been cleaned up, and 169 have

been redeveloped and that over 5,800

jobs and about $1.9 billion of private

dollars have been leveraged at sites

assessed with EPA funds.

Establish community advisory

groups

1995 a EPA has helped to form 3-16 community

advisory groups each year.

The number of groups EPA established

peaked in fiscal year 1997 and has been

declining over the past 2 years.

EPA surveyed members of communities

near 7 Superfund sites and determined

that 47 percent believe that EPA is

effectively involving them in the

Superfund process.

Fundamental/measurable

reform

Year of

reform

Measures that count frequency of

implementation (output)

Measures that demonstrate results

(outcome)

Continued from Previous Page
B-284890

Page 12 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

a

This was not a new activity, but EPA reemphasized or revised it as part of the agency’s administrative

reform effort.

b

According to EPA, the fact that so few parties have asked for a settlement means that such parties are

no longer being threatened with lawsuits from larger parties for a share of the cleanup costs.

Therefore, in EPA’s view, the reform is a success.

c

We did not verify the accuracy of EPA’s savings estimate; a 1997 industry study cautioned that these

savings may be overstated.

Source: GAO’s presentation of information from EPA.

EPA’s outcome measures demonstrate positive results for seven reforms.

The measures indicate that two reforms have helped the agency move

toward its goal of more cost-effective cleanups by achieving significant

dollar savings on the types of remedies selected at sites. The measures also

demonstrate that five other reforms have achieved positive results, such as

an increase in the number of brownfield sites assessed (since assessment

leads to cleanup and redevelopment) and feelings of greater participation

in cleanup decisions expressed by some communities that received grants,

technical assistance, or outreach from EPA.

For the seven reforms that do not have outcome measures, it is difficult for

EPA to determine how well they are working, whether they need revision

to become more effective, and whether they are achieving their intended

results—faster, fairer, and cheaper cleanups. For example, it is difficult for

the agency to determine from its performance measures whether using

alternative dispute resolution has led to settlements with responsible

parties that are fairer, take less time, and reduce legal costs. It is also

difficult for the agency to determine, just by counting how many times a

reform has been implemented each year, the extent to which the reform

has become a routine part of the overall program.

Promote early and more effective

community involvement (primarily

through technical assistance

grants and outreach projects)

1993 EPA has awarded 4-37 grants each year

since fiscal year 1988 and has conducted

7-46 technical outreach projects each year.

The number of grants awarded since the

reform peaked in fiscal year 1995, declined

the next year, and has remained at about

that level.

The number of outreach projects

established peaked in fiscal year 1998 and

declined in fiscal year 1999.

EPA surveyed members of communities

near 7 Superfund sites and determined

that 47 percent believe that EPA is

effectively involving them in the

Superfund process.

Fundamental/measurable

reform

Year of

reform

Measures that count frequency of

implementation (output)

Measures that demonstrate results

(outcome)

Continued from Previous Page
B-284890

Page 13 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

EPA reform managers acknowledged that it is very difficult to set

performance measures that directly demonstrate the extent to which the 14

reforms are achieving their goals. The managers pointed out that a number

of reforms, such as those addressing the remedies selected at a site, work

together to cumulatively benefit the program and the agency cannot

separately measure the contribution of each reform. The managers further

acknowledged that factors other than the reforms themselves likely

contributed to the benefits the agency attributes to some of the reforms.

For example, an agencywide policy on the use of alternative dispute

resolution across all EPA programs, not the Superfund reform alone,

helped to increase the use of this technique, and the agency cannot

measure the success of this reform alone.

In a November 1997 internal review of the reforms, EPA acknowledged

limitations in its performance measures and agreed that it needed to do

more than count how many times a reform has been implemented to

determine its results. Furthermore, when the agency has tried to improve

its evaluation of a reform, its efforts have paid off. Specifically, it has

learned in some instances that a reform was not working as well as

intended and needed to be improved. For example, in 1999, EPA completed

the first phase of an ongoing effort to measure the effects of its community

involvement reforms. One of its findings was that only about half of those

surveyed considered the agency effective in involving their communities in

the Superfund process, leading the agency to conclude that it needed to

improve its implementation of these reforms. To its credit,EPA is taking

actions to evaluate the performance of the reforms overall, as well as of

certain individual reforms. The agency is about to update its 1997 internal

review of the reforms to develop a strategy to improve their

implementation. In addition, it is currently compiling the results of a survey

it conducted with 36 property buyers to determine how effectively its

agreements with these buyers to limit their liability under Superfund law

have helped to stimulate the reuse of their properties.

The agency recognizes that to fully evaluate the results of reforms, it needs

input from responsible parties. One way of obtaining this input is by

surveying parties on the reforms. However, under the Paperwork

Reduction Act, EPA cannot survey more than nine members of the public

without the approval of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In

1999, EPA asked OMB for general authority to conduct up to 15 separate

surveys of responsible parties’ experiences with the reforms. OMB denied

the request, in part because it did not specify howEPA planned to collect

and analyze the data. However, OMB encouraged EPA to resubmit its
B-284890

Page 14 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

request after it had developed a statistical data collection and analysis plan,

among other things. EPA managers said they are trying to decide how to

respond to OMB’s suggestions, given the agency’s limited resources for

contractors to perform surveys and competing priorities for these

resources. During March of this year, however, EPA did obtain general

agencywide authority from OMB to conduct customer satisfaction surveys.

This authority may be sufficient for the reform managers to survey

responsible parties on the reforms.

EPA’s data on the 14 reforms also showed two trends indicative of limits on

the progress achieved to date and possibly in the future, namely, thatEPA

may not be sustaining its implementation of the reforms and that the

regions may be inconsistent in their use of some reforms. First, EPA’s data

on the number of times the 14 reforms have been implemented showed that

for almost half of the reforms, implementation peaked in fiscal year 1997

and then declined in subsequent years. This suggests that the regions may

not be sustaining the level of implementation achieved after the reforms

were announced and may need additional support or incentives to sustain

their implementation. Alternatively, other factors may be mitigating the

effects of the reforms over time. EPA reform managers acknowledged that

the implementation of some reforms may naturally decline at some time in

the future, when EPA has finished constructing most remedies and is likely

to be bringing fewer sites into the program.We acknowledged in two 1999

reports that the construction of most remedies at sites currently in the

program would be completed by 2005 and that, because states are now

taking on more of the cleanup workload, fewer sites may come into the

program in the future.5 However, EPA cleanup managers stated that these

possible future trends for the program do not explain the declines in

implementation that we identified for fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

Second, EPA’s data also showed that the regions varied widely in the

number of times they used most of the reforms, possibly indicating

inconsistency in their use of the reforms. According to the data, all regions

appear to be giving priority to completing the construction of cleanup

remedies. In part, this is because EPA headquarters has made this a top

priority for the Superfund program, has monitored the regions’

implementation closely, and this past year for the first time made mid-year

5

Superfund: Progress Made by EPA and Other Federal Agencies to Resolve Program

Management Issues (GAO/RCED-99-111, Apr. 29, 1999), and Superfund: Half the Sites Have

All Cleanup Remedies in Place or Completed (GAO/RCED-99-245, July 30, 1999).
B-284890

Page 15 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

regional budget adjustments to reward the regions that were achieving this

goal. However, the data for other reforms do not appear to show consistent

levels of implementation across the regions. For example, regions II and V

have relatively large portions of the overall Superfund workload to

manage—17 and 20 percent, respectively.Yet Region V implemented a

significantly higher portion of the total non-time-critical removals and

combined site assessments than Region II, as figure 1 illustrates. Likewise,

regions II and V used special accounts and removals less frequently or as

often as regions VII and VIII, yet these latter two regions had much smaller

portions of the Superfund workload. Such regional variation could indicate

that certain regions are not realizing the potential savings in time and costs

expected from the reforms.

Figure 1: Comparison of Four Regions’ Superfund Workloads and Rates of Implementation for Three Reforms

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

II

17

9

2 1

20

10

18

53

5

15

25

4 3

9

16

0

EPA regions

Percentage of national Superfund sites

Percentage of national special accounts

Percentage of national non-time critical removals

Percentage of national combined assessments

Percentage

V VII VIII
B-284890

Page 16 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

EPA reform managers pointed out that factors other than the sizes of the

regions’ Superfund workloads may account for the variation and are

beyond the regions’ control. For example, for several reforms, such as

those to enhance community involvement in cleanups, the regions can

offer the reforms, but it is up to stakeholders to pursue them. Or, one

region may have fewer sites involving multiple responsible parties, so that

region may have fewer opportunities to use some of the reforms aimed at

achieving faster, cheaper settlements. However, without determining why

such significant variations exist among the regions, EPA cannot be sure

that its reforms are being used to the maximum extent possible.

Furthermore, EPA reform managers acknowledged that ensuring regional

consistency is a constant challenge for the agency and that some regions

were quicker than others to embrace the reforms. In fact, in a 1997 review

of the reforms, EPA itself identified the need to ensure better commitment

to the reforms. The EPA managers noted that differences in the

organizational structures and leadership of the regions could lead to

inconsistencies in implementing the reforms. Likewise, industry and state

cleanup agency officials expressed concerns that some regions, and even

cleanup managers within regions, are less willing than others to implement

certain reforms. These officials felt, therefore, that they could not realize

the full benefits of the reforms, such as lowering litigation and cleanup

costs.

EPA reform managers in headquarters and in the two regions we contacted

outlined EPA’s current methods to help ensure that the regions implement

the reforms. These include the use of headquarters liaisons to the regions

who monitor the regions’ progress towards annual targets—the number of

times the regions implement certain reforms—and conduct regional visits,

conference calls, and training sessions to discuss the reforms. EPA has also

issued new or updated guidance on the use of some of the reforms. By

better targeting these methods, EPA could more fully achieve the reforms’

goals across the regions.

EPA and Stakeholders

Support Legislative

Changes to Varying

Degrees

EPA and some stakeholders we contacted—officials representing industry,

state cleanup agencies, and environmental and community groups—agreed

on the benefits of establishing some of the administrative reforms in law

but disagreed on the need to do so for other reforms. More specifically, the

stakeholders preferred that reforms intended to provide liability protection

to certain parties, such as prospective property purchasers, be established

in law. Stakeholders worried that otherwise, EPA regions had too much
B-284890

Page 17 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

discretion to decide which parties would benefit and affected parties did

not have a firm basis to challenge these decisions. EPA managers explained

that the agency would support legislation, if proposed, to provide liability

relief for such parties but that the agency itself is not currently seeking any

legislation to codify its reforms. According to EPA, it would support such

proposals because they would (1) give such parties greater assurance that

they would not be held liable for the costs of a cleanup under Superfund,

(2) reduce the parties’ legal costs, and (3) promote the development of

brownfields, since the fear of being held liable under current Superfund

law can deter parties from pursuing brownfield cleanups and

redevelopment.

Stakeholders and EPA both favored legislation that would provide liability

protection for

• prospective purchasers of contaminated property,

• landowners who were not responsible for or aware of contamination on

their property (innocent landowners),

• owners of property contiguous to a contaminated site, and

• small municipal waste generators and transporters.

Both EPA and the officials representing industry would also like the agency

to be able to compensate parties more extensively for the shares of cleanup

costs attributable to insolvent or defunct parties as a means of promoting

faster and less costly settlements. However, EPA cleanup managers said

that the agency could not afford to do this without obtaining additional

funding authority for this purpose from the Congress. The managers said

the agency continues to request additional funds for the Superfund

program that would allow it to devote more resources to covering such

shares of cleanup costs—$150 million in fiscal year 2001—but have not yet

obtained such funds.

EPA and stakeholders did not agree on the need for other legislative

changes. For example, EPA did not agree with the executive director of the

organization representing small businesses on the need for further

legislative authority to protect such businesses. The agency maintains that

its administrative reforms aimed at removing small waste contributors

from lengthy settlement negotiations, protecting them from litigation, and

adjusting their settlement costs on the basis of their ability to pay provided

these businesses with ample relief. The executive director acknowledged

that these reforms were helpful but said that some member businesses still

report incurring high legal costs that threaten their financial viability.
B-284890

Page 18 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Therefore, these businesses would like the liability protection and other

benefits of the reforms established in law to make them less discretionary

and further reduce costs.

EPA and stakeholders also differ on how much liability relief should be

extended to parties that conduct cleanups under state programs. In

general, officials representing industry and the states explained that the

fear of being held liable under the current Superfund law deters parties that

would voluntarily clean up sites under state programs, especially

brownfield sites.6 EPA has maintained that it cannot provide parties that

clean up a site under a state program with full relief from Superfund

liability. But the agency can provide these parties with assurances that it no

longer has any interest in the site unless it presents an imminent and

substantial endangerment to public health or the environment in the future.

The industry and state officials believe that this qualified relief from

liability is not sufficient to overcome barriers to cleanups and that a

legislative solution may be necessary.

Several bills that would exempt various parties from liability and therefore

would limit the potential sources of funding for cleanup costs have been

introduced in the Congress in recent years. While some proposed bills to

reauthorize the Superfund program would reinstate the expired Superfund

taxes, others would not. The Congress has not passed any of these bills.

Conclusions EPA claims and stakeholders agree that the Superfund program is working

better and that, at least collectively, the administrative reforms have played

some part in this improvement, but the agency has not measured the

impact of most reforms. This limits the agency’s ability to determine how

well the reforms are working and where it may need to adjust its reform

efforts. EPA’s ability to better measure the results of its reforms could be

further limited if the agency does not obtain important data and input from

the responsible parties that are conducting a majority of cleanups, as well

as other key stakeholders, such as community and environmental groups.

Furthermore, without sustaining the most important reforms and ensuring

that all regions are implementing them to the maximum extent possible,

the agency is not assured that it is fully achieving potential benefits, such as

saving significant cleanup dollars and cleaning up sites more quickly.

6

State voluntary cleanup programs offer parties incentives, such as state liability protection,

to voluntarily address waste sites.
B-284890

Page 19 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Therefore, as the agency updates its internal review of the reforms and

develops a reform strategy, it has the opportunity to consider ways that it

could better (1) measure the results of the most important reforms and (2)

verify that it does not have a problem with inconsistent regional

implementation for some reforms.

Recommendations To achieve the maximum benefits possible from the Superfund

administrative reforms, the Administrator, EPA, should direct the Assistant

Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response, who manages the

Superfund program, to address, in EPA’s internal review and update of the

reforms, ways in which the agency can

• cost-effectively obtain additional data—for those reforms with the

greatest potential for improving the program—that would help it better

assess the reforms’ results, including continuing to pursue authority

from OMB to solicit input from private parties and other key

stakeholders on the success of the reforms, and

• target incentives or other strategies as necessary to sustain the

implementation of some reforms and better understand whether

regional variation in their use reflects inconsistencies that need to be

addressed.

Agency Comments We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for its review and

comment. EPA’s comments are reproduced in appendix IV. EPA said that it

would evaluate our recommendations and include them in its Superfund

reforms strategy, as appropriate. However, EPA had three principal

concerns about our findings. While we acknowledge the agency’s position

on these issues, as discussed individually below, we continue to believe

that our findings were soundly developed and fairly presented. Therefore,

we did not change our report in response to these concerns. Specifically:

• The agency regards all 62 reforms as important and believes that they

have improved the program, even if the precise results of many cannot

be measured. EPA said that it had designated 20 of the 62 reforms as

fundamental because they had the biggest impact, individually, on the

program, but that many of the remaining 42 reforms work together with

the fundamental reforms to improve specific aspects of the program,

such as remedy selection. We had already noted in the report that the

agency considered all reforms to be important and beneficial to the
B-284890

Page 20 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

program and that the agency believed certain reforms worked together

to improve the program, even though the agency could not measure

their individual contributions to the improvements.

• The agency disagreed with our finding that several of the reforms it

designated as fundamental have not produced measurable outcomes.

