United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

September 1997 SUPERFUND

Trends in Spending for

Site Cleanups

GAO/RCED-97-211

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-277456 

September 4, 1997

Congressional Requesters

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) spends about $1.4 billion a

year on the Superfund program to address the potential threats to human

health and the environment resulting from hazardous waste sites. The

Superfund program is focused on cleaning up the nation’s worst hazardous

waste sites, known as the National Priorities List (NPL) sites, although

Superfund money may also be used to address other releases of hazardous

substances into the environment. The Congress is considering proposals

to reauthorize the program.

EPA does not clean up hazardous waste sites by itself. Instead, it uses

Superfund money to prepare for and implement the cleanups through

others. EPA may compel private parties to clean up the contamination for

which they are responsible (an action referred to as enforcement).

Alternatively, EPA may pay contractors, states, or other federal agencies to

prepare for and implement the site cleanups. (In this report, these

alternatives are referred to as contractor cleanup work.) Actual cleanups

are of two basic types: remedial actions, which are generally long-term,

comprehensive cleanups, and removal actions, which are generally

shorter-term measures to address immediate health threats. EPA also uses

Superfund money to pay for the program’s administration and

management, research and development, and laboratory analysis.

As agreed with your offices, we analyzed Superfund spending from fiscal

year 1987 through fiscal year 1996 to determine (1) of total Superfund

spending, how much was for contractor cleanup work, in contrast with

other activities; (2) of the money spent on contractor cleanup work, how

much was spent on the actual cleanups, in contrast with cleanup

preparation; and (3) whether a trend in spending for the actual cleanups

could be determined for the years examined, and, if so, what accounted

for that trend.

Results in Brief Both the amount and share of money spent on contractor cleanup work

increased from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996. In fiscal year

1987, $261 million (in constant 1996 dollars) was spent on contractor

cleanup work, or 37 percent of the total Superfund spending of

$702 million. In fiscal year 1996, $696 million was spent on contractor

cleanup work, or 49 percent of the total Superfund spending of $1.4 billion.

Page 1 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

In both years, the remaining funds were spent on administration,

enforcement, and other Superfund activities.

Of the money spent on contractor cleanup work, the amount and share

spent on the actual cleanups also increased from fiscal year 1987 through

fiscal year 1996. In fiscal year 1987, of the $261 million the Environmental

Protection Agency spent on contractor cleanup work, $142 million was for

the actual cleanups, or 54 percent of the total. In fiscal year 1996, of the

$696 million the agency spent on contractor cleanup work, $614 million

went to the actual cleanups, or 88 percent of the total. In both years, the

remaining funds for contractor cleanup work were spent for cleanup

preparation—that is, to study site contamination and design the cleanup

action.

Annual spending for the actual cleanups increased by about $472 million

from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996. About half of this increase

resulted from spending at a few large-dollar sites (defined as those with

$10 million or more in spending during any 1 year). There were no

large-dollar sites in 1987 or 1988; but by 1989, two large-dollar sites

accounted for $28 million in annual spending; and by 1996, nine such sites

accounted for $238 million in annual spending. Two other factors each

contributed about 25 percent to the increase in the spending for the actual

cleanups. First, the remedial action spending at sites other than the

large-dollar sites increased from $61 million in 1987 to $180 million in

1996, primarily because the number of these sites grew from 38 in 1987 to

165 in 1996. Second, the amount of money spent on removal actions

increased from $80 million in 1987 to $196 million in 1996, primarily to

address the immediate threats at sites that were not on the National

Priorities List.

Background In 1980, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act created the Superfund program to clean up highly

contaminated hazardous waste sites. To pay for the activities under the

Superfund program, the act established a trust fund, financed primarily by

taxes on crude oil and certain chemicals. Under the act, EPA has the

authority to compel the parties responsible for the contamination to

perform the cleanup. EPA may also pay for the cleanup and attempt to

recover the cleanup costs in those cases in which a responsible party can

be identified. In 1986, amendments to the act added new provisions

regarding cleanup methods, community participation, and enforcement

actions, among other things.

Page 2 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

EPA arranges to have cleanup preparation and the actual cleanups

conducted through one of several entities. EPA may directly hire a

contractor to conduct the work, or it may arrange to have the work

conducted by another federal agency, usually the Army Corps of

Engineers, or a state. Under agreements with other federal agencies or

states, EPA transfers the cleanup funds to them, and they in turn generally

hire a contractor to conduct the actual site work.

A number of phases occur in cleaning up an NPL site. First, once a site is

determined to be contaminated enough to be placed on the NPL, the type

and extent of contamination is studied and the alternative remedial

actions are analyzed. This phase is known as the study phase. Second,

after a cleanup action is selected, technical drawings and specifications

for the remedial action are developed. This phase is known as the design

phase. (We define spending for these first two steps as “cleanup

preparation spending.”) Finally, the remedial action is constructed or

implemented; this action is usually a long-term project that can continue

over several years. In addition, EPA can use Superfund funds to pay for

removal actions—shorter-term actions that generally address immediate

threats from hazardous substances.1

 Removal actions may occur at NPL

sites, or more commonly, at non-NPL sites. (We define spending for

remedial and removal actions as “actual cleanup spending.” According to

the director of the Superfund program office, EPA uses the term “cleanup”

generally to refer to both cleanup preparation spending and actual cleanup

spending.)

Other Superfund spending covers (1) costs directly related to cleanups,

including EPA’s salaries and travel for cleanup oversight and the costs

associated with screening sites for inclusion on the NPL; (2) enforcement,

including costs related to the oversight of responsible parties’ cleanups

and to EPA’s legal staff for negotiating and settling with responsible parties;

(3) research and development, and laboratory analysis, including the costs

of EPA’s scientists, innovative technology programs, and the evaluation of

hazardous waste samples; and (4) administration and support, including

indirect costs for the Superfund program, such as rent, utilities, and

accounting systems.

All dollar amounts in this report have been converted to constant 1996

dollars. Appendix I provides both the constant and the current dollar

1

In 1996, we reported that using the removal process instead of the remedial process at portions of

Superfund sites can save time and money and expedite the protection of human health and the

environment. See A Superfund Tool for More Efficient Cleanups (GAO/RCED-96-134R, Apr. 15, 1996).

Page 3 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

amounts of Superfund expenditures from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal

year 1996.

Spending on

Contractor Cleanup

Work Increased

From fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996, Superfund spending for

contractor cleanup work increased from $261 million to $696 million (in

constant 1996 dollars). As figure 1 shows, the funds spent for contractor

cleanup work generally increased each year. The amount spent on other

Superfund activities increased each year from 1987 through 1991, but

decreased each year from 1991 through 1996.

Page 4 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

Figure 1: Contractor Cleanup Work and Other Superfund Expenses in 1996 Constant Dollars, Fiscal Year 1987 Through

Fiscal Year 1996

Contractor cleanup work

Other Superfund expenses

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

$261

$346

$455 $463

$604

$574

$536

$627

$666

$696

$441

$666

$711

$867

$941 $929

$893 $891

$841

$716

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions

Over the same period, the spending on contractor cleanup work also

increased as a percentage of total Superfund spending. Contractor cleanup

work accounted for 37 percent of total spending in fiscal year 1987 and

49 percent in fiscal year 1996. The spending for the other Superfund

activities declined during the period, from 63 percent in 1987 to 51 percent

in 1996. Within this category, the percentages spent on directly related

costs and research and development and laboratory analysis decreased,

Page 5 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

while the percentages spent on enforcement and administration and

support increased, as shown in figure 2.

Figure 2: Changes in the Composition of Superfund Spending, Fiscal Years 1987 and 1996

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

1987 1996

37%

13%

21%

11%

18%

49%

21%

15% 4%

11%

Contractor 

cleanup

Directly related

Enforcement

Research, 

development, and 

laboratory analysis

Administration 

and support

Contractor 

cleanup

Directly 

related

Enforcement

Research, 

development, and 

laboratory analysis

Administration 

and support

Spending for Actual

Cleanups Also

Increased

EPA’s spending on the actual cleanups increased from fiscal year 1987

through fiscal year 1996, while spending on cleanup preparation declined.