The agency also stated that it is difficult to measure progress toward

certain goals, such as greater fairness in the program and lower

litigation costs, but there are a number of indicators of this progress. In

addition, EPA said that it has been unable to obtain the authority from

OMB to survey private parties on the reforms’ accomplishments. In

assessing these accomplishments, we asked the agency to provide us

with any data that it had to demonstrate results.We took these data and

used two criteria to designate whether the data represented output or

outcome performance measures: (1) the standard definition under the

Results Act that an output measure counts activities undertaken while

an outcome measure assesses the results of a program activity

compared to its intended purpose, and (2) the extent to which the

performance measure directly assessed progress toward or

achievement of EPA’s stated goals for a reform. Subsequently, we found

that our designation of EPA’s performance measures as measuring either

activities conducted or results achieved was consistent with the way the

agency itself characterized them in its issued work plan for Superfund,

generated in response to the Results Act. Furthermore, we had already

acknowledged in the report some of the difficulties the agency faced in

measuring progress toward the reforms’ goals and attempting to obtain

authority to ask stakeholders for important data that the agency needed

to measure the reforms’ results.

• The agency maintains that it has sustained a high level of commitment

to implementing the reforms. Furthermore, the agency stated that the

trend data cited in the report indicating possible declines and regional

variation in the implementation of some reforms over the past several

years do not demonstrate a decrease in the agency’s commitment but

could reflect the impact of other factors. These include factors such as

annual differences in the types and number of cleanup activities being

conducted in a particular region, or an overall decline in the cleanup

workload as more sites progress through the cleanup process. These

factors could also include ones that the agency cannot control, such as

different levels of interest among stakeholders in using community

advisory groups or technical assistance grants. We had already

acknowledged in the report that the trends showing variation in

implementing the reforms could be due to a number of factors. One of

these factors was not, however, an overall decline in the cleanup
B-284890

Page 21 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

workload. As we point out, the agency itself had admitted that such a

decline could affect reform accomplishments in the future, but does not

explain the decrease in accomplishments over the past several years.

Furthermore, our point is that without good performance data, the

agency cannot know if certain trends indicate implementation problems

that the agency needs to address or are due to factors outside the

agency’s control. We showed that when the agency has obtained data

from stakeholders on the reforms’ accomplishments, it has learned

valuable information about implementation problems and taken

subsequent action to address them. Therefore, we believe that by

focusing on the most critical reforms and significant variation in their

implementation and verifying the root cause of this variation, the agency

could achieve similar improvements in these reforms.

In addition to these overall comments, EPA provided technical and

clarifying comments that we incorporated in the report as appropriate.

Unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of

this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will

send copies of the report to appropriate congressional committees and

interested members of the Congress. We will also send copies of this report

to the Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator, EPA; and the Honorable

Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget, and we will make

copies available to others on request. Please contact me at (202) 512-6111 if

you or your staff have any questions. Key contributors to this report are

listed in appendix V.

Peter F. Guerrero

Director, Environmental Protection

Issues
B-284890

Page 22 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

List of Requesters

The Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.

Chairman, Committee on Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Michael G. Oxley

Chairman, Subcommittee on Finance

and Hazardous Materials

Committee on Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable Sherwood L. Boehlert

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water

Resources and Environment

Committee on Transportation

and Infrastructure

House of Representatives
Page 23 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms
Page 24 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as Apendxies

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results ApendxIi

This appendix summarizes our analysis of the 14 administrative reforms

that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) characterized as having

significantly and measurably improved the Superfund program. For each of

the reforms, our analysis considers the performance goals and measures

and the results identified by EPA, our own and stakeholders’ observations,

and EPA’s and others’ views on the need for any additional authority to

implement the reform.

Encourage Greater Use

of Alternative Dispute

Resolution

In 1993, EPA initiated a reform to encourage parties at Superfund sites to

use alternative methods for resolving disputes over liability for cleanup

costs. These methods—used by the agency since 1987—include employing

neutral parties to organize negotiations to allocate cleanup costs among all

involved parties and facilitate settlement deliberations. EPA initiated

training for staff and allocated funds to its regions for alternative dispute

resolution programs. Table 2 shows EPA’s performance goals and measures

for this reform.

Table 2: Performance Goals and Measures for Encouraging the Use of Alternative Dispute Resolution

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA

Figure 2 shows how many Superfund liability cases EPA initiated each year

using alternative dispute resolution.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Encourage greater use of

alternative dispute resolution

in settling disagreements over

Superfund liability

Increase program’s fairness

Reduce litigation and

associated costs

None Number of Superfund enforcement

cases/sites using alternative dispute

resolution: 133 since 1987

Percentage of cases using alternative

dispute resolution that reach settlement:

78-80 percent
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 25 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 2: Superfund Liability Cases Initiated Using Alternative Dispute Resolution, Fiscal Years 1993-98

Note: Fiscal year 1998 was the last year for which EPA was able to provide complete data on this

reform.

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

EPA’s data for fiscal years 1993-98 indicate that all regions have used

alternative dispute resolution techniques in resolving Superfund disputes

(see fig. 3).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

9

22

24

16

10

17

Fiscal year

Number of cases initiated
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 26 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 3: Each Region’s Percentage of National Superfund Cases in Which

Alternative Dispute Resolution Was Used, Fiscal Years 1993-98

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects: The data show that the use of alternative dispute

resolution techniques has increased since the reform was initiated.

However, the use of these techniques decreased in fiscal year 1998. The

data are insufficient to determine if this is a long-term trend.

• Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers acknowledge that

other initiatives—including an agencywide policy and several laws1

authorizing the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques—have

contributed to the greater use of these techniques in Superfund cases,

but they cannot isolate the effects of either the reform or these other

factors.

• Regional implementation: The data show variations among the regions

in implementing this reform that do not correspond with differences in

the sizes of their Superfund workloads. According to EPA reform

managers, one possible explanation for these variations is that not all

0

5

10

15

20

25

I II III IV V VI VII X VIII IX

21

9

19

11

10

3

5

11

7

2

EPA regions

Percentage

1

Including, among others, the Alternative Dispute Resolution Act of 1998 (P.L. 105-315) and

the Civil Justice Reform Act (P.L. 101-650).
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 27 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

sites are appropriate for the use of alternative dispute resolution

techniques. However, the agency cannot determine the number of sites

that might be appropriate for using the techniques.

• Performance measurement:

• Counting the number of times alternative dispute resolution is used

does not directly demonstrate that the program is fairer and that

litigation and its associated costs have decreased. Nevertheless, the

increased use of alternative dispute resolution could imply that the

program is “fairer” than it would have been otherwise because all

parties are satisfied with how cleanup costs are allocated under the

agreements reached.

• EPA does not (1) track litigation costs; (2) have access to this

information; and (3) according to EPA reform managers, have

authority to require private parties to provide it.

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

EPA reform managers do not believe that the agency needs any additional

legal authority to pursue this reform.

Promote “Enforcement

First”

In 1990, EPA began to emphasize more vigorous Superfund enforcement to

increase the proportion of cleanup actions funded by responsible parties.

EPA included “enforcement first” among the administrative improvements

it announced in fiscal year 1993. Under this initiative, EPA seeks

commitments from responsible parties to fund and perform at least 70

percent of all new remedial action work at Superfund sites. Table 3 shows

EPA’s performance goals and measures for this reform.
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 28 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Table 3: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting “Enforcement First”

a

According to EPA, these measures track and/or project the number of actions that occur throughout

the year (accomplishments) and are used to evaluate the program’s progress in support of the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA or the Results Act).

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA

Figure 4 shows the percentage of new cleanup actions funded by

responsible parties during fiscal years 1987-99.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Emphasize enforcement to

encourage cleanups by

responsible parties

Increase program’s fairness

Expedite cleanups

Increase the proportion of

cleanups funded by

responsible parties

None Percentage of total cleanup actions

funded by responsible parties:

About 70 percent as of fiscal year

1999 (GPRAa measure)

Amount committed by parties

toward cleanups since 1980: $16.2

billion
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 29 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 4: Percentage of New Cleanup Actions Funded by Responsible Parties, FiscalYears 1987-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

Figure 5 shows, for each EPA region, the average percentage of new

cleanups started by responsible parties during fiscal years 1995-99,

compared with the national average of 70 percent.

0

20

30

10

40

50

60

70

80

90

1987 1988 1989 1994 1997 1998 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1999

38

81

62

72

79

84

57

Enforcement

emphasis began

1990

Reform announced

6/93

71 70 72

75

46

32

Fiscal year

Percentage
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 30 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 5: Average Percentage of New Cleanups Funded by Responsible Parties, by

Region, Compared With the National Average, Fiscal Years 1995-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects: EPA has, over time, increased the proportion of new

cleanup actions financed by responsible parties and, in recent years,

maintained this proportion at about 70 percent or higher. Both EPA

reform managers and industry representatives credit the reform with

these results.

• Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers identified no other

factors as contributing to the results credited to this reform.

• Regional implementation: Regional data indicate that the regions vary in

the extent to which they are obtaining responsible parties’ commitments

to fund new cleanup activities initiated each year. For each region,

responsible parties’ rate of participation in cleanups varies from year to

year, ranging from 0 to 100 percent. These variations do not correspond

with differences in the sizes of the regions’ Superfund workloads.

• Performance measurement: Measuring the rate at which responsible

parties pay for cleanups does not directly measure progress toward or

achievement of this reform’s goal of increasing the program’s fairness.

Nevertheless, ensuring that responsible parties are now paying for a

larger portion of the Superfund cleanup work than they did earlier in the

0

20

40

60

80

100

I II III IV V VI VII X VIII IX

EPA regions

Percentage

62 63

82

91

71 68

60

63

81

61

National

Average: 70
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 31 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

program could imply that the program is “fairer” than it would have

been without the reform.

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

EPA reform managers do not believe that the agency needs any additional

legal authority to pursue this reform.

Promote More

Settlements for Small

Waste Contributors

In 1993, EPA began to emphasize efforts to resolve the liability of de

minimis parties as early as possible in the Superfund process. According to

EPA, de minimis parties are those whose contributions of hazardous waste

to a Superfund site are minimal in volume and toxicity. With this reform,

EPA simplified its requirements for determining parties’ eligibility for such

settlements, streamlined the settlement process, and issued guidance to its

regions encouraging these settlements. Table 4 shows EPA’s performance

goals and measures for this reform.

Table 4: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting Settlements With Small Waste Contributors

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA

Figure 6 shows the number of de minimis settlements per year during fiscal

years 1987-99.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Encourage more liability

settlements with parties that

have contributed small amounts

of waste at a site (de minimis

parties)

Reduce litigation and

associated costs

Increase program’s fairness

Encourage more, early, and

expedited settlements

None Number of settlements with de minimis

parties: 465 as of the end of fiscal year

1999 (GPRA measure)

Number of parties released from the

Superfund liability system: Over

21,000 as of the end of fiscal year

1999
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 32 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 6: Number of De Minimis Settlements, Fiscal Years 1987-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

EPA’s data show that all regions have completed de minimis settlements

(see fig. 7).

0

40

60

20

80

100

120

1987 1988 1989 1994 1997 1998 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1999

2

39

17

28

34

42

19

Reform announced

6/93

45

105

33

66

22

13

Fiscal year

Number of settlements
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 33 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 7: Each Region’s Percentage of National De Minimis Settlements, Fiscal

Years 1987-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects:

• Although the number of de minimis settlements has generally

increased above prereform levels, this number has fluctuated

significantly from year to year since the reform began. The number of

settlements EPA achieved peaked in fiscal year 1997 and

subsequently declined. Although the data are insufficient to

determine if this is a long-term trend, these fluctuations could

suggest that EPA may not be sustaining the implementation of this

reform.

• EPA reform managers stated that the number of de minimis

settlements for fiscal year 1997 is unusually high because (1) 42 of

these settlements involved parties at a single site who each wanted

an individual settlement and (2) 25 settlements involved de minimis

landowners at another site who were provided protection for $0.

According to the reform managers, these two site-specific

experiences, which appear to have dramatically increased the

number of settlements in fiscal year 1997, were anomalies. When the

de minimis settlements for these two sites are removed, 40 such

0

5

10

15

20

I II III IV V VI VII X VIII IX

9

10

18

15

17

6

4

14

2

4

EPA regions

Percentage
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 34 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

settlements remain for the year—a total that is more in line with

EPA’s national average and GPRA target, according to these

managers.

• Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers identified no other

factors as contributing to the results credited to this reform.

• Regional implementation: The data show variations among the regions

in implementing this reform that do not correspond with differences in

the sizes of their Superfund workloads. According to EPA reform

managers, one possible explanation for these variations is that de

minimis parties are not involved at all sites, and the mix of sites with

such parties may vary from region to region and year to year.

• Performance measurement: EPA’s measures of this reform’s success do

not directly indicate progress toward or achievement of its goals—

increasing the program’s fairness and reducing litigation and its

associated costs. However, because de minimis settlements remove

small or innocent parties from the liability allocation process and shield

them from costly litigation, the settlements could imply that the

program is “fairer” than it would have been otherwise.

• Views on the reform’s benefits/effectiveness:

• The executive of the organization representing independent

businesses stated that, in his opinion, based on information from

member companies, EPA’s de minimis settlements do not sufficiently

protect landowners from Superfund cleanup liability because these

parties incur high costs to reach de minimis settlements. However,

EPA disagrees, maintaining that the majority of de minimis parties

have paid less than $5,000 each to resolve their liability.

• Industry representatives felt that removing de minimis parties from

the liability allocation process early would shield them from paying

their fair share of cleanup costs because they would not incur

responsibility for any cost overruns that might occur later in the

cleanup. EPA reform managers maintain that de minimis parties pay

a premium to settle early and that this premium is often in excess of

any cost overruns that occur.

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

• Some small businesses would like to see de minimis protection

established in law, including a provision that would treat a party’s ability

to pay as a mitigating factor in the settlement, according to the

executive of the organization representing independent businesses.

• EPA disagrees that additional legislation is needed and argues that it has

sufficient authority, models, and guidance in place to successfully

accomplish de minimis and ability-to-pay settlements.
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 35 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Agreements With

Prospective

Purchasers

In May 1995, EPA revised its guidance on agreements with prospective

purchasers. In such an agreement, EPA promises not to sue a purchaser for

contamination that the purchaser did not cause in exchange for the

purchaser’s commitment to perform cleanup work or provide funds toward

cleaning up the site. EPA (1) revised the criteria for evaluating whether it

should negotiate an agreement, (2) broadened the universe of sites at

which it would consider negotiating an agreement, and (3) encouraged a

more balanced trade-off between the benefits to EPA and the public from

these agreements. Table 5 shows EPA’s performance goals and measures

for this reform.

Table 5: Performance Goals and Measures for Reaching Agreements With Prospective Purchasers

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA

Figure 8 shows the number of prospective purchaser agreements

completed since fiscal year 1989.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Provide assurances to

prospective purchasers of

contaminated property that

they will not be held liable for

cleanup costs

Increase program’s fairness

Restore contaminated sites to

beneficial use

Facilitated the purchase of over

1,500 acres of contaminated

property

Spurred the redevelopment of

hundreds of thousands of

adjacent acres nationwide

Number of prospective purchaser

agreements signed: 114 since

1989

Number of prospective purchaser

agreement requests received/

addressed (GPRA measure

beginning in fiscal year 2000)
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 36 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 8: Number of Prospective Purchaser Agreements Completed, Fiscal Years 1989-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

Regional data indicate that all regions are implementing this reform,

although at varying rates, as shown in figure 9.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1989 1990 1991 1994 1997 1998 1992 1993 1995 1996 1999

1

16

3

5

8

19

1

Reform announced

2/95

28

23

3

2

Fiscal year

Number of agreements
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 37 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 9: Each Region’s Percentage of National Prospective Purchaser Agreements,

Fiscal Years 1989-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects: The number of prospective purchaser agreements has

increased since the reform was initiated. However, the number of

agreements peaked in fiscal year 1997 and has declined during the past 2

years. This decline may indicate that EPA is not sustaining its

implementation of this reform. It is difficult for EPA to determine from

its performance measures whether the reform has had a significant

effect on efforts to redevelop brownfield properties.

• Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers acknowledge that

factors other than this reform—particularly the agency’s focus on the

reuse of contaminated properties— contributed to the overall increase

in the number of agreements.

• Regional implementation: The data show variations among the regions

in implementing this reform that do not correspond with differences in

the sizes of their Superfund workloads. According to EPA reform

managers, one possible explanation for these variations is that the

number of agreements is determined by responsible parties’ requests for

such agreements, over which EPA has no control. Consequently,

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

I II III IV V VI VII X VIII IX

8

9

17

9

23

2

11

5

10

8

EPA regions

Percentage
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 38 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

according to these managers, the number of agreements for each region

would not be expected to be proportional to the size of its workload.

• Performance measurement:

• An increase in the number of prospective purchaser agreements

completed does not directly demonstrate that EPA is achieving this

reform’s goals—increasing the program’s fairness and restoring sites

to beneficial use. However, because these agreements absolve

purchasers of contaminated property who did not cause the

contamination of future cleanup liability, the agreements could imply

that the program is “fairer” than it would have been otherwise.

Similarly, the number of agreements could imply that this reform

contributes to property redevelopment because, by limiting liability,

an agreement makes the purchase of a contaminated property more

economically attractive, encouraging potential buyers to purchase

and redevelop it.

• In fiscal year 2000, EPA began tracking the number of agreement

requests received and assessed as a measure of the reform’s

performance. These data will not directly measure the reform’s effect

on the program.

• EPA recognized that it needed to measure the reform’s effectiveness

more directly. Accordingly, in the summer of 1998, EPA surveyed the

regional personnel and private parties who had negotiated the 85

prospective purchaser agreements in existence at that time. Thirtysix of the 85 private party representatives (42 percent) participated in

the survey. The findings are being compiled for a summary report, to

be available in 2000.

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

• Representatives of the responsible parties we contacted believe that this

reform does not provide the permanent assurances against liability that

they need to make purchases of contaminated property economically

attractive. They maintain that legislation is needed to provide full

protection.

• EPA supports legislation that would provide relief from liability to

prospective purchasers of contaminated property, as well as innocent

landowners, contiguous property owners, and small municipal waste

generators and transporters.
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 39 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Provide Compensation

for Cleanup Costs

Attributable to

Insolvent and Defunct

Parties (Orphan

Shares)

In October 1995, EPA began compensating parties who agree to perform

cleanup activities at a Superfund site for some or all of the cleanup costs

attributable to other insolvent or defunct parties. Because these parties

cannot pay or are no longer available to pay the costs for which they are

responsible, their shares of the cleanup costs are known as the orphan

shares. EPA developed interim guidance on compensation for orphan

shares, limiting it to (1) 25 percent of the cleanup remedy or removal costs,

(2) the total past and future oversight costs, or (3) the amount of the actual

orphan shares, whichever is less. Table 6 shows EPA’s performance goals

and measures for this reform.

Table 6: Performance Goals and Measures for Providing Compensation for Orphan Shares

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA

Figure 10 shows the number of orphan share compensation offers made

through fiscal year 1999.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Compensate responsible

parties who agree to clean

up a site for costs owed by

insolvent parties (orphan

shares)

Increase program’s fairness

Reduce litigation and

associated costs

None Number of compensation offers/ dollar

amounts offered: 98 offers/$175.3 million

offered through fiscal year 1999 (GPRA

measure)

Number of compensation agreements

reached/dollar amount of compensation

provided: 47 agreements/$88 million

through the first quarter of fiscal year 2000

Maximum amount appropriate for

compensation
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 40 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 10: Number of Orphan Share Compensation Offers, Fiscal Years 1996-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

Figure 11 shows the percentage of orphan share compensation offers made

by each EPA region through fiscal year 1999.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1996 1997 1998 1999

23

25

20

30

Fiscal year

Number of offers
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 41 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 11: Each Region’s Percentage of National Orphan Share Compensation

Offers, Fiscal Years 1996-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects: The relatively steady trend in the number of orphan

share offers made over the period reflects the number of sites eligible

for the reform. The amount of orphan share compensation relates to the

amount of past costs and future oversight costs available to

compensate.

• Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers identified no other

factors as contributing to the results credited to this reform.

• Regional implementation:

• The limited funds EPA has had each year to offset the costs it

assumes during settlements make it difficult to determine if the

regions could be more extensively implementing the reform.

• EPA reform managers suggested that differences in the regions’

implementation of this reform do not necessarily indicate

inconsistent implementation because the types of sites and costs of

cleanup vary across the country. For example, regions VIII, IX, and X

made fewer offers because the sites are owner- and/or operator-only

sites that EPA excludes from compensation.

• Performance measurement:

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

I II III IV V VI VII X VIII IX

7

17

13

17

24

6

4

3

5

2

EPA regions

Percentage
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 42 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

• The number of offers and the dollar amounts offered do not directly

demonstrate that EPA has achieved or made progress toward the

reform’s goals—increasing the program’s fairness and reducing

litigation and its associated costs. Nevertheless, offering to

compensate parties for costs that are attributable to parties who

contributed to a site’s contamination but cannot pay for the cleanup

could imply that the program is “fairer” than it would have been

otherwise.

• Data on the number of settlements reached and the compensation

paid would, at best, indirectly measure the reform’s results.

• Views on reform’s benefits/effectiveness:

• Industry representatives believe this reform can lead to faster

settlements. However, they believe that the limits EPA has set on

orphan share compensation can discourage settlements. Some

representatives believe that (1) they are not any better off under the

reform; (2) EPA is less likely to compensate large, financially viable

responsible parties; (3) EPA is inconsistent in deciding what portion

of cleanup costs are orphan shares; and (4) EPA designates some

parties as viable, even though the site itself is their only asset.

• Some parties would like additional compensation and would like

EPA to be more forthcoming about factors such as dollar constraints

that limit its compensation decisions.

• EPA reform managers said that the agency cannot afford to provide

additional compensation without obtaining more funding from the

Congress. Moreover, according to the managers, parties are not

worse off under EPA’s policy because the agency can still forgive past

costs over and above the orphan share limits when negotiating

settlements. Finally, the managers noted, EPA provides orphan share

calculations to parties at the beginning of settlement negotiations so

that they know the basis for its decisions. The managers

acknowledged that these calculations are rough but said that

providing more detailed ones would be too costly.

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

To give responsible parties complete relief from liability for costs that are

not attributable to their activities at a site, EPA reform managers said, EPA

needs a congressional allocation to cover the costs attributable to the

activities of insolvent or defunct parties. In each of its annual budget

requests from fiscal year 1996 through fiscal year 2000, EPA requested $200

million for orphan share compensation, which it wanted the Congress to

provide in a separate account so that the funding for such compensation

would not affect the funding for cleanup. However,EPA and the Congress
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 43 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

have not been able to agree on a legislative proposal to authorize additional

compensation. In its fiscal year 2001 budget request, EPA decreased its

request for orphan share compensation to $150 million in order to request

funds for other purposes.

Encourage the Use of

Site-Specific Special

Accounts

In October 1995, EPA began encouraging the greater use of “special

accounts.” These can be established with any funds received in a

Superfund settlement for a site and can then be used to conduct or finance

cleanup actions or to reimburse responsible parties for future cleanup

actions at the site. The accounts create incentives for the parties to

perform cleanup work under settlements with EPA. Table 7 showsEPA’s

performance goals and measures for this reform.

Table 7: Performance Goals and Measures for Encouraging the Use of Site-Specific Accounts

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA

Figure 12 shows the number of special accounts established between fiscal

year 1990 and fiscal year 1999.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Promote the greater use of

site-specific accounts that hold

funds obtained through

settlements with parties at a

site for cleanup actions at that

site

Increase program’s fairness

Encourage responsible

parties to settle

Reduce litigation and

associated costs

None Number of accounts and amounts of

funds available: 133 accounts/

$570 million available for site-specific

cleanups

Number of settlements disbursing funds

from accounts and amounts disbursed

(beginning in fiscal year 2000)
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 44 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 12: Number of Special Accounts Established, Fiscal Years 1990-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

EPA’s data show that all regions are implementing this reform (see fig. 13).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1990 1991 1994 1997 1998 1992 1993 1995 1996 1999

1

18

4

6

15

24

8

33

23

1

Fiscal year

Number of new accounts Reform announced

10/95
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 45 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 13: Each Region’s Percentage of National Special Accounts Established, Fiscal Years 1990-99, Compared With Its

Percentage of National Superfund Sites

Note: National Superfund sites include final and deleted National Priorities List sites as of Sept. 30,

1999.

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects:

• More new special accounts have been established since EPA’s reform

than were established before the reform.

• However, the number of new accounts began increasing a few years

before the reform; therefore, the data do not directly link the

increases to the reform.

• The number of new accounts has not increased continuously: in

fiscal year 1998, it decreased by about 30 percent from the previous

year and continued to decline in fiscal year 1999. This drop in the

number of accounts may indicate that EPA is not sustaining its

implementation of this reform.

0

5

20

10

15

25

I III II IV V VI VII VIII IX X

7

11

17

11

14

10

13

5

20

14

7

11

5

14

3

8 8

11

6

8

EPA regions

Percentage of national Superfund sites

Percentage of national Superfund accounts

Percentage
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 46 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

• Contribution of other factors: EPA was unable to identify any factors

other than the reform that could have contributed to either the initial

increase or the subsequent decrease in the number of special accounts.

• Regional implementation: The number of accounts established by some

regions was not proportional to the sizes of their Superfund workloads,

suggesting possible inconsistency in regional implementation (see fig.

13). Furthermore, it is difficult for EPA to determine from its

performance measures whether the number of accounts—133—relative

to the hundreds of eligible Superfund sites nationwide is significant.

• Performance measurement:

• The numbers of settlements/accounts and the amounts of funds

deposited do not directly demonstrate that EPA is achieving the

reform’s goals—increasing the program’s fairness and encouraging

parties to perform cleanups. There is no clear correlation between

the establishment of accounts and either the program’s fairness or

the number of settlements.

• Similarly, the numbers of settlements designating disbursements and

the amounts disbursed do not directly measure either fairness or the

reform’s effects on settlements.

• EPA reform managers told us that measuring the effects of funds in

special accounts on responsible parties’ decisions to settle and

perform cleanups would be another performance measure to track

the reform’s outcomes. However, this information would be difficult

for EPA to obtain because the agency cannot survey such parties

without receiving approval from the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) to collect the information. OMB denied EPA’s initial

request, and EPA has not decided whether it will submit a revised

request.

• Views on reform’s benefits/effectiveness:

• According to a 1999 audit of the special accounts byEPA’s Office of

the Inspector General, (1) EPA’s process for reconciling transactions

and balances did not ensure that errors could be identified and

corrected and (2) regional personnel were not always sufficiently

aware of the existence and intended use of these accounts.EPA has

agreed to take actions such as revising guidance and providing the

regions with updated information and instructions on technical

aspects of managing the accounts to correct many of the identified

problems.

• Industry stakeholders we contacted said they do not consider this a

significant reform because EPA has not made account funds widely

available to responsible parties. EPA reform managers responded

that the original reform did not include disbursements from the
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 47 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

special accounts to potentially responsible parties. EPA first

published guidance on disbursements to potentially responsible

parties in November 1998.

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

EPA reform managers said no additional legal authority is needed to pursue

this reform.

Revise Guidance on

Settlements With

Miniscule Waste

Contributors

In June 1996, EPA revised its existing guidance to further prevent de

micromis parties—those who contributed miniscule amounts of waste to a

Superfund site—from incurring legal and other costs that may exceed their

share of the site’s cleanup costs. The revised guidance (1) expanded the

number of parties eligible for de micromis settlements, (2) offered no-cost

protective agreements that remove de micromis parties from the liability

process, (3) streamlined and simplified the settlement process, and (4)

clarified and emphasized EPA’s intent to protect such parties. Table 8

shows EPA’s performance goals and measures for this reform.

Table 8: Performance Goals and Measures for Revised Guidance on Settlements With Miniscule Waste Contributors

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA

During fiscal years 1993-98, EPA completed 16 de micromis settlements

with parties at 11 Superfund sites. The settlements at five of the sites were

based on EPA’s 1993 de micromis guidance, drafted before the reform, and

those at the remaining six sites were based on the agency’s 1996 guidance,

revised after the reform. Region III had the largest number of sites with de

micromis settlements (five) through fiscal year 1999; Region II had three

settlements; Regions I, IV, and IX had no settlements; and the remaining

regions had either one or two settlements each.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Revise guidance to discourage

litigation against de micromis

parties—those who contributed

miniscule waste volumes to

sites

Increase program’s fairness

Reduce litigation and

associated costs

None Number of settlements with de

micromis parties: 16 at 11 sites

through fiscal year 1999
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 48 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects: Because the number of de micromis settlements is

small, it is difficult to determine the extent to which the reform has had

an effect or if these effects have been sustained.

• Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers identified no other

factors as contributing to the results credited to this reform.

• Regional implementation: Because so few settlements have been

completed to date, the data are insufficient to determine if the regions

are implementing the reform consistently.

• Performance measurement: EPA’s measures of the success of this

reform do not directly indicate the extent to which the reform is

achieving its goals—increasing the program’s fairness and reducing

litigation and its associated costs. However, because de micromis

settlements remove parties that have contributed only miniscule

amounts of waste at a site from the liability process, thereby shielding

them from costly litigation, these settlements could imply that the

program is fairer than it would have been otherwise and that the

potential for litigation and any associated costs has been reduced.

• Views on reform’s benefits/effectiveness:

• EPA reform managers believe that the reform is successful ifEPA

negotiates only a few de micromis settlements. They believe that the

reform deters responsible parties from filing third-party contribution

suits to get the small parties to help pay for cleanups. If the reform

has such a deterrent effect, small parties do not need a de micromis

settlement for protection.

• Industry representatives agreed that EPA is now more successful in

removing de micromis parties from the liability process.

• The executive of the organization representing small businesses

believes that some miniscule contributors may continue to incur

often-onerous legal costs. EPA reform managers acknowledge that

such contributors may incur legal expenses if either EPA does not

identify them as de micromis parties or they do not identify

themselves to EPA in a timely manner.

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

• EPA reform managers said the agency does not need any additional legal

authority to pursue this reform.

• Some private parties we contacted believe that de micromis liability

protection needs to be established in law to shield miniscule

contributors from onerous legal costs.
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 49 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Updating Remedy

Decisions

In October 1995, EPA began encouraging the regions to revisit cleanup

remedies selected in the past and, where appropriate, to select different

remedies that incorporate recent technological advances, ensuring that the

updated remedies are both protective and more cost-effective. EPA issued

guidance on updating remedy decisions in September 1996. Table 9 shows

EPA’s performance goals and measures for this reform.

Table 9: Performance Goals and Measures for Updating Remedy Decisions

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA

Figure 14 shows the number of cleanup remedies updated annually during

fiscal years 1982-99.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Encourage the regions to revisit

previous remedy decisions and

use new scientific information or

technological advances to

update the decisions

Enhance remedies’ costeffectiveness

Implement remedies that

reflect advances in science or

technology

Total estimated future cost

savings and increases for all

remedy updates: $1.3 billion

through fiscal year 1999

Total number of remedy updates

approved: 295 during fiscal years

1996-99
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 50 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 14: Number of Cleanup Remedy Updates per Year, Fiscal Years 1982-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

While EPA reported that the 295 remedies it had updated since the reform

started would result in future cost savings of more than $1.3 billion, the

agency also estimated that some of these updates would result in cost

increases totaling approximately $123 million.

Data from EPA show that all 10 regions are implementing this reform, as

illustrated in figure 15.

0

20

30

10

40

50

60

70

80

90

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1997 1998 1995 1996 1999

0

85

70 71

2 4

19

4

12

29

45

2

Reform announced

10/95

38

61 64

35

0 2

Fiscal year

Number of remedy updates
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 51 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 15: Each Region’s Percentage of National Cleanup Remedy Updates, Fiscal Years 1996-99, Compared With Its Percentage

of National Superfund Sites

Note: National Superfund sites include final and deleted National Priorities List sites as of Sept. 30,

1999.

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects:

• EPA’s data show that the regions are updating remedy decisions and

achieving cost savings for both responsible parties and EPA.

However, the upward trend in the number of remedy updates during

the 7 years preceding the reform raises questions about the extent to

which the reform itself promoted updating.

• The number of remedies EPA updated peaked in fiscal year 1997,

declined in fiscal year 1998, and remained at about the same level in

fiscal year 1999. The decline in the number of remedy updates since

fiscal year 1997 may indicate that EPA is not sustaining its

implementation of this reform.