As figure 3 shows, spending on the actual cleanups rose from $142 million

in 1987 to $614 million in 1996. In contrast, spending on cleanup

preparation increased from $120 million in 1987 to $169 million in 1988 but

generally decreased each year thereafter, dropping to $81 million in 1996.

Page 6 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

Figure 3: Cleanup Preparation Spending and Actual Cleanup Spending in 1996 Constant Dollars, Fiscal Year 1987 Through

Fiscal Year 1996

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

$120

$169 $167

$144 $155 $146

$105 $101 $92 $81

$142

$176

$288

$318

$449

$428 $431

$526

$574

$614

Fiscal year

Cleanup preparation

Actual cleanups

Dollars in millions

Note: The spending for the cleanup preparation and the actual cleanups may not add to total

spending for contractor cleanups because of rounding.

From fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996, the spending for the actual

cleanups also increased as a percentage of total spending for contractor

cleanup work. The spending for the actual cleanups accounted for

54 percent of the spending for contractor cleanup work in 1987 and

Page 7 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

88 percent in 1996. Conversely, the spending for cleanup preparation

declined during the period, from 46 to 12 percent.

A Few Large-Dollar

Sites Primarily

Accounted for

Increased Spending

on Actual Cleanups

About half of the increase in the spending on the actual cleanups from

fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996 resulted from the growth in the

spending at a few large-dollar sites. The increased spending at other

remedial action sites and for removals accounted for the remainder.

Large-Dollar Sites Were the

Most Significant Factor in

the Increase in Actual

Cleanup Spending

Of the approximately $472 million increase in spending for the actual

cleanups from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996, about $356 million

was for remedial actions and about $116 million was for removal actions.

We found a substantial variation in the annual spending per site. For

example, in 1996, of the 327 sites where EPA spent money for remedial

actions, it spent less than $10,000 at each of 153 sites,2

 $10,000 to

$10 million at each of 165 sites, and $10 million or more at each of 9 sites,

as shown in table 1. (App. II provides a list of the nine large-dollar sites

and the amount of remedial action spending at those sites in 1996.)

Table 1: Distribution of Remedial

Action Spending, by Amount of

Spending Per Site, Fiscal Year 1996

Annual

spending per

site

Number of

sites

Spending

(dollars in

millions)

Percentage of

sites

Percentage of

spending

Less than $10,000 153 $0.3 46.8 0.1

$10,000 to $10

million 165 179.9 50.4 43.0

$10 million or

more 9 237.9 2.8 56.9

Total 327 $418.0 100.0 100.0

Note: Numbers may not add to totals because of rounding.

The number of large-dollar sites generally increased from fiscal year 1987

through fiscal year 1996, as shown in figure 4. There were no such sites in

1987 or 1988, two in 1989, and nine in 1996. In dollar terms, $28 million

was spent on large-dollar sites in 1989 and $238 million in 1996. Thus,

2

According to EPA’s officials, charges this small were most likely to represent adjustments to previous

years’ expenditures at a site, not ongoing activity. Therefore, we excluded these sites from the

following analysis of site-by-site spending patterns.

Page 8 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

large-dollar sites accounted for half of the $472 million increase in

spending for the actual cleanups that occurred from 1987 through 1996.

Moreover, the percentage of the spending on remedial actions at such sites

generally increased from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996. There

was no spending for remedial action at such sites in 1987 or 1988,

21 percent in 1989, and 57 percent in 1996, as also shown in figure 4.

Figure 4: Remedial Action Spending at Large-Dollar Sites, Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1996

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2

4

9

8 8

6

7

9

21

31

55

50

46

49

51

57

Fiscal year

Number of large-dollar sites

Percentage of remedial action spending

Number of large-dollar sites Percentage of spending

Note: Large-dollar sites are those with annual spending of $10 million or more in 1996 constant

dollars for at least 1 year. There were no such sites in 1987 or 1988.