• EPA predicts that at some point in the future, the regions will have

reviewed most past remedies for an update and the opportunities to

0

5

20

10

15

25

I III II IV V VI VII VIII IX X

7

9

17

6

14

17

13

14

20

16

7

5 5

7

4

11

8

7

6

9

EPA regions

Percentage of national Superfund sites

Percentage of national Superfund accounts

Percentage
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 52 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

achieve additional cost savings will decrease. But for fiscal year 2000,

the regions plan to review about as many remedies as they have

reviewed in the past few years.

• Contribution of other factors: EPA acknowledges that other reforms

addressing the selection of cleanup remedies, such as a directive

providing more flexibility to assume that sites will be used for industrial

rather than residential purposes and will therefore require less

extensive cleanup, also contributed to the cost savings achieved.

• Regional implementation:

• Some industry representatives said that individual cleanup managers

and regions differ in their willingness to consider a remedy for an

update; as a result, the representatives believe they do not have a

consistent chance to achieve cost savings.

• EPA does not know whether the regions are considering all possible

remedies. EPA’s data show regional differences in the number of

updates—one region updated three times as many remedies as

another, even though both regions managed about the same number

of Superfund sites.

• EPA did not determine the reasons for the differences. However,

according to EPA reform managers, some regions could have more

sites with contaminated groundwater than other regions. Such sites

would be good candidates for remedy updates because new

technologies have become available for cleaning up contaminated

groundwater. According to these reform managers, a remedy update

depends on the availability of new data suggesting that a

modification to the remedy may be feasible; without new data, there

is no basis to change the remedy.

• Performance measurement:

• Measuring the extent of the reform’s effect is difficult. EPA admits

that its estimates of cost savings are not rigorous, partly because the

agency depends on private parties to voluntarily provide estimates of

cost savings for the cleanups they manage. The agency believes that

it is not cost-effective to obtain and track more precise cost data to

better measure savings.

• We could not verify the cost savings claimed because EPA (1) does

not maintain supporting documentation for the savings estimates and

(2) cannot require private parties to provide such documentation.

• Views on reform’s benefits/effectiveness: Industry representatives gave

high marks to this reform for leading to more cost-effective cleanups.
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 53 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

EPA reform managers said that no additional legal authority is needed to

pursue this reform.

Increase Construction

Completions

In 1991, EPA began to classify certain sites as construction complete. A site

is considered construction complete when one or more of the following

conditions is met:

• Any necessary physical construction is complete, whether or not final

cleanup levels have been met.

• EPA has determined that the response action should be limited to

measures that do not involve construction.

• A site qualifies for deletion from the National Priorities List (when no

further action is needed to protect human health and the environment).

One of the reforms announced by EPA in 1993 aimed to increase the

number of sites designated as construction complete. Reflecting this

priority, in the mid-1990s, EPA shifted funds from assessing sites whose

inclusion in the Superfund program was not yet certain to completing the

construction of remedies at sites already in the program. Table 10 shows

EPA’s performance goals and measures for this reform.

Table 10: Performance Goals and Measures for Increasing Construction Completions

a

The EPA manager for this reform considers the number of sites where construction has been

completed to be an outcome measure. We disagree; therefore, we show the measure as an output.

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results Identified by EPA Figure 16 shows the number of sites whose cleanup remedies were

complete as of the end of fiscal year 1999.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Increase the number of sites

where all remedies have been

constructed

Accelerate construction and

advance the program

Nonea Number of sites where all remedies

have been constructed: 670 through

the end of fiscal year 1999 (GPRA

measure)
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 54 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 16: Number of Sites Designated as Construction Complete, Fiscal Years 1981-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

Each EPA region has completed the construction of cleanup remedies at a

similar rate relative to its share of the nation’s Superfund sites (see fig. 17).

0

20

30

10

40

50

60

70

80

100

90

1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1988 1994 1997 1998 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1999

0 0

85

64

68

10 8

3

8

12

61

88 87

68

12

88

3 5

0

Reform announced

6/93

Fiscal year

Number of sites
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 55 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 17: Each Region’s Percentage of National Construction Complete Sites, Fiscal Years 1981-99, Compared With Its

Percentage of National Superfund Sites

Note: National Superfund sites include final and deleted National Priorities List sites as of Sept. 30,

1999.

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects: EPA has increased the number of sites designated as

construction complete, in part because of its reform.

• Contribution of other factors:

• The EPA manager for this reform said that other reforms, such as

those promoting the use of more cost-effective remedies or faster

settlements with responsible parties, have also contributed to

increases in construction completions, but the effects of individual

reforms cannot be isolated and measured.

• The maturing of the program, which is now about 20 years old, also

contributed to the increase. With the construction of many remedies

taking more than 10 years to complete, the number of completions

was expected to grow by the early 1990s. Moreover, when EPA

shifted resources to this reform, it also increased the backlog of sites

0

5

20

10

15

25

30

I III II IV V VI VII VIII IX X

7

6

17

13

14

12

13

16

20

25

7 7

5 5

3 3

8

7

6

7

EPA regions

Percentage of national Superfund sites

Percentage of national construction complete sites

Percentage
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 56 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

awaiting assessment and consideration for inclusion in the

Superfund program.

• Regional implementation: EPA’s data suggest that all regions are

consistently implementing this reform. The number of sites where EPA

can complete construction is limited by the funds available each year for

this purpose.

• Performance measurement:

• EPA measures the increase in construction completions by tracking

the number of sites completed each year. This measure does not

necessarily demonstrate that the agency is completing construction

faster.

• In December 1997, EPA’s Office of the Inspector General reported

that while EPA had generally reported the construction completion

statistic accurately, it had at times represented sites where

construction was complete as if (1) all cleanup work was done and

(2) the sites could be returned to economic use. However, cleanup

work is not always done and sites cannot always be returned to

economic use when construction is complete. As a result, the

Inspector General concluded that EPA might have been misinforming

the Congress and the public as to the status of cleanup at Superfund

sites. In response to a recommendation by the Inspector General,

EPA’s Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency

Response issued a memorandum emphasizing the need to use the

construction completion statistic accurately in all documents and not

to overstate what it represents.

• Some stakeholders argue that the measure is not meaningful because

it measures only whether remedies have been constructed, not

whether the cleanup itself is complete and health risks have been

eliminated. For example, the construction of remedies to address

contaminated groundwater may be complete, but the remedies

typically must operate for many years before the site is considered

cleaned up.

• EPA disagrees that the construction completion measure is not

meaningful because sites cannot be classified as construction

complete until all direct threats have been mitigated and all long-term

threats brought under control.

• EPA has established the number of areas at sites where cleanup goals

have been met as an environmental indicator. Reform managers said

that EPA is considering whether it should use this indicator in

addition to construction completions.

• Views on reform’s benefits/effectiveness: An industry representative

agreed that the reform has increased construction completions.
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 57 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

EPA reform managers said that no additional legal authority is needed to

pursue this reform. However, they predicted that program budget cuts in

fiscal year 2000 could interfere with the agency’s ability to meet its

construction completion goals for fiscal year 2001 and beyond.

Establish the National

Remedy Review Board

EPA created the National Remedy Review Board in November 1995 to

review certain proposed cleanup strategies and recommend how or

whether they can be improved. The Board reviews all proposed cleanup

strategies whose estimated costs are (1) more than $30 million or (2) more

than $10 million if the proposed strategy is 50 percent costlier than the least

costly protective alternative that complies with all appropriate

environmental laws and regulations. In fiscal year 1998, the Board also

began reviewing certain proposed removal actions estimated to cost more

than $30 million. The Board’s recommendations are not binding, but

regional managers must explain, in a memorandum, how they have

considered these recommendations. Table 11 shows EPA’s performance

goals and measures for this reform.

Table 11: Performance Goals and Measures for Establishing the National Remedy Review Board

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA

To date, 7 of the Board’s 43 reviews have resulted in estimated savings

totaling $70.7 million, as table 12 illustrates.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Establish a board

composed of EPA

managers and senior

technical and policy

experts to review

proposed high-cost

cleanup actions

Select more consistent remedies

across the nation

Improve remedies’ cost-effectiveness

Ensure that decisions are in

accordance with current laws,

regulations, and guidance

Estimated savings from

reviewed proposals: $70.7

million through the end of

the first quarter of fiscal year

2000

Number of cleanup proposals

reviewed: 43 through the end of the

first quarter of fiscal year 2000
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 58 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Table 12: Number of Board Reviews and Estimated Savings, Fiscal Years 1996-2000

Dollars in millions

a

Data are for the first 3 months of fiscal year 2000.

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

The Board has reviewed cleanup strategies for sites in all 10 EPA regions

(see fig. 18).

Figure 18: Each Region’s Percentage of National Remedy Review Board Reviews

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects: Data from EPA suggest that this reform has resulted

in a consistent number of reviews annually since the Board was

established in fiscal year 1996. This consistency is due, at least partially,

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000a Total

Number of remedies reviewed 11 9 10 11 2 43

Number of reviews resulting in savings to date 3 3 0 1 0 7

Estimated savings to date $34.2 34.9 0 1.6 0 $70.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

I II III IV V VI VII X VIII IX

7

16

2

14

26

5 5

7

9 9

EPA regions

Percentage
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 59 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

to budgetary limitations on the number of reviews the Board can

conduct each year.

• Contribution of other factors: The EPA manager for this reform said that

EPA’s estimates of cost savings from the Board’s reviews do not include

any savings that may have resulted from other factors.

• Regional implementation: All regions have submitted at least one

proposed cleanup strategy to the Board for review. However, because

the number of proposed remedies that qualify for the Board’s review is

likely to vary among the regions, EPA’s data are insufficient to determine

whether the regions are implementing the reform consistently.

• Performance measurement:

• EPA’s performance measures for this reform—the number of

proposals reviewed and the dollars saved—indirectly measure

progress toward two of the reform’s goals: selecting more consistent

remedies and ensuring that decisions are in accordance with current

laws, regulations, and guidance. Neither measure indicates whether

the remedies have accomplished these goals, although the Board

checks for consistency and conformance during its review process.

The dollars saved measure addresses the cost component of costeffectiveness, but not the effectiveness component.

• Developing a mechanism to track the extent to which the Board’s

reviews have led to the selection of more consistent remedies could

be difficult, particularly for sites the Board has not reviewed, as the

EPA manager for this reform acknowledges. The Inspector General’s

review of the Board concluded that controls to ensure reviews of all

qualifying decisions would be difficult and costly to implement.

• Views on reform’s benefits/effectiveness:

• EPA estimates that the average cost of all new Superfund cleanup

actions fell 25 percent from 1987 to 1998. EPA reform managers

believe the Board’s reviews have decreased the costs of cleanups,

both directly at the sites with proposed remedies that have been

reviewed and indirectly at other sites where lessons learned from the

reviews have been applied. Two industry representatives agreed that

lessons learned from the Board’s reviews have had a positive impact

at other sites.

• Three industry representatives said that the potential for the Board to

review a remedy decision has led the regions to share information on

remedies and, in some instances, to push less often for what

responsible parties believe are unnecessarily expensive remedies.

• An industry representative told us that the $30 million cost threshold

excludes too many high-cost remedies from review. EPA’s position is

that the threshold was chosen to result in a manageable number of
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 60 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

reviews for the Board, considering its available staff and financial

resources. EPA believes the Board can reasonably manage reviews of

about 10 percent of Superfund cleanup proposals. Because the actual

number of reviews has fluctuated between 9 and 13 percent, EPA has

chosen not to lower the threshold.

• Industry representatives also believe the Board’s 10-page limit on

responsible parties’ technical submissions to the Board does not

provide adequately for addressing complex site issues. Parties would

like more direct input into the Board’s reviews. In fiscal year 1997,

EPA increased the limit from 5 to 10 pages in response to concerns

expressed by responsible parties and others and believes that this

increase provides for sufficient input.

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

EPA reform managers said that no additional legal authority is needed to

pursue this reform.

Superfund Accelerated

Cleanup Model

Under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model, introduced in 1992, EPA

streamlines the steps used to (1) study a site’s contamination and design a

cleanup method and (2) assess the site’s conditions and risks at various

stages. First, the agency conducts non-time-critical removals, or

substantial, nonemergency, shorter-term cleanup actions at portions of a

site. Second, the agency performs combined site assessments, which join

the preliminary assessment of a site with the site inspection process, and

integrated site assessments, which merge the assessments conducted

before a shorter-term removal action and the longer-term remedial actions

at a site. EPA included the model among the administrative improvements

it announced in June 1993. Table 13 shows EPA’s performance goals and

measures for this reform.
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 61 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Table 13: Performance Goals and Measures for Using the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model

a

The model also included other components, such as efforts to encourage the use of presumptively

preferred remedies at all appropriate sites, increase states’ and communities’ participation in the

program, initiate enforcement activities earlier, and address the worst threats first. These efforts,

incorporated into later reforms, are addressed in our summary of those reforms.

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA: Non-Time-Critical

Removals

Through this reform, EPA increased the number of non-time-critical

removals, thereby expediting cleanups and saving money (see fig. 19).

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Use the removal program to

conduct nonemergency cleanup

actions at portions of sites that

otherwise would be addressed

by the remedial program and

merge assessments of

conditions and risks at selected

sitesa

Expedite cleanups

Enhance states’ roles

Address worst threats first

Time savings from integrating site

assessment activities

Cost savings from integrating site

assessment activities

Number of non-time-critical, short-term

cleanup actions, or removals, initiated:

223 through fiscal year 1999

Number of combined site assessments

performed: 405 through fiscal year

1999

Number of integrated site assessments

performed: 442 through fiscal year

1999
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 62 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 19: Number of Non-Time-Critical Removals, Fiscal Years 1980-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

In 1995, EPA site managers estimated that non-time-critical removals, on

average, reduce the time and cost of remedial actions from 4 years and

about $4.1 million to 2 years and about $3.6 million, producing savings of 2

years and about $0.5 million.

During fiscal years 1992-99, there was wide variation in the number of nontime-critical removals performed across the regions, relative to each

region’s share of Superfund sites (see fig. 20).

0

20

30

25

10

15

5

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1988 1994 1997 1998 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1999

0 0

1

27

26

12 10

11

3

1

4

16

19

26

23

18

22

2

0

2

Reform announced

6/93

Fiscal year

Number of non-time critical removals
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 63 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 20: Each Region’s Percentage of National Non-Time-Critical Removals, Fiscal Years 1992-99, Compared With Its

Percentage of National Superfund Sites

Note: National Superfund sites include final and deleted National Priorities List sites as of Sept. 30,

1999.

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA: Combined and

Integrated Site Assessments

From October 1, 1992 through January 10, 2000, EPA performed combined

site assessments—both the preliminary assessment of a site and the site

inspection process—at 430, or 30 percent, of the 1,421 sites that were

eligible for such assessments. From 1994 to 1999, EPA also performed 442

integrated assessments. These merge the assessments conducted before a

shorter-term removal action and the longer-term remedial actions at a site.

EPA estimates that combined assessments, on average, save about $2,500

and, more important, shorten the cleanup process by about 11 months. EPA

said that it could not compute cost and time savings for integrated

assessments because they are used at sites that are generally larger, have

higher volumes of waste and more types of contamination, and present

0

15

20

5

10

25

30

I III II IV V VI VII VIII IX X

7

5

17

2

14

4

13

5

20

18

7

8

5

25

3

16

8

5

6

12

EPA regions

Percentage of national Superfund sites

Percentage of national non-time critical removals

Percentage
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 64 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

more complex cleanup issues than sites that do not use such assessments.

Therefore, the two types of sites are not comparable.

The number of integrated assessments performed across the regions varied

widely relative to each region’s share of Superfund sites, as figure 21

illustrates.

Figure 21: Each Region’s Percentage of National Integrated Assessments, Fiscal Years 1994-99, Compared With Its Percentage

of National Superfund Sites

Note: National Superfund sites includes final and deleted National Priorities List sites as of Sept. 30,

1999.

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects: Through this reform, EPA has increased the number

of non-time-critical removals and combined and integrated site

assessments, thereby reducing the cost and time required for site

cleanup activities. EPA’s data suggest that the agency has been able to

sustain the reform and these positive effects.