Page 9 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

Spending at Other

Remedial Action Sites Also

Contributed to the

Increase in Actual Cleanup

Spending

At sites other than those in the large-dollar category, spending increased

from $61 million in fiscal year 1987 to $180 million in fiscal year 1996. This

$119 million increase accounted for 25 percent of the growth in the

spending for the actual cleanups. This increase resulted primarily from a

growth in the number of such sites at which EPA spent money, although the

number of sites leveled off after 1993. The average annual amount spent at

sites other than the large-dollar sites changed little during this period.

Excluding the large-dollar sites and the sites with annual spending of less

than $10,000,3

 the number of sites receiving funds for remedial action

increased from 38 in fiscal year 1987 to 165 in fiscal year 1996. However,

the increase was not steady. The number of these sites increased from 38

to 155 from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1993, and from 155 to 165

from fiscal year 1993 through fiscal year 1996, as shown in figure 5.

3

Spending at sites with annual disbursements of less than $10,000 amounted to 0.04 percent of total

spending during the 10-year period.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

Figure 5: Number of Sites With Spending for Remedial Action, Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1996

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

0

50

100

150

200

38

63

84

113

121

137

155

150

165 165

Fiscal year

Remedial action sites

Note: We excluded (1) sites with annual spending of $10 million or more and (2) sites with annual

spending of less than $10,000, both in 1996 constant dollars.

Moreover, when the large-dollar sites and those with little spending are

excluded, the average annual amount spent per site changed only slightly

during this period. Specifically, the average spending ranged between

$0.9 million and $1.3 million, except in 1987, when the average annual

spending per site was $1.6 million. (See fig. 6.)

Page 11 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

Figure 6: Average Annual Spending for Remedial Action Per Site, in 1996 Constant Dollars, Fiscal Year 1987 Through

Fiscal Year 1996

 

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

1.6

0.9

1.3 1.3

1.2

1.1

0.9

1.2

0.9

1.1

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions

Note: We excluded (1) sites with annual spending of $10 million or more and (2) sites with annual

spending of less than $10,000, both in 1996 constant dollars.

Spending on Removal

Actions Also Increased

The spending on removal actions also contributed to the increase in actual

cleanup spending from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996. This

spending increased from $80 million in fiscal year 1987 to $196 million in

fiscal year 1996. This $116 million increase accounted for 25 percent of the

overall $472 million increase in actual cleanup spending.

While the spending on remedial action is limited to the NPL sites by EPA’s

regulations, the spending on removal action usually occurs at non-NPL

sites. In fact, from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1996, about

80 percent of the removals EPA funded were at non-NPL sites. EPA

Page 12 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

undertakes removals at non-NPL sites if it determines that an immediate

threat exists to human health or the environment.

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

comment. EPA said that the report’s analysis is sound. EPA also commented

that, in representations to the Congress and the public, it uses the term

“cleanup” to include studying and designing cleanups (which we refer to

as “cleanup preparation”), as well as field work to implement site remedies

(which we refer to as “actual cleanups”). We added this clarification where

appropriate. (App. IV contains EPA’s comments.)

We conducted our review from January through August 1997 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. See

appendix III for the details of our scope and methodology.

As arranged with your offices, we plan no further distribution of this

report until 15 days after the date of this letter unless you publicly

announce its contents earlier. At that time, we will send copies of the

report to other appropriate congressional committees and to the

Administrator of EPA. We will also make copies available to others upon

request.

Should you need further information, please call me at (202) 512-6111.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Lawrence J. Dyckman

Associate Director, Environmental

 Protection Issues

Page 13 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
B-277456 

Congressional 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 Bud Shuster

Chairman, Committee on Transportation

 and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Sherwood C. Boehlert

Chairman, Subcommittee on Water Resources

 and Environment

Committee on Transportation

 and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

Page 14 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Page 15 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Superfund Spending

Categories

18

Appendix II 

Superfund Sites With

$10 Million or More in

Remedial Action

Spending, Fiscal Year

1996

22

Appendix III 

Scope and

Methodology

23

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

Environmental

Protection Agency

24

Appendix V 

Major Contributors to

This Report

25

Tables Table 1: Distribution of Remedial Action Spending, by Amount of

Spending per Site, Fiscal Year 1996

8

Table I.1: Superfund Net Disbursements, Fiscal Year 1987

Through Fiscal Year 1996, in 1996 Constant Dollars

18

Table I.2: Superfund Net Disbursements, Fiscal Year 1987

Through Fiscal Year 1996, in Current Dollars

20

Page 16 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Contents

Figures Figure 1: Contractor Cleanup Work and Other Superfund

Expenses in 1996 Constant Dollars, Fiscal Year 1987 Through

Fiscal Year 1996

5

Figure 2: Changes in the Composition of Superfund Spending,

Fiscal Years 1987 and 1996

6

Figure 3: Cleanup Preparation Spending and Actual Cleanup

Spending in 1996 Constant Dollars, Fiscal Year 1987 Through

Fiscal Year 1996

7

Figure 4: Remedial Action Spending at Large-Dollar Sites, Fiscal

Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1996

9

Figure 5: Number of Sites With Spending for Remedial Action,

Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1996

11

Figure 6: Average Annual Spending for Remedial Action per Site,

in 1996 Constant Dollars, Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year

1996

12

Abbreviations

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FMS Financial Management System

IFMS Integrated Financial Management System

NPL National Priorities List

Page 17 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Appendix I 

Superfund Spending Categories

This appendix provides detailed information on Superfund disbursements

for fiscal years 1987 through 1996 in constant 1996 dollars (table I.1) and in

current dollars (table I.2).

Table I.1: Superfund Net Disbursements, Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1996, in 1996 Constant Dollars

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions

Inflation

factor and

type of

disbursement 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Total

Inflation factor 0.7546 0.7810 0.8140 0.8473 0.8839 0.9099 0.9338 0.9555 0.9793 1.0000

Contractor cleanup work

Remedial

investigation/

feasibility study $105.5 $142.7 $128.7 $108.8 $105.8 $81.3 $55.7 $55.9 $48.9 $41.3 $874.7

Remedial

design 14.4 26.7 38.3 35.5 49.6 64.6 48.8 45.1 43.1 39.8 $405.8

Remedial

actions 61.4 60.7 185.8 207.4 321.0 300.7 250.5 337.3 312.7 418.5 $2,456.0

Removal

actions 80.2 115.8 102.0 111.1 127.6 127.2 180.9 188.4 261.6 195.9 $1,490.6

Subtotal $261.4 $345.9 $454.8 $462.8 $604.0 $573.7 $535.9 $626.7 $666.4 $695.5 $5,227.2

Directly related cleanup costs

Removal

support and

management $35.2 $58.5 $59.4 $61.7 $64.4 $84.4 $64.7 $91.0 $54.9 $45.4 $619.7

Remedial

support and

management 85.8 98.5 111.0 103.2 90.0 81.1 96.7 71.4 78.6 53.5 $869.8

Site

assessment 22.6 37.4 34.2 39.3 32.3 51.4 52.1 52.7 53.6 43.1 $418.5

Other 1.2 (13.2) 0.3 0.1 0.7 0.7 (0.4) 7.7 12.7 16.9 $26.7

Subtotal $144.7 $181.3 $204.9 $204.3 $187.4 $217.6 $213.1 $222.7 $199.8 $158.9 $1,934.6

General administrative and support management

Subtotal $126.8 $214.0 $230.0 $330.2 $385.1 $342.1 $279.1 $296.0 $317.0 $299.4 $2,819.6

Enforcement

Preenforcement

activities $5.6 $14.6 $15.3 $17.0 $15.7 $18.8 $16.0 $12.2 $8.5 $7.1 $130.8

Oversight of

responsible

parties 26.3 35.8 38.7 54.5 64.8 79.5 77.3 75.4 64.5 45.4 $562.3

Judicial

enforcement 3.5 4.8 3.5 34.9 16.1 25.8 24.1 19.2 26.5 26.5 $185.0

(continued)