0

20

40

60

10

30

50

I III II IV V VI VII VIII IX X

7

0

17

1

14

1

13

30

20

53

7

1

5 4 3

0

8

6 6

3

EPA regions

Percentage of national Superfund sites

Percentage of national integrated assessments

Percentage
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 65 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

• Contribution of other factors: EPA reform managers identified no other

factors as contributing to the results credited to this reform.

• Regional implementation: EPA’s data and our prior reviews show that

the regions are not consistently using these cleanup tools; however, EPA

has not determined the reasons for this inconsistency, whether the

reasons are valid, or whether the agency needs to improve the reform’s

implementation.

• EPA’s use of non-time-critical removals has been constrained, in part,

by budgetary factors. Specifically, limits on the agency’s removal

budget and the higher funding priority given to emergency removals

and time-critical removals have restricted EPA’s use of non-timecritical removals. However, since 1996, the regions have been able to

submit requests to a panel of program experts from all 10 regions and

EPA headquarters for funding non-time-critical removals at

Superfund sites that they could not accommodate within their

removal budgets. For the past few years, all such removal requests

have been funded.

• Statutory factors have also constrained EPA’s use of non-time-critical

removals, limiting both the time and the money the agency can spend

on them. The limits are generally 12 months and $2 million per

removal, although the regions may request exemptions from these

limits. In 1996, we reported that two regions had performed very few

such removals because these regions had conservatively interpreted

the statutory requirements for exemption from the limits and,

therefore, did not pursue removals or seek exemptions.2 The regions

decide whether and how many such removals to propose, and EPA

headquarters does not track consistency among the regions or

determine whether the regions are considering all possible sites for

this reform.

• EPA has not tried to assess how well the regions are implementing

combined and integrated assessments or why the rate of

implementation has varied so much among the regions. The agency

leaves it up to the regions to decide how extensively to use the

assessments. EPA reform managers offered several possible

explanations for the differences among regions. First, the types of

sites in the regions’ workloads vary, and not all types would benefit

from combined or integrated assessments. Second, the regions take

different approaches to conducting site assessment and removal

2

Superfund: Non-Time-Critical Removals as a Tool for Faster and Less Costly Cleanups

(GAO/T-RCED-96-137, Apr. 17, 1996).
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 66 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

assessment activities. Third, in some regions, the site assessment

and removal programs are more integrated, making it easier to

perform combined and integrated assessments. Finally, the

percentages of sites assessed under state environmental programs

through cooperative agreements with EPA vary from region to

region.

• Performance measurement:

• While EPA counts the number of non-time-critical removals initiated

each year, it does not track the dollars and time saved as measures of

this reform’s progress. The EPA managers for the reform explained

that the estimates of time and cost savings are based on professional

judgment rather than data.

• EPA does track the time and cost savings from combined site

assessment activities to demonstrate progress toward this reform’s

goals.

• The number of removals initiated and the number of integrated and

combined site assessments performed do not directly measure EPA’s

progress toward or achievement of the reform’s goals—expediting

cleanups, enhancing states’ roles, and addressing the worst threats

first.

• Views on reform’s benefits/effectiveness: Industry representatives gave

this reform considerable credit for bringing more flexibility and costeffectiveness into the remedy selection process. In particular, they point

to EPA’s use of its removal authority for accelerating cleanups.

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

• Both GAO, in its prior reviews, and EPA have recognized that the

current statutory limits on the time and dollars the agency can spend on

non-time-critical removals hinder the agency’s ability to use this tool

more widely for accelerating cleanups.

• In a previous review, we determined that raising the limits to at least 2

years and $4 million would allow for greater use of this tool, although

raising the limits to 3 years and $5 million would provide the maximum

flexibility.

• EPA previously asked the Congress to consider taking legislative action

to raise the statutory limits on these removal actions.
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 67 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Encouraging Public

Participation: (1)

Community Advisory

Groups and (2) Early

and More Effective

Community

Involvement

To enhance community involvement in the cleanup process, EPA has

• since 1993, encouraged communities to form advisory groups,

composed of citizens affected by hazardous waste sites, by providing

administrative support and guidance;

• since 1988, awarded grants of up to $50,000 to eligible communities

affected by Superfund sites to enable them to acquire independent

technical assistance to help them understand and comment on siterelated information during the cleanup decision-making process; and

• since 1994, provided university educational and technical resources to

help community groups understand the technical issues at Superfund

sites not on the National Priorities List.

Table 14 shows EPA’s performance goals and measures for this reform.

Table 14: Performance Goals and Measures for Promoting Community Involvement

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA

Figures 22, 23, and 24 show EPA’s efforts to enhance community

involvement through the use of three initiatives: promoting community

advisory groups, providing technical assistance grants, and conducting

technical outreach activities.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Encourage and assist

community working groups at

some sites, award grants to

some communities near

Superfund sites to hire technical

advisers, and provide

educational and technical

resources to some communities

near Superfund sites not on the

National Priorities List.

Enhance public

participation in the site

decision-making process

Percentage of surveyed

community members at seven

Superfund sites who believe

that EPA is effectively involving

them in the Superfund process:

47 percent

Number of community advisory groups

formed: 53 through fiscal year 1999

Number of communities receiving

technical assistance grants: 219

Number of communities receiving

assistance through EPA’s Technical

Outreach Services for Communities

program: 110
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 68 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 22: Community Advisory Groups Established, Through the End of FiscalYear 1999

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

0

5

10

15

20

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

4

5

3

11

16

8

6

Fiscal year

Number
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 69 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 23: Technical Assistance Grants Awarded, Fiscal Years 1988-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

0

10

15

5

20

25

30

35

40

45

1988 1989 1994 1997 1998 1990 1991 1992 1993 1995 1996 1999

4

11

25

37

31

26

13

13

11

9

15

26

Fiscal year

Number
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 70 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 24: Technical Outreach Projects Initiated, Fiscal Years 1994-99

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

As of November 1999, EPA had helped form 53 community advisory groups

in communities affected by Superfund sites. Forty-seven of these groups

were active at that time, and the other six, having completed their work,

were no longer active. Region V had the most sites with these groups

(nine), while Regions I and II had the fewest (two each) (see fig. 25).

0

10

15

5

20

25

30

35

40

50

45

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

8

22

7

15 12

46

Fiscal year

Number
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 71 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Figure 25: Each Region’s Percentage of National Community Involvement Activities, Through the End of Fiscal Year 1999

Source: GAO’s presentation of data from EPA.

In addition, through the end of fiscal year 1999, EPA had awarded 219

technical assistance grants totaling almost $16 million to community

groups affected by Superfund sites (only one grant is available per site).

Region IV had the most grant recipients (30), while Region VII had the

fewest (4). Finally, through the end of fiscal year 1999,EPA’s outreach

program had provided technical assistance to 110 communities affected by

hazardous waste sites. Region IX provided assistance to the most

communities (19), while Region III provided assistance to the fewest (3).

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects: The annual number of (1) new community advisory

groups increased from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 1997 but fell

in fiscal years 1998 and 1999, (2) technical assistance grants awarded

peaked in fiscal year 1992 at 37 but has decreased since then, and (3)

new technical outreach projects increased significantly from fiscal year

1996 through fiscal year 1998 but fell by more than 50 percent in fiscal

0

5

10

15

20

I

4

17

7

II

4

13

9

III

13

8

3

IV

9

14 14

V

17

9

14

VI

15

13

4

VII

9

2

11

VIII

17

11 11

IX

6

10

17

X

6

4

11

EPA regions

Percentage of total community advisory groups

Percentage of total communities receiving technical assistance grants

Percentage of total communities receiving technical outreach projects

Percentage
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 72 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

year 1999. These declines may indicate that EPA is not sustaining its

implementation of these reforms.

• Contribution of other factors: According to EPA reform managers, a

number of factors affect the use of community involvement programs,

including (1) communities’ level of interest in the programs; (2) the

extent to which EPA has already met communities’ needs and interests;

(3) the extent to which activities that communities would become

involved in, such as remedial investigations and studies, have already

been completed; and (4) the resources available for such programs.

• Regional implementation: EPA’s data show variations among the regions

in their implementation of these reforms that do not correspond with

differences in the sizes of their Superfund workloads. According to EPA

reform managers, one possible explanation for these variations is that

numerous factors can influence whether communities become involved

in the cleanup process, and these factors may vary considerably among

the regions. EPA reform managers said that although EPA can promote

community involvement, it cannot control a community’s decision to

participate in its activities.

• Performance measurement: overall community involvement program:

• In fiscal year 1999, EPA completed the first phase of an ongoing

effort to measure the effects of its overall community involvement

program. The review was conducted at seven sites in four EPA

regions and consisted of written surveys, telephone surveys, and

focus groups of local community members who had shown an

interest in their sites. While EPA acknowledged that the results of the

review are not statistically significant, it found that (1) citizens

perceive less risk after receiving an EPA fact sheet or attending a

public meeting about a site; (2) communities that are involved are

more likely to accept EPA’s decisions and actions, ultimately making

cleanups easier, faster, and less costly; and (3) nationally, only about

half of those surveyed believe that EPA is effective in involving their

communities in the Superfund process. From this review, the agency

concluded that improvements in its community involvement efforts

are needed.

• EPA is currently conducting the second phase of its performance

measurement effort, reviewing the community involvement program

at 23 Superfund sites in six EPA regions. The agency expects to

present the results of these reviews in September 2000 as part of its

strategic plan.

• Performance measurement: community advisory groups:

• EPA acknowledges that the growing number of community advisory

groups does not demonstrate that these groups are achieving their
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 73 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

goals, but the agency considers this increase an indication that

communities find the advisory groups useful.

• In fiscal year 1998, an informal review of the effectiveness of six

community advisory groups at sites in Region V found that these

groups had (1) provided an effective forum for interested parties to

discuss their views, (2) increased residents’ knowledge of issues at

sites, (3) often increased the communities’ voice in decisions about

the sites, and (4) improved the relationships between EPA and the

communities.

• Performance measurement: technical assistance:

• EPA’s Office of the Inspector General completed a review of the

technical assistance grants program in fiscal year 1996 and

concluded that the 151 grants awarded through the end of fiscal year

1994 provided support for a relatively small fraction of the 1,250

Superfund sites where community groups were eligible to receive

grants.

• The Office of the Inspector General identified possible explanations

for the limited grant activity, including the following: (1) EPA had not

assessed the number of communities that wanted grants, (2) EPA had

not effectively publicized the program, and (3) the regions had placed

different levels of emphasis on implementing and promoting the

grant program.

• The number of communities that had received technical assistance

grants (219) through the end of fiscal year 1999 was small compared

with the number of Superfund sites that were on the National

Priorities List (1,213). However, EPA’s technical assistance program

manager told us that not all communities need technical assistance

grants, especially those whose needs for technical information have

been met by EPA’s other community involvement activities.

• Since the Office of the Inspector General completed its review, EPA

has publicized its technical assistance program on the Internet and is

developing new regional guidance intended to ensure consistent

regional implementation of the program.

• Views on reform’s benefits/effectiveness:

• According to an industry representative and a state representative,

special interests often dominate community advisory groups;

therefore, the groups do not necessarily represent the needs of the

community.

• According to one industry representative, communities continue to

find grant requirements overly burdensome. As a result, some

communities avoid the grant process in favor of seeking technical

assistance from responsible parties. In August 1999, EPA issued a
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 74 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

proposed rule to further streamline its grant application and

administrative requirements.

• An industry representative also pointed out that communities often

use technical assistance grants to obtain assistance from technically

unqualified sources; therefore, EPA should enhance the

qualifications for those providing assistance. EPA’s proposed rule on

streamlining the grant process includes a new requirement that

technical advisers have experience communicating problems and

issues associated with hazardous or toxic waste, redevelopment,

relocation, and health to the public.

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

EPA reform managers said that no additional legal authority is needed to

pursue the reform.

Brownfield

Assessment Pilot

Projects

In November 1993, EPA began providing selected states, tribes, or

municipalities with up to $200,000 each under cooperative agreements to

assess the extent and nature of any contamination at abandoned, idled, or

underutilized properties (brownfields) and plan cleanup activities.EPA

included this ongoing initiative in its administrative reforms announced in

1995. Table 15 shows EPA’s performance goals and measures for this

reform.

Table 15: Performance Goals and Measures for Funding Brownfield Assessment Pilot Projects

Source: GAO’s classification and presentation of information fromEPA.

EPA’s performance measures

Reform Goals Outcomes Outputs

Provide funds to states,

tribes, and municipalities to

assess contamination at

brownfield properties

Demonstrate models of successful

brownfield redevelopments that

states, tribes, and localities can

use to address remaining

brownfields

Through the reuse of brownfields,

encourage new jobs and economic

growth

The number of properties

assessed, cleaned up, and

redeveloped and the number

of jobs and amount of private

funding leveraged (data

problematic)

Number of demonstration pilot projects

funded: 305 through October 1999

(GPRA measure)
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 75 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Results of Reform Identified

by EPA

As of October 1999, EPA had funded 305 pilot projects. The recipients

voluntarily report data on the results achieved with this funding, and EPA

collects the information in its brownfield management information system.

Using this information, EPA reported, among other things, that

• 3,255 properties have been targeted for assessment, cleanup, or

redevelopment activities;

• 601 assessed properties do not require any cleanup before

redevelopment;

• 120 properties have cleanup actions completed;

• 169 properties have redevelopment completed;

• about 1,617 cleanup jobs and $140 million in cleanup funds have been

leveraged at pilot properties; and

• about 4,267 redevelopment jobs and about $1.7 billion for

redevelopment activities have been leveraged.

The EPA managers for this reform also said that the pilot projects are

helping to shift incentives for development away from greenfields—

undeveloped sites in rural and suburban areas—and toward brownfields.

GAO’s and Stakeholders’

Observations

• Sustained effects: EPA awarded 45 assessment pilot projects in fiscal

year 1997, 105 in fiscal year 1998, and 79 in fiscal year 1999.

• Contribution of other factors:

• Contributions from other federal agencies and states have also

helped to achieve the results that EPA attributes to its administrative

reform, and EPA reform managers acknowledged this.

• In April 1999,3 we outlined funds that the Economic Development

Administration within the Department of Commerce and the

Department of Housing and Urban Development were making

available to communities for cleaning up and redeveloping

brownfields.

• In April 1997, we reported that states were addressing more and

more brownfield properties through their voluntary cleanup

programs.4 Under these programs, states provide incentives, such as

3

Environmental Protection: Agencies Have Made Progress in Implementing the Federal

Brownfield Partnership Initiative (GAO/RCED-99-86, Apr. 9, 1999).

4

Superfund: State Voluntary Programs Provide Incentives to Encourage Cleanups

(GAO/RCED-97-66, Apr. 9, 1997).
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 76 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

relief from state liability laws, for parties so that they will voluntarily

clean up and redevelop brownfields.

• Isolating the extent to which EPA’s assessment funds contributed to

the cleanup and redevelopment of the brownfield properties in the

pilot projects is not possible.

• Regional implementation: Pilot recipients are chosen on a competitive

basis by a panel consisting of EPA regional and headquarters staff and

other federal agency representatives; individual EPA regions do not

decide how many pilot projects to award. Therefore, we did not assess

the level of regional implementation of this reform.

• Performance measurement:

• EPA’s Inspector General, in a March 1998 report,5 credited this

initiative with helping to remove barriers to redevelopment and

leveraging millions of dollars in private funding for redevelopment.

However, the Inspector General noted that at some of the pilot

projects reviewed, EPA funds had relatively little impact on

redevelopment.

• While EPA’s assessment funds played some role in achieving the

results, EPA’s data are problematic. Recipients may voluntarily

provide EPA with an estimate of the number of jobs and additional

funding leveraged at properties assessed with grant funds. But the

estimates are not comprehensive because EPA cannot require the

recipients to submit such data, and EPA cannot verify the

consistency and accuracy of these estimates.EPA recently

standardized the measures for which recipients report data. As a

result, the data reported by recipients may become more consistent.

• Views on reform’s benefits/effectiveness: An industry representative and

cleanup officials from two states spoke positively of EPA’s achievements

under this initiative.

Views on Additional

Authority Needed

• EPA supports legislation that would provide limited liability protection

for prospective purchasers, contiguous property owners, and innocent

landowners (those not responsible for or aware of contamination on a

property) as a means to remove liability barriers to the redevelopment

of brownfields. Cleanup officials in two states and two industry

representatives told us they also want these liability protections

established in law.

5

Brownfields: Potential for Urban Revitalization, EPA, Office of the Inspector General

(E1SHF8-11-0005-8100091, Mar. 27, 1998).
Appendix I

Fourteen Reforms That EPA Considers as

Fundamental and as Having Achieved

Measurable Results

Page 77 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

• The EPA manager for this reform also said the agency supports

legislation that would provide grants to local governments to help them

fund loans for cleaning up brownfield sites.
Page 78 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable ApendxiI

In addition to the 14 Superfund administrative reforms discussed in

appendix I, EPA has initiated 48 other reforms. EPA reform managers

classified 6 of the 48 reforms as fundamental, meaning that they have

fundamentally changed the Superfund program. However, the agency has

not been able to establish performance measures for these reforms. The

reform managers did not classify the remaining 42 reforms as fundamental,

although the agency has established performance measures for some of

these reforms.

Six Reforms That EPA

Has Classified as

Fundamental but Not

Measurable

While reporting that they had established performance measures for 14 of

the Superfund administrative reforms that they classified as fundamental

(see app. I), EPA reform managers said they were unable to establish such

measures for 6 other reforms that they also classified as fundamental.

These included, among others, guidance to streamline the selection of

cleanup remedies and procedures for deleting cleaned portions of sites

from the National Priorities List to encourage their reuse. Table 16 lists the

six reforms and provides, for each, (1) a brief description, (2) the goals EPA

expected to achieve, (3) the types of outputs (such as specific products or

activities), (4) the effects that EPA believes cannot be measured at all or

cannot easily be measured, and (5) our observations, where possible, based

on our past work.
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 79 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Table 16: Six Fundamental Reforms That Lack Performance Measures

Results and effects of reform

identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects GAO’s observations

Refine the

Comprehensive

Environmental

Response,

Compensation, and

Liability Information

System (CERCLIS)

Archive sites in which EPA

has no further interest so

that stakeholders, such as

property owners and

purchasers, can make

better decisions about

properties that were once

included in CERCLIS

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Remove the

stigma

associated

with inclusion

in EPA's

database of

potential

Superfund

sites

Restore

formerly

contaminated

sites to

beneficial use

Fact sheet,

“Archival of

CERCLIS Sites”

Inventory of

archived sites,

organized by

state and posted

on the Internet

Number of

archived sites:

31,784

Reduction in

perceived

potential

environmental

liability at

archived sites

EPA stated that “limited

resources prevent the

agency from gathering

property transaction data

to quantify deals

facilitated by the removal

of sites from CERCLIS.”

GAO's report Hazardous

Waste: Unaddressed

Risks at Many Potential

Superfund Sites

(GAO/RCED-99-8, Nov.

30, 1998) recommended

that EPA correct errors in

the CERCLIS database.

The database included

sites that did not meet the

Superfund program's

technical criteria, had

already been cleaned up,

or were being cleaned up.

In response, EPA revised

its procedures to ensure

more accurate CERCLIS

entries.

Continued
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 80 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Develop guidance for

remedy selection

Produce guidance

documents on soil

screening, land use, and

presumptive

(“standardized”) remedies

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Expedite

cleanups

Reduce

cleanup costs

Promote

consistency in

remedy

selection at

sites

nationwide

Guidance

documents,

including, among

others, Soil

Screening

Guidance: Users'

Guide, Land Use

in the CERCLA

Remedy

Selection

Process; and

Presumptive

Remedies: Policy

and Procedures

Potential time

and cost savings

More realistic

assumptions

about land use

Clearer, more

consistent

records of

decision

Better

understanding

among

stakeholders of

EPA's remedy

selection process

and rationale for

decisions

EPA is conducting a

review of the use of

presumptive remedies, to

be completed in fiscal

year 2000.

Delete clean parcels

from the National

Priorities List

Delete portions of sites

from the National Priorities

List that have been cleaned

up and are available for

productive use

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Restore

formerly

contaminated

sites to

beneficial use

Allay

concerns of

potential

investors or

developers

who may be

reluctant to

undertake

economic

activity at

these

properties

Guidance

documents

Number of sites

with deleted

clean parcels: 16

Number of

notices of intent

to delete clean

parcels from the

NationalPriorities

List: 2

More favorable

public perception

of sites with

deleted portions

Greater potential

for redeveloping

partially deleted

sites

Economic and

other benefits for

the community

EPA believes that the

benefits of this reform

could potentially be

measured by the increase

in value of parcels that

have been deleted and of

surrounding properties;

however, EPA has not

used this measure

because it lacks data

needed for meaningful

analysis.

Results and effects of reform

identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects GAO’s observations

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 81 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Promote risk-based

priority-setting for sites

on the National Priorities

List

Establish the National

Risk-Based Priority Panel,

comprising program

experts from all 10 regions

and headquarters, to

evaluate proposed cleanup

actions on the basis of (1)

risks to humans and the

ecology; (2) the stability

and characteristics of

contaminants; and (3)

economic, social, and

programmatic

considerations

Fund cleanup projects,

apart from emergencies

and the most critical

removal actions, according

to the priorities established

by the panel

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Better protect

human health

and the

environment

Panel established

Number of

projects reviewed

in fiscal year

1997: Over 50

Number of

projects funded in

fiscal year 1997:

35, valued at

$185 million

Number of

projects funded in

fiscal year 1999:

25, valued at over

$100 million

Value of projects

ranked by panel

between August

1995 and March

1999: Over $1

billion

Allocation of

funding for

response actions

according to the

highest priorities

first

According to our report

Superfund: Progress

Made by EPA and Other

Federal Agencies to

Resolve Program

Management Issues

(GAO/RCED-99-111, Apr.

29, 1999), EPA uses

relative risk to set cleanup

priorities for sites on the

National Priorities List.

However, EPA does not

necessarily place the

riskiest sites on the list.

Many states are now

addressing sites whose

risks are severe enough to

qualify them for listing.

EPA is not including these

sites in its priority-setting

because it believes that it

does not have enough

information on cleanup

activities at the sites. In

response to our

recommendation that its

regions work with the

states to obtain this

information, EPA has

initiated discussions with

several states on sharing

information about cleanup

activities at the riskiest

sites.

Results and effects of reform

identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects GAO’s observations

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 82 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Note: Unless otherwise noted, all data presented in this table are current as of the end of fiscal year

1999.

Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.

Reduce oversight for

cooperative potentially

responsible parties

(improve oversight

administration)

Reduce oversight of

potentially responsible

parties that consistently

perform high-quality work

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Reduce

litigation and

associated

costs

Expedite

cleanups

Reduce

cleanup costs

for both EPA

and

responsible

parties

Policy directives

and

memorandums

Number of sites

where the reform

is being applied:

232

Number of sites

where EPA (1)

offered to discuss

oversight

expectations and

upcoming

activities with

potentially

responsible

parties: 167; and

(2) issued an

oversight bill as

required by the

settlement

agreement: 196

(both actions

completed at 161

of these sites)

Cost savings at

selected sites

Greater

incentives for

other potentially

responsible

parties to

cooperate and

settle

More

cooperative, less

adversarial

atmosphere

between EPA and

potentially

responsible

parties

performing

cleanup work

EPA believes this reform

creates opportunities for

more efficient oversight,

but “data collection is

time-consuming and

difficult, and the results

are not definitive.”

Improve communication

with stakeholders

Encourage the use of

electronic tools, such as

the Internet, multimedia

computers, and other

electronic means

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Increase communication

among all

Superfund

stakeholders

and improve

their access to

Superfund

information

Enhance

public

participation

Creation of a

Superfund Web

site

Development of a

home page for

each EPA region

Number of visits

to EPA's Web

sites: Data not

provided

None

Results and effects of reform

identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects GAO’s observations

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 83 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Remaining Reforms

That EPA Has Not

Classified as

Fundamental

EPA has not characterized the remaining 42 reforms1 as fundamental

because they (1) have not resulted in a new way of doing business for the

Superfund program; (2) are not intended for programwide implementation

and have not been integrated into the base program's operations; and/or (3)

are not being tracked as a measure for key agency or program goals:

• 14 were designed to test new concepts at selected sites, such as options

for expediting settlements with responsible parties and for encouraging

community involvement in enforcement activities;

• 9 were intended to produce guidance that would improve consistency in

remedies, risk assessments, and other aspects of the program; and

• 19 were intended to improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of

the program's administration by, for example, establishing an

ombudsman in each region to interact with the public on Superfund

issues and allowing responsible parties to participate in risk

assessments.

The 42 reforms cover a wide range of Superfund issues, including the risk

assessments that govern cleanups, the cleanup process itself, EPA's

enforcement activities, and stakeholders' involvement in cleanup

decisions. The 42 reforms also cover a diverse range of goals, such as

• increasing fairness when enforcing the program's liability laws while

also reducing litigation and its associated costs;

• expediting cleanups and reducing cleanup costs;

• better protecting human health and the environment;

• promoting consistency in the remedies selected and in the risk

assessments conducted at sites nationwide;

• encouraging stakeholders' involvement in the risk assessment process;

• enhancing communities', states', and tribes' participation in cleanup

decisions;

• preventing minority and low-income populations from bearing the

burden of pollution;

• restoring formerly contaminated sites to beneficial use; and

1

One of the reforms in the group of 14—addressing options for private party allocations of

cleanup liability—and 1 of the reforms in the group of 9—developing guidance on how to

address uncontaminated parcels on or adjacent to Superfund sites—were included in the

first round of reforms but were subsequently replaced or incorporated into the later two

rounds.
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 84 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

• improving the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Superfund

program.

Even though EPA did not designate these reforms as fundamental, some of

them address issues that have been central to the Superfund

reauthorization debate. Our prior observations on three of these reforms,

which we believe address significant Superfund issues, follow.

Improve Contracts

Management

As part of its administrative reforms, EPA focussed on improving

contractors' performance by implementing (1) the Superfund Long-Term

Contracting Strategy, which transferred the agency's responsibilities for

contract management from headquarters to the regions, and (2) most

recently, the Contracts 2000 Strategy, an effort to develop a set of contracts

that best meets the program's needs while using best procurement

practices. According to our report Superfund: Progress Made by EPA and

Other Federal Agencies to Resolve Program Management Issues

(GAO/RCED-99-111, Apr. 29, 1999), at the time of the report, audits of

Superfund contracts—EPA's primary tool for evaluating the adequacy of

contractors' policies, procedures, controls, and performance—were being

conducted more expeditiously than in 1997. However, we found significant

differences between EPA's estimates of what cleanup work should cost and

the final contract prices for that work, indicating potential problems with

the quality of the agency's estimates. These estimates are important

because they serve as the basis for negotiating contract prices. While EPA

has established a workgroup to assess its cost-estimating procedures and

identify solutions to any problems found, the agency has undertaken

similar corrective measures in the past and has had difficulty fully

implementing and sustaining them. EPA's new Superfund contract

management information system collects cost data, but these data may not

be sufficiently specific or timely. Furthermore, we found that EPA was

continuing to pay too high a percentage of funds to contractors for program

support costs, in part because it was still retaining more contractors than it

needed and paying their overhead costs. Finally, EPA could not provide us

with documentation describing the “Contracts 2000” team's (1) overall

strategy for determining what options it would recommend that the agency

adopt to address contracting issues and (2) time frames for implementing

them. We recommended that EPA (1) develop procedures to ensure that

corrective actions will improve cost-estimates, (2) review whether the

regions are consistently implementing corrective actions, (3) identify costeffective methods of providing estimators with the data needed for more

accurate estimates, (4) review the number of contracts needed, and (5)
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 85 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

ensure that the Contracts 2000 initiative results in a comprehensive

strategy to improve contract management. EPA agreed with these

recommendations and plans to take a number of actions to implement

them. Among other such actions, EPA plans to (1) develop a corrective

action strategy and milestones for preparing independent government cost

estimates, (2) review the regions' implementation of these corrective

actions and the overall quality of their cost estimates, and (3) continue to

work with the regions to organize information useful in preparing future

cost estimates. In addition, EPA has taken a variety of steps to ensure that

the Superfund program has the appropriate contracting capacity. In July

1999, the agency issued a Contracts 2000 implementation framework

documenting roles and responsibilities for reviewing and approving the

regions' implementation plans and defining the plans' requirements.

Improve the Effectiveness

of Cost Recovery

To better recover its costs, EPA revised (1) its systems for tracking cost

recovery data and assigning priorities to cost recovery work and (2) its

methodology for calculating indirect costs—the administrative costs of

operating the program—to increase the percentage of indirect costs that

are recovered. However, according to our report Superfund: Progress Made

by EPA and Other Federal Agencies to Resolve Program Management

Issues (GAO/RCED-99-111, Apr. 29, 1999), EPA has lost the opportunity to

recover about $2 billion in indirect costs from responsible parties because

the methodology it used to calculate these costs excluded a large portion of

the total. EPA has developed a new methodology that more accurately

accounts for its administrative costs. Cost recovery program managers

estimated that using the new methodology could increase recoveries in the

cases remaining to be settled by about $629 million. As of the date of the

report, the cost recovery program had not yet implemented this new

methodology because it was awaiting approval from EPA; the Department

of Justice, which litigates cost recovery cases; and an independent

accounting firm hired to review the methodology. Subsequently, the

independent accounting firm and GAO approved the methodology.

However, until EPA uses the new methodology, it will continue to lose the

opportunity to recover these funds. Furthermore, EPA does not have a cost

recovery performance measure that compares, for each year, the amount of

costs it recovers with the amount of costs it had the potential to recover.

Therefore, the agency cannot determine how well it is performing its cost

recovery activities. EPA notes that it cannot control some factors that

influence the amount of costs it can recover, such as the percentage of

cleanups with financially viable responsible parties. We recommended that
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 86 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

EPA apply the new indirect cost-accounting methodology as soon as it was

approved. EPA agreed to do so.

Support Voluntary Cleanup

Programs

Many states have created voluntary cleanup programs, which rely on

incentives rather than enforcement orders to accomplish cleanups. EPA is

working with states and tribes to promote these programs, including

providing financial assistance to support state voluntary cleanup program

infrastructures and to promote cooperation between states, tribes, and

regions. Our report Superfund: State Voluntary Programs Provide

Incentives to Encourage Cleanups (GAO/RCED-97-66, Apr. 9, 1997) found

that EPA's authority under Superfund to ensure that cleanups are

protective of human health and the environment and the federal law's

liability provisions can deter participation in voluntary cleanup programs

because potential volunteers fear they could face expensive and indefinite

cleanup liability. Therefore, states and responsible parties would like to

enter into an agreement with EPA that would limit the federal government's

future interests at sites where voluntary cleanups have been completed.

EPA has been working with states to develop final guidance for negotiating

agreements between EPA and the states. Under these agreements, EPA

would assure volunteers that, except in limited circumstances, it generally

would not plan to take further action at sites in voluntary cleanup programs

that meet the agency's criteria for ensuring effective and protective

cleanups. In the meantime, EPA has issued an interim memorandum

outlining six criteria for voluntary programs that its regions can use to

enter into agreements with states. These criteria, while flexible, are very

general and do not clearly establishEPA's basis for determining whether a

voluntary program will qualify for an agreement in the future. We

recommended that EPA work with states to more clearly define the criteria

that state voluntary cleanup programs should meet to obtain an agreement

limiting EPA's involvement at sites, particularly in the areas of monitoring

after cleanup, acceptable oversight practices, and public participation. EPA

agreed and drafted guidance that met our recommendations. However,

after many discussions with various stakeholders, EPA concluded that

there was no consensus on critical aspects of the guidance. The agency

decided, instead, that its 1996 guidance to the regions was appropriate for

future negotiations involving state voluntary cleanup programs.