Page 18 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Appendix I 

Superfund Spending Categories

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions

Inflation

factor and

type of

disbursement 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Total

Enforcement

support and

management 55.4 71.3 70.3 87.9 142.7 117.3 125.0 106.2 113.1 122.4 $1,011.6

Other 0.8 18.4 3.2 5.0 5.9 6.7 6.0 6.9 4.4 2.9 $60.1

Subtotal $91.6 $145.0 $131.0 $199.3 $245.1 $248.0 $248.3 $219.9 $216.9 $204.4 $1,949.7

R&D/laboratory analysis

Research and

development

activities $25.5 $52.8 $69.5 $77.6 $82.2 $89.2 $103.6 $113.0 $70.9 $19.5 $703.7

Laboratory

activities 52.2 73.1 75.7 55.9 41.1 32.3 49.0 39.0 36.0 34.1 $488.3

Subtotal $77.7 $125.8 $145.2 $133.5 $123.3 $121.5 $152.6 $152.0 $106.9 $53.6 $1,192.0

Total net

disbursements $702.1 $1,012.0 $1,165.9 $1,330.1 $1,545.0 $1,502.9$1,428.9 $1,517.2 $1,507.0 $1,411.9 $13,123.1

Page 19 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Appendix I 

Superfund Spending Categories

Table I.2: Superfund Net Disbursements, Fiscal Year 1987 Through Fiscal Year 1996, in Current Dollars

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions

Type of

disbursenment 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Total

Contractor cleanup work

Remedial

investigation/

feasibility study $79.6 $111.4 $104.7 $92.2 $93.5 $74.0 $52.1 $53.4 $47.9 $41.3 $750.2

Remedial

design 10.9 20.8 31.2 30.1 43.8 58.7 45.5 43.1 42.2 39.8 $366.2

Remedial

actions 46.3 47.4 151.2 175.8 283.8 273.6 233.9 322.3 306.2 418.5 $2,259.0

Removal

actions 60.5 90.4 83.0 94.1 112.8 115.7 168.9 180.0 256.2 195.9 $1,357.6

Subtotal $197.3 $270.1 $370.2 $392.1 $533.9 $522.1 $500.4 $598.8 $652.6 $695.5 $4,733.0

Directly related cleanup costs

Removal

support and

management $26.5 $45.7 $48.4 $52.2 $56.9 $76.8 $60.4 $86.9 $53.8 $45.4 $553.2

Remedial

support and

management 64.7 77.0 90.4 87.4 79.6 73.8 90.3 68.2 77.0 53.5 761.8

Site

assessment 17.0 29.2 27.8 33.3 28.6 46.7 48.6 50.3 52.5 43.1 $377.1

Other 0.9 (10.3) 0.2 0.1 0.6 0.6 (0.3) 7.4 12.4 16.9 $28.5

Subtotal $109.2 $141.6 $166.8 $173.1 $165.7 $198.0 $199.0 $212.8 $195.6 $158.9 $1,720.5

General administrative and support management

Subtotal $95.7 $167.1 $187.2 $279.8 $340.4 $311.3 $260.6 $282.8 $310.4 $299.4 $2,534.7

Enforcement

Preenforcement

activities $4.2 $11.4 $12.4 $14.4 $13.8 $17.1 $15.0 $11.7 $8.3 $7.1 $115.5

Oversight of

responsible

parties 19.9 28.0 31.5 46.2 57.3 72.3 72.2 72.0 63.2 45.4 $508.0

Judicial

enforcement 2.7 3.8 2.9 29.5 14.3 23.5 22.5 18.4 25.9 26.5 $169.9

Enforcement

support and

management 41.8 55.7 57.2 74.5 126.1 106.7 116.7 101.4 110.7 122.4 $913.4

Other 0.6 14.4 2.6 4.2 5.2 6.1 5.6 6.6 4.3 2.9 52.4

Subtotal $69.1 $113.3 $106.7 $168.9 $216.7 $225.7 $231.9 $210.1 $212.4 $204.4 $1,759.1

(continued)

Page 20 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Appendix I 

Superfund Spending Categories

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions

Type of

disbursenment 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 Total

R&D/Laboratory analysis

Research and

development

activities $19.2 $41.2 $56.6 $65.8 $72.7 $81.1 $96.7 $108.0 $69.4 $19.5 $630.2

Laboratory

activities 39.4 57.1 61.6 47.4 36.3 29.4 45.7 37.2 35.2 34.1 423.5

Subtotal $58.6 $98.3 $118.2 $113.1 $109.0 $110.6 $142.5 $145.2 $104.6 $53.6 $1,053.7

Total net

disbursements $529.8 $790.4 $949.1 $1,127.0 $1,365.6 $1,367.5 $1,334.4 $1,449.7 $1,475.7 $1,411.9 $11,801.1

Page 21 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Appendix II 

Superfund Sites With $10 Million or More in

Remedial Action Spending, Fiscal Year 1996

Dollars in millions

Site State 1996 spending

Bridgeport Rental and Oil Services New Jersey $62.2

Baird & McGuire Massachusetts 40.4

Raymark Industries Connecticut 30.8

Sharon Steel Utah 21.5

Summitville Mine Colorado 20.5

Drake Chemical Corp. Pennsylvania 19.5

Southern Shipbuilders Louisiana 17.2

Portland Cement Utah 13.5

Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical Idaho 12.2

Total $237.9

Note: Spending amounts do not add to total because of rounding.

Page 22 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Appendix III 

Scope and Methodology

To determine how Superfund spending was apportioned from fiscal year

1987 through fiscal year 1996, we obtained information from the

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Integrated Financial

Management System (IFMS) and its predecessor, the Financial Management

System (FMS). (IFMS replaced FMS as the agency’s official financial

information system in 1989.) Working with officials from EPA’s Office of

the Comptroller, we established categories for Superfund spending and

allocated the Superfund expenditures into those categories. To identify the

factors accounting for increased spending on the actual cleanups, we

analyzed site-by-site Superfund expenditures for each fiscal year from

1987 through 1996. We discussed our analysis with EPA officials from both

the Comptroller’s office and the Superfund program office. They generally

agreed that our analysis was appropriate.

We did not assess the reliability of the data contained in IFMS as part of this

review. However, in a 1995 review of IFMS, we found instances of

inaccurate and incomplete data in the system.4

 While we did not consider

these instances to be representative of the overall integrity of the IFMS

data, we recommended that EPA conduct statistical testing of the data, and

EPA has done that. To provide additional assurance about the reliability of

the IFMS data, we verified that, for each fiscal year included in our analysis,

the site-by-site cleanup expenditures added up to the annual cleanup

expenditure totals reported in the system. The sum of the cleanup

expenditures closely matched the annual total for each year, except 1989.

Officials from the Office of the Comptroller explained that the discrepancy

for 1989 is related to the conversion from FMS to IFMS that occurred that

year. They stated that reconciling the differences between the two totals

would be very difficult. We did not attempt such a reconciliation because

data for a single year have a relatively minor effect on the 10-year trends

observed in our analysis.

4

Superfund: System Enhancements Could Improve the Efficiency of Cost Recovery

(GAO/AIMD-95-177, Aug. 25, 1995).

Page 23 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 24 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development Division

David Marwick, Assistant Director

Patricia J. Manthe, Evaluator-in-Charge

Donald J. Sangirardi, Evaluator

Cathy L. Helm, Advisor

Annette Wright, Computer Specialist

Carol Herrnstadt Shulman, Communications Analyst

Office of the General

Counsel

Richard P. Johnson, Senior Attorney

(160375) Page 25 GAO/RCED-97-211 Superfund Cleanup Spending
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. 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

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or 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.

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

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
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. G100