Table 17 lists the 42 reforms thatEPA officials did not characterize as

having fundamentally changed the Superfund program. The table provides

(1) a brief description of each reform; (2) the goalsEPA expected to

achieve through the reform; (3) the types of outputs (such as specific
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 87 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

products or activities) or outcomes (measurable results) that EPA uses to

measure the success of the reform; (4) where appropriate, the data

measuring the effects of the reform; and (5) any effects of the reform that

EPA believes cannot be measured or cannot easily be measured. Because

of the large number of these reforms, we did not attempt to verify their

effects as identified by EPA.
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 88 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Table 17: List of 42 Reforms That EPA Did Not Specifically Identify as Having Fundamentally Changed the Superfund Program

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Pilot projects (13)

Evaluate mixed funding

policy

Evaluate options for jointly

funding cleanup projects with

potentially responsible

parties, quantify the cost

implications of these options,

and pilot-test demonstration

projects designed to identify

opportunities for streamlining

the joint-funding decisionmaking process

Scope: Pilots

Status: Pilots completed/

results incorporated into

program

Increase

program's

fairness

Reduce

litigation and

associated

costs

Number of

settlements

reached: 6

None identified Settlement

facilitated

Number of

settlements

potentially

increased

Equity potentially

improved

Pilot early searches for

potentially responsible

parties

Pilot-test several procedures

to (1) improve the quality and

timeliness of searches to

identify potentially

responsible parties, (2) make

the information obtained

more accessible, and (3)

identify a larger universe of

potentially responsible

parties earlier in the process

Scope: Pilots

Status: Pilots completed/

results incorporated into

program

Increase

program's

fairness

Reduce

litigation and

associated

costs

Expedite

settlements

Number of pilot

sites: 15 in 10

regions

Number of sites

where potential de

minimis parties

(contributors of

small waste

volumes) were

notified within 12

months of starting

the search: 0

Number of sites

where other

parties were

notified within 18

months of starting

the search: 5

Number of

additional parties

identified early in

the search

process: 150 at

one pilot site

None identified “Lessons learned”

applied

programwide

Continued
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 89 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Expedite settlements Pilot-test revised settlement

procedures to determine the

feasibility of (1) achieving

early settlements with de

minimis parties (contributors

of small waste volumes), (2)

identifying early any issues

relating to parties' ability to

pay for cleanup, and (3)

giving involved parties an

opportunity to designate

others as potentially

responsible parties

Scope: Pilots

Status: Pilots completed/

results incorporated into

program

Increase

program's

fairness

Reduce

litigation and

associated

costs

Expedite

settlements

Number of pilot

sites: 18 in 8

regions

Number of pilot

sites where EPA

achieved early de

minimis

settlements: 8

Number of pilot

sites where EPA

reached early

ability-to-pay

settlements: 5

Number of de

minimis parties

with which EPA

settled at pilot

sites: 1,397

through the end of

fiscal year 1998

Amount recovered

by EPA in

expedited de

minimis and

ability-to-pay

piloted

settlements: $22.7

million

None identified “Lessons learned”

applied

programwide

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 90 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Allocate costs according

to parties' liability

At selected sites, test a costallocation approach under

which potentially responsible

parties may settle their

liability on the basis of their

share of the cleanup costs

using (1) a neutral party,

known as an allocator,

selected by the parties to

allocate the costs, and (2) a

nonbinding out-of-court

allocation process

Scope: Pilots

Status: Pilots ongoing/

results incorporated into

program

Increase

program's

fairness

Reduce

litigation and

associated

costs

Number of pilot

sites: 9

Number of pilot

sites where EPA

issued allocation

reports: 6

Number of pilot

sites where EPA

reached

settlements: 7

Number of pilot

sites where EPA

settled before

allocation reports

were issued: 7

Average time

spent to complete

the allocation

process at pilot

sites with issued

reports: 20 months

Examples of legal

costs at pilot sites:

$48,000 per party;

$421,000 per site

for EPA and

Department of

Justice staff time;

$193,000 per site

for the allocator

Percentage of

parties at pilot

sites indicating

that transaction

costs were lower

than traditional

contribution

litigation costs: 75

percent

“Lessons learned”

applied

programwide

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 91 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Encourage community

involvement in

enforcement

Test innovative approaches

for community involvement in

technical settlement issues,

including (1) increasing

public involvement in removal

actions being implemented

by potentially responsible

parties and (2) facilitating

communication between the

potentially responsible

parties and local citizens to

develop a consensus on a

site's future land use

Scope: Pilots

Status: Pilots ongoing/

results incorporated into

program

Enhance public

participation

Number of pilot

sites where

potentially

responsibleparties

agreed to conduct

cleanup actions or

investigations: 13

in 9 regions

None identified Higher-quality

work products and

greater community

acceptance and

support resulting

from community

input

Some delays

resulting from

increased

community

involvement

“Lessons learned”

applied

programwide

Integrate federal, state,

and tribal site

management

Defer placement of certain

sites on the National

Priorities List so that states

or tribes can oversee

cleanup actions at these

sites conducted and funded

by potentially responsible

parties

Scope: Pilots

Status: Ongoing

Enhance

participation of

states and

tribes in the

cleanup

process

Guidance

documents

Number of states

with which EPA

has signed

agreements to

defer listing of

sites: 12 states in

6 regions

Number of sites

covered by deferral

agreements: 31

None identified Greater state/tribal

participation and

better site

management

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 92 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Fund state/tribal block

grants

Pilot test the funding of block

grants to give states and

tribes greater flexibility in

using funds to conduct or

provide assistance for

Superfund cleanup activities

Scope: Pilots

Status: Ongoing

Enhance

participation of

states and

tribes in the

cleanup

process

Number of

states/tribes with

block grant

cooperative

agreements: 15

Reduction in time

needed to prepare

and process

paperwork: 85

percent in Illinois

Time saved by this

regulatory change:

3 months at one

Illinois site

None identified More efficiency

and flexibility in the

use of cooperative

agreements

Involve states and tribes

in the Superfund remedy

selection process

Increase the role of states

and tribes in selecting the

remedies at National

Priorities List sites, when

possible and consistent with

applicable laws and

regulations governing

cleanups

Scope: Pilot

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Enhance

participation of

states and

tribes in the

cleanup

process

Number of pilot

sites: 11 in 6

regions

Number of sites

where the state (or

tribe) has the lead

role in cleanup

responses,

including the

remedy selection:

Evaluation of

states' remedy

selection data,

which EPA began

collecting in fiscal

year 1998,

ongoing

None identified None identified

Involve community

stakeholders in the

Superfund remedy

selection process

At the regional level, test the

use of approaches for

involving community

stakeholders in the

Superfund remedy selection

process

Scope: Pilots

Status: Fully

implemented/completed

Enhance public

participation

Number of sites

where EPA

successfully

involved the

community in

remedy selection:

6

Compendium of

best practices

produced (6/99)

None identified More favorable

perception of EPA

and the Superfund

process

Better remedy

selection process

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 93 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Provide training and

health assistance to

communities

In coordination with the U.S.

Public Health Service,

establish the Medical

Assistance Plan to respond

to the health concerns of

underserved citizens living

near hazardous waste sites

by providing for, among other

things, (1) physicians trained

in environmental issues and

available to serve the

affected communities, (2)

medical testing, (3) technical

assistance to local agencies

and health care providers,

and (4) environmental health

education to health care

providers

Scope: Pilot

Status: Pilot completed

(Reform phased out after

completion)

Prevent

minority/lowincome

populations

from bearing

the brunt of

pollution

Development of

Superfund Medical

Assistance Work

Group (SMAWG)

(phased out)

Number of sites

selected for

Medical

Assistance Plan

program testing: 1

Amount

designated for

implementing the

plan at the site:

$400,000

None identified None identified

Promote community

outreach for brownfield

redevelopment

Fund pilot projects designed

to promote community

involvement and

partnerships, relying on a

coordinator in each region to

oversee brownfield pilot

projects and initiate other

brownfield activities

Scope: Pilots

Status: Pilots ongoing

Enhance public

participation

Restore

formerly

contaminated

sites to

beneficial use

Number of

brownfield

assessment pilot

projects funded:

305 through

October 1999

None identified Brownfield

redevelopment

process affected

by citizens'

involvement

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 94 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Provide job training and

development

Using classroom instruction

and hands-on work

experience, conduct

interagency pilot projects to

train and employ residents of

distressed neighborhoods

located near Superfund and

brownfield sites and provide

outreach, curriculum, and

technical assistance to

community colleges located

near the pilot sites

Scope: Pilots

Status: Ongoing

Prevent

minority/lowincome

populations

from bearing

the brunt of

pollution

Funded the

National Institute

of Environmental

Health Science's

Minority Worker

Training Program

Number of Super

Job Training

Initiative pilots: 9

Number of grants

awarded for health

and safety training

programs: 20

Number of

students trained:

75

Number of

students employed

at sites: about 25

Good will fostered

in communities

Use risk-sharing to

encourage the

implementation of

innovative technology

Underwrite the use of certain

promising approaches for a

limited number of projects,

agreeing to share up to 50

percent of the cost of an

innovative remedy if it fails

and subsequent remedial

action is required

Scope: Pilots

Status: Ongoing

Share the risks

associated with

implementing

innovative

technologies

Expedite

cleanups

Number of sites

that participate in

risk-sharing and

eventually use the

technologies

selected: Data not

provided

Number of risksharing

agreements

negotiated: 4

None identified None identified

Program guidance (8)

Establish remedy

selection “rules of thumb”

Develop remedy selection

rules to flag potentially

“controversial” cleanup

decisions for senior

managers to review,

providing a consolidated

guide to procedures for

consultation between

headquarters and the

regions on remedy selection

issues

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Promote

consistency in

remedy

selection at

sites

nationwide

Guidance

documents,

including Rules of

Thumb for

Superfund

Remedy Selection

and Consolidated

Guide to

Consultation

Procedures for

Superfund

Response

Decisions

None identified Stakeholders'

confidence in the

remedy selection

process enhanced

More consistency

in remedy

selection

Some costs

reduced

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 95 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Clarify the role of cost Develop documents to (1)

clarify the role of cost in

developing cleanup options

and selecting remedies as

established in existing law,

regulation, and policy, and (2)

promote the use of existing

policies and guidance to

ensure cost-effectiveness

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Promote

consistency in

remedy

selection at

sites

nationwide

Fact sheet entitled

The Role of Cost

in the Superfund

Remedy Selection

Process

None identified Stakeholders'

confidence in the

remedy selection

process enhanced

More consistency

in remedy

selection

Some costs

reduced

Develop a directive on

national consistency in

remedy selection

Emphasize the importance of

maintaining appropriate

national consistency in the

Superfund remedy selection

process and encourage

program managers to make

full use of existing tools and

consultation opportunities to

promote consistency

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Promote

consistency in

remedy

selection at

sites

nationwide

Directive entitled

National

Consistency in

Superfund

Remedy Selection

None identified A more predictable

remedy selection

process that more

readily addresses

national goals

Clarify information on

remedy selection

Develop summary sheets to

demonstrate the context,

basis, and rationale for the

remedy selected at each site,

including the (1) relationship

between the site's risks and

response actions and (2)

costs and benefits of cleanup

alternatives

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Promote

consistency in

remedy

selection at

sites

nationwide

Guidance on

records of decision

issued (8/99)

None identified Clearer and more

consistent records

of decision on

selected remedies

Stakeholders'

confidence in the

remedy selection

process enhanced

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 96 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Establish national criteria

for risk assessment

Develop guidance that

establishes national criteria

for the regions to use in

planning, reporting, and

reviewing risk assessments

to ensure that they are

consistent

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Ensure that

risk

assessments

are (1) more

transparent,

clear,

consistent and

reasonable; (2)

well scoped

and well

designed; (3) in

a standard

presentation

format; and (4)

easier for

decisionmakers at

Superfund

sites to review

Guidance

document entitled

Risk Assessment

Guidance for

Superfund: Human

Health Evaluation

Manual (Part D):

Standardized

Planning,

Reporting, and

Review of

Superfund Risk

Assessments

Number (and

percentage) of

new remedial

investigation/

feasibility study

risk assessments

performed using a

generic risk

assessment

statement of work:

Data not provided

Number (and

percentage) of

new remedial

investigation/

feasibility study

risk assessments

performed using

standard tables for

reporting risk data:

Data not provided

None identified Better decisionmaking for

response actions

at Superfund sites

Clearer risk

assessments

Resources saved

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 97 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Develop guidance to

standardize risk

assessments

Update and standardize risk

assessment guidance,

especially in areas where

science and policy have

advanced over the past

several years, such as

exposure assessment,

human health toxicity

assessment, and risk

communication

Scope: Programwide

Status: Not yet fully

implemented/ongoing

Ensure the

quality,

consistency,

and reliability of

risk

assessments

Promote

greater

community

involvement in

designing risk

assessments

Guidance

documents under

development

Meetings with

stakeholders to

seek input on

priorities for

improvement

None identified None identified

Develop soil screening

levels

Issue guidance on

establishing appropriate

cleanup levels and levels of

concern (soil screening

levels) for common chemical

contaminants in soil and

complete a pilot study of soil

screening levels at 10 sites

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Reduce time

and costs of

cleanups

Promote more

effective and

consistent

cleanups

nationwide

Soil screening

guidance

None identified Development of a

useful tool for

initially assessing

a site's risks

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 98 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Promote the use of

innovative technology

Use public-private

partnerships to demonstrate

and evaluate innovative

hazardous waste treatment

technologies and increase

their acceptance by (1)

targeting contamination

problems affecting both

public and private sites, (2)

evaluating technology

databases, and (3) trying to

improve the dissemination of

information on treatment

technologies to common

data repositories

Scope: Programwide

Status: Ongoing—effort

adopted as an

“administrative improvement”

in 1993

Better protect

human health

and the

environment

Expedite

cleanups

Reduce

cleanup costs

Number of

partnerships: 5

active/2 inactive or

completed

Number of

technology cost

and performance

case studies: 82

by EPA; 140 by the

Federal

Remediation

Technologies

Roundtable

Remediation

technology

databases

established: 4

None identified Better information

for decisionmakers

about appropriate

remedies for sites

Replaced/superseded

reforms (2)

Clarify National Priorities

List sites

Issue guidance (1)

authorizing the regions to

identify uncontaminated land

parcels on or adjacent to

National Priorities List sites

to facilitate the transfer,

development, or

redevelopment of these

parcels; (2) setting forth the

factual basis for assurances

that parcels are not

contaminated; and (3)

specifying the consultation

and coordination required

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Restore

formerly

contaminated

sites to

beneficial use

Completion of the

Federal Register

notice and

implementing

guidance

Number of sites

from which clean

parcels had been

deleted as of

March 1999: 16

Number of sites for

which notices of

intent to delete

clean parcels had

been issued as of

March 1999: 2

None identified More favorable

public perception

of sites with

deleted parcels

Greater potential

for redevelopment

of partially deleted

sites

Positive economic

and other effects

on the

communities

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 99 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Adopt private-party

allocations

Give private parties an

opportunity to seek EPA's

approval of an allocation that

covers 100 percent of the

costs at a site, with the

understanding that an

approved allocation can

serve as the basis for a

settlement

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/completed

(incorporated into orphan

share compensation reform)

Facilitate

settlements

Reduce

litigation and

transaction

costs

Increase

program's

fairness

Number of sites

where privateparty allocations

have been

adopted: 3

settlements before

this reform was

merged with the

orphan share

reform

None identified Transaction costs

for all parties

reduced

Settlements

facilitated

Parties' concerns

about fairness

addressed

Other reforms (19)

Streamline/expedite the

cleanup process

Issue guidance on

presumptive remedies

(standardized remedies for

certain types of sites),

including those for municipal

landfills and volatile organic

compounds in soil

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Expedite

cleanups

Promote more

effective and

consistent

cleanups

nationwide

Guidance

documents,

including

Presumptive

Remedy for

CERCLA

Municipal Landfill

Sites and Users'

Guide for the

VOCs in Soil

Presumptive

Remedy

None identified More effective and

consistent remedy

selection

Time and/or costs

of cleanups

reduced

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 100 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Promote greater fairness

for Superfund site owners

Issue guidance and make

information available to

address property owners'

concerns about, among other

issues, federal liens on

contaminated property and

the potential liability of

prospective purchasers of

Superfund sites

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

(Reform partially replaced by

a later reform intended to

remove liability barriers

through agreements with

prospective purchasers)

Increase

program's

fairness

Reduce

litigation and

associated

costs

Guidance and

other documents,

including

Guidance on

Agreements with

Perspective

Purchasers of

Contaminated

Property and a

model agreement

Increase through

fiscal year 1998 in

the number of

prospective

purchaser

agreements

following the

issuance of the

guidance and

model agreement:

100

None identified None identified

Implement an

environmental justice

strategy

Direct staff to evaluate all

decision documents for the

possibility of disproportionate

adverse effects on minority

and low-income communities

in an effort to ensure that all

waste programs treat

environmental justice as an

integral part of EPA's

policies, guidance, and

regulations

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully implemented/

ongoing

Prevent

minority/lowincome

populations

from bearing

the brunt of

pollution

Expand

meaningful

public

participation

Policy directive

Consultation with

the National

Environmental

Justice Advisory

Council during

policy

development

None identified None identified

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 101 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Defer certain site

categories to states

Encourage states, territories,

and tribes to clean up

contaminated sites under

their own laws by, for

example, working with state

associations to develop

criteria for deferring sites to

states, initiating pilot deferral

projects in qualified states,

and establishing a workgroup

to address deferral questions

and assess early state-led

cleanups

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully implemented/

ongoing

Enhance

participation of

states and

tribes in the

cleanup

process

Guidance

document

None identified None identified

Improve contract

management

Improve contractors'

performance by

implementing (1) the

Superfund Long-Term

Contracting Strategy, which

shifts responsibility for

contracts and contract

management from

headquarters to the regions,

and, (2) most recently, the

Contracts 2000 Strategy to

develop a set of contracts

that best meet the program's

needs while using best

procurement practices

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully implemented/

ongoing—effort adopted as

an “administrative

improvement” in 1993

Improve

program's

efficiency and

effectiveness

Reduce

cleanup costs

Reduction in

program support

costs, measured

as a percentage of

total invoice costs,

over time: Data not

provided

Long-Term

Contracting

Strategy;

Contracts 2000

Strategy (2/98)

None identified None identified

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 102 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Accelerate cleanup at

bases designated for

closures

Work with the Department of

Defense to accelerate

cleanup work at military

bases designated for closure

or realignment and to

address property transfer,

redevelopment, and

community involvement

issues

Scope: Programwide (108

installations)

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing—effort

adopted as an

“administrative improvement”

in 1993

Expedite

cleanups

Restore

formerly

contaminated

sites to

beneficial use

Input to

Department of

Defense guidance

and joint policy

documents

Project work (time)

reductions: over

250 work years

through fiscal year

1998

Project costs

avoided: $250

million through

fiscal year 1998

Better community

and interagency

working

relationships

Better

relationships

between the

Department of

Defense and

states

Improve compliance

monitoring

Issue regional compliancemonitoring guidance and

implement regional

compliance-tracking systems

to strengthen enforcement

through oversight of

potentially responsible

parties' compliance

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully implemented/

ongoing—effort adopted as

an “administrative

improvement” in 1993

Improve

program's

efficiency and

effectiveness

Better protect

human health

and the

environment

Regional

compliancemonitoring

guidance

Regional

compliancetracking systems

None identified None identified

Improve the effectiveness

of cost recovery

Improve systems for tracking

cost recovery data and for

assigning priorities to cost

recovery work and revise

indirect cost accounting

methodologies to increase

the percentages of indirect

costs that are recovered

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully implemented/

ongoing—effort adopted as

an “administrative

improvement” in 1993

Reduce

cleanup costs

Results of costrecovery planning

and targeting

efforts

Percentage of

targeted sites

valued at more

than $200,000 that

were addressed in

fiscal year 1998:

100

Costs recovered

through

settlements

through fiscal year

1998: About $2.4

billion

None identified

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 103 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Fund technical assistance

grants

Encourage the regions to

consider means of

streamlining the grant

process, such as providing

advance funding for technical

assistance grants and

authorizing training for grant

recipients, to make resources

available for communities to

acquire independent

technical assistance that

could help them understand

and comment on information

related to Superfund sites

(e.g., records of decision on

cleanup remedies)

Scope: Programwide

Status: Not yet fully

implemented

Enhance public

participation

Number of

technical

assistance grants

awarded since

1988: Over 202

Publication in the

Federal Register of

a rule to

streamline the

grant process,

8/24/99

None identified None identified

Use risk-sharing to

encourage the use of

innovative technologies

Reduce the risks associated

with using innovative

technologies by providing

indemnification coverage for

the prime contractor as well

as the innovative technology

contractor, thereby protecting

both from third-party liability

claims if the technology does

not perform as expected

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Expedite

cleanups

Policy directive

Number of

requests for

expanded

indemnification

coverage received:

0

None identified None identified

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 104 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Support voluntary cleanup

programs

Work with states and tribes

to promote programs that

encourage private parties to

voluntarily clean up

contaminated sites by, for

example, (1) providing

financial assistance to

support an infrastructure for

state voluntary cleanup

programs and to promote

cooperation among states,

tribes, and regions, and (2)

issuing guidance on drafting

memorandums of agreement

between EPA regions and

states in support of voluntary

cleanup programs

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Enhance

participation of

states and

tribes in the

cleanup

process

Restore

formerly

contaminated

sites to

beneficial use

Number of states

that have

implemented

voluntary cleanup

programs: 44

Number of states

that have signed

agreements with

EPA regions on

supporting

voluntary cleanups

and redeveloping

brownfields: 14 as

of December 1999

Amount distributed

since 1997 to

support an

infrastructure for

state/ tribal

voluntary cleanup

programs: Over

$29 million

None identified Ability of

state/tribal

programs to

assess, clean up,

and recover costs

at brownfield sites

enhanced

Encourage community

participation in risk

assessments

Develop a reference

document to support and

promote public participation

in the risk assessment

process

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Encourage

stakeholders'

involvement in

the risk

assessment

process

Reference

documents,

including Risk

Assessment

Guidance for

Superfund,

Volume 1, Human

Health Evaluation

Manual

(Supplement to

Part A):

Community

Involvement in

Superfund Risk

Assessments

Video and

brochure on

citizens'

involvement in risk

assessments

Number (and

percentage) of

new remedial

investigation/

feasibility study

starts in which the

community has

been substantively

involved in

designing the risk

assessment: Data

not provided

Remedies

improved

Community

relations improved

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 105 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Allow potentially

responsible parties to

perform risk assessments

Issue a directive (1)

confirming that responsible

and qualified parties can

perform risk assessments at

most sites and (2) removing

the requirement that the

regions consult with

headquarters before allowing

these parties to perform risk

assessments

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Encourage

stakeholders'

involvement in

the risk

assessment

process

Expedite

cleanups

Policy document:

Revised Policy on

Performance of

Risk Assessments

During Remedial

Investigations/

Feasibility Study

(RI/FS) by

Potentially

Responsible

Parties

Number (and

percentage) of

new remedial

investigation/

feasibility study

starts where the

risk assessment

was performed by

the potentially

responsible

parties: Data not

provided

None identified

Establish an expert

workgroup on lead

Establish an expert

workgroup to standardize

risk assessment approaches

for lead-contaminated

Superfund sites and provide

advice to regional risk

assessors and site managers

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Better protect

human health

and the

environment

Make risk

assessments

more

consistent

Technical Review

Workgroup and

Lead Sites

Workgroup

Guidance

document:

Revised Interim

Soil Lead (PB)

Guidance for

CERCLA Sites

and RCRA

Corrective Action

Facilities

Other guidance

documents and

site-specific

consultations

None identified More opportunities

for the public to

interact with EPA

Fewer questions

raised on

consistency

Use of better

science advanced

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 106 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Establish a lead regulator

for federal sites

Develop guidance promoting

the concept of a single

regulator for federal sites,

specifying roles and outlining

the general principles and

guidelines that federal and

state partners should follow

in overseeing cleanup

activities, thereby simplifying

the cleanup process and

allowing for more efficient

staffing

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Improve

program's

efficiency and

effectiveness

Guidance

documents

None identified Less duplication of

effort and

inefficiency in the

use of resources

Consider the response

actions taken at sites

before placing them on

the National Priorities List

Revise guidance to (1)

ensure that response actions

taken at sites up to the time

of their placement on the

National Priorities List are

considered in determining

whether the sites qualify for

the list and (2) incorporate

greater flexibility in evaluating

whether sites should be

removed from the list to

encourage early cleanup

actions, especially by private

parties

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Reduce

litigation and

associated

costs

Amended policy

document:

Revised Hazard

Ranking System:

Evaluating Sites

After Waste

Removals

Number of sites

considered as low

priorities for

placement on the

National Priorities

List or classified as

“no further

remedial action

planned” because

prior cleanup

activities, such as

waste removal,

were considered in

setting priorities:

Data not provided

None identified Incentives

provided for

parties to conduct

early response

actions before

sites are placed on

the National

Priorities List

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 107 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Promote risk-based

priority-setting for federal

facilities

Develop guidance for the

regions that will address (1)

the role of risk and other

factors (such as cost,

community concerns,

environmental justice, and

cultural considerations) in

setting priorities at federal

facilities, (2) the Department

of Defense's and the

Department of Energy's

approaches to evaluating

risks at sites, and (3) the

appropriate role of

stakeholders in setting

priorities

Scope: Programwide

Status: Not yet fully

implemented/ongoing

Better protect

human health

and the

environment

Interim final

guidance

Number of federal

facility agreements

revised to reflect

changes in

priorities within

Department of

Defense and

Department of

Energy facilities

(number of

agreements and

number of

milestones

revised): Data not

provided

None identified Three regions (III,

IX, and X) assisted

in setting riskbased priorities at

Navy Superfund

sites

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 108 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Ensure more equitable

issuance of unilateral

administrative orders

Issue unilateral

administrative orders for site

cleanups to the largest

manageable number of

parties, after considering

evidence of the parties'

liability, financial viability, and

contribution to a site's waste,

and establish procedures

requiring regional staff to

document their reason(s) for

proposing that certain parties

be excluded from

administrative orders

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Increase

program's

fairness

Reduce

litigation and

associated

costs

For each unilateral

administrative

order issued, the

number of parties

identified at the

site, the number of

parties excluded,

and the

documentation of

reasons for

exclusion: Data not

provided

(enforcement data

confidential)

Number of orders

independently

reviewed by EPA

headquarters to

ensure that they

had been issued to

all appropriate

parties (including

governmental

entities): 180

Number (and

percentage) of

orders that have

required

documentation:

Data not provided

(enforcement data

confidential)

Number (and

percentage) of

cases where

reasons cited for

excluding parties

were consistent

with EPA's policy:

Data not provided

(enforcement data

confidential)

None identified Regions'

willingness to

issue unilateral

administrative

orders to a larger

number of

potentially

responsibleparties

increased

Parties' perception

of EPA regions'

fairness in issuing

orders improved

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Appendix II

Characteristics of 48 Reforms That EPA Did

Not Classify as Both Fundamental and

Measurable

Page 109 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

a

Unless otherwise noted, all data are current as of the end of fiscal year 1999.

Source: GAO's classification and presentation of information from EPA.

Establish ombudsmen Establish an ombudsman in

each region to facilitate the

resolution of regional issues

or problems by serving as a

point of contact for the public

and helping to resolve

stakeholders' concerns

Scope: Programwide

Status: Fully

implemented/ongoing

Enhance public

participation

Appointed an

ombudsman in

each region

Number of cases

for which EPA

conducted

investigations and

mediations: Data

not provided

Public's

perceptions of

EPA's decisions

improved

Results and effects of reform identified by EPA

Reform Description of reform

Reform’s

goals

Outputs

(unverified)a

Outcomes

(unverified)

Nonmeasurable

effects

Continued from Previous Page
Page 110 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApendxIi

Our overall objective was to determine the effectiveness of the 62

administrative reforms EPA has introduced to improve the Superfund

program. Specifically, we sought to (1) determine the demonstrated results

of these reforms and evaluate the quality of the measures the agency uses

to gauge the results and (2) identify legislative changes to the program that

either the agency or key stakeholders—including, among others,

representatives of parties responsible for cleanups, environmental groups,

and states—believe are still necessary. In determining the scope of our

review, we asked the agency to identify those reforms that it considers to

be key to the Superfund program. The agency identified 14 of the 62

reforms that it considers to have fundamentally and measurably changed

the program, and we focused our detailed audit work on them. This report

primarily summarizes the results of our review of the 14 reforms as a

group. However, we also provide information on the remaining 48 reforms

(see app. II).

To obtain information on the 62 reforms, we developed a set of questions

on their nature, characteristics, scope of implementation, performance

measures, and results. We submitted these questions to the Senior Process

Manager for Reforms in the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

within EPA's Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and to the

principal reform manager in the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement in

EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance at the agency's

headquarters in Washington, D.C. These reform managers coordinated

responses throughout the agency and provided us with detailed

information on each of the reforms. We also reviewed EPA's annual reports

on the reforms and various information and documents relating to the

reforms available on EPA's Superfund Web site.

To determine the overall effects of key reforms on the Superfund program,

we first asked these reform managers to identify the reforms that they

regarded as “fundamental” or otherwise significant in some way. We also

asked them to explain why they classified these reforms as fundamental or

significant. In their responses, the reform managers identified 20 reforms

that they considered to have fundamentally changed the Superfund

program. According to these reform managers, EPA regards a reform as

having produced a “fundamental change” if it (1) results in a new way of

doing business for the Superfund program; (2) is intended for programwide

implementation and has been integrated into the base program's

operations; and (3) where appropriate, is being tracked as a measure for

key agency or program goals. We also asked the reform managers to

identify the fundamental reforms that have produced measurable
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 111 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

(quantifiable) outcomes. Of the 20 reforms, these reform managers

characterized 14 as having produced measurable outcomes, and we

focused our review of the reforms' effects on the program on these 14.

To obtain the information we needed on these 14 reforms, we submitted

additional detailed questions on each reform to the agency's reform

managers. In these questions, we asked for further information on (1) each

reform's goals, (2) the extent to which EPA regions are implementing the

reform, (3) the performance measures EPA uses to track progress toward

achieving the reform's goals, and (4) the results of each reform. We also

asked EPA to provide supporting data and documentation to verify this

information. To determine the extent of the reforms' implementation and

their effects, we reviewed and analyzed the information provided byEPA.

In addition, we reviewed and synthesized information from key published

and internal EPA documents, as well as reports, studies, and analyses by

other organizations that have examined the effects of the reforms.We did

not attempt to verify the data and analyses provided. Furthermore, we

interviewed representatives of various industry, environmental, and

government groups, including, for industry groups, the Chemical

Manufacturer’s Association, the Superfund Settlements Project, the

National Association of Realtors, and the National Federation of

Independent Business; for environmental groups, Environmental Defense,

the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, and Resources for the Future; and

for state and local government groups, the Association of State and

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, the Committee for the

National Institute for the Environment, the National Association of

Counties, the National Association of Local Government Environmental

Professionals, the National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of

Mayors, and the congressionally chartered National Academy of Public

Administration. We also talked to staff in EPA's Office of the Inspector

General and reviewed a number of the Office's reports on Superfund. In

addition, in commenting on some of the reforms, we relied on our past

work on a variety of Superfund issues.

To identify changes to the Superfund program that EPA and other

stakeholders believe are still necessary, we reviewed and analyzed EPA's

written responses to the questions we submitted on each reform.We also

talked to representatives from the industry, environmental, and state and

local government groups identified above to discuss their views on changes

needed in the Superfund program.
Appendix III

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 112 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

We conducted our work for this review between July 1999 and May 2000 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Page 113 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Appendix IV

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency ApendxIVi
Page 114 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms
Appendix IV

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 115 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms
Appendix IV

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 116 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms
Page 117 GAO/RCED-00-118 Superfund Administrative Reforms

Appendix V

GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxVi

GAO Contacts David G. Wood (202) 512-6111

Eileen Regan Larence (202) 512-6510

Acknowledgments In addition to those named above, Vincent P. Price, David Goldstein, and

Michael Ibay made key contributions to this report.

(160500) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet,

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud,

Waste, or Abuse in

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00