United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1999 SUPERFUND

PROGRAM

Activities of the

Agency for Toxic

Substances and

Disease Registry and

Department of Justice

GAO/RCED-99-85

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and

Economic Development Division

B-281999 

March 18, 1999

The Honorable John H. Chafee

Chairman, Committee on Environment

 and Public Works

United States Senate

The Honorable Robert C. Smith

Chairman, Subcommittee on Superfund,

 Waste Control, and Risk Assessment

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) created the Superfund program to clean up

the nation’s most hazardous waste sites. While the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) has primary responsibility for administering the

Superfund program, other federal agencies also play important roles.

These include the Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Department of

Justice (Justice).

CERCLA authorized the establishment of the Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry to implement its provisions relating primarily to

public health. The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of

1986 expanded the agency’s health-related responsibilities to require,

among other things, that it conduct a public health assessment at each site

proposed for or on the National Priorities List. Justice is responsible for

conducting all Superfund litigation involving the cleanup of hazardous

waste sites. EPA reimburses both of these agencies for their

Superfund-related costs.

You asked us to evaluate the use of Superfund resources by the Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and Justice. Specifically, we

examined (1) the amount and purpose of Superfund money provided to

the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry for fiscal years 1996

and 1997 and the processes this agency follows to ensure that Superfund

funds are used for authorized activities, (2) the ways in which EPA uses the

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s health consultations

and assessments in making cleanup decisions for Superfund sites, and

(3) the amount and purpose of Superfund money provided to Justice in

Page 1 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and the processes Justice follows to ensure that

Superfund funds are used for authorized purposes.

Results in Brief EPA provided the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry with

about $59 million in Superfund funds in fiscal year 1996 and $64 million in

fiscal year 1997. These funds were used to conduct health assessments at

Superfund sites, provide consultations on health issues unique to a site,

and research the health effects of hazardous substances. The Department

of Health and Human Services’ Inspector General annually audits the use

of these funds and has reported that these resources were generally used

in accordance with applicable requirements.

EPA regional officials told us that many of the Agency for Toxic Substances

and Disease Registry’s products and services were useful in EPA’s efforts to

clean up hazardous waste sites, especially the consultations that EPA

requests to address unique health concerns at sites, such as sampling

surface and groundwater for toxic chemicals, and other services, such as

attending public meetings and conducting blood tests. However, these

officials also said that the health assessments had little or no impact on

EPA’s cleanup decisions because they were not issued when needed and

were not conclusive about the health effects of Superfund sites. Superfund

legislation requires the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

to conduct health assessments at all sites proposed or listed on the

nation’s list of the worst hazardous waste sites. Recognizing the problems

with assessments, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

undertook an initiative to address these concerns. Although EPA and

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry officials believe that

the initiative has resolved some of the problems, they questioned the

continuing need for the legislative requirement that full health

assessments be prepared for all Superfund sites. They also believed that

the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s resources could

be used for consultations or other services that better meet EPA’s and other

users’ needs.

EPA provided Justice with about $32 million in fiscal year 1996 and about

$30 million in fiscal year 1997 to represent the federal government in

litigation involving the cleanup of hazardous waste sites. Justice’s actions

included negotiating with responsible parties to compel the cleanup of

Superfund sites and recovering the federal government’s costs when EPA

cleans up sites. Justice’s annual Inspector General audits have found no

major problems in Justice’s use of Superfund resources during the 1990s.

Page 2 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

Background Over the last several years, the Congress has provided EPA with an average

of about $1.5 billion annually for the Superfund program. The nation’s

worst hazardous waste sites, those on EPA’s National Priorities List,

generally undergo long-term comprehensive cleanup actions, called

remedial actions. A remedial action starts with a detailed study of the

contamination, including assessing the risks to the environment and

human health posed by a site. After this, alternative cleanup methods are

reviewed, and EPA, or the parties responsible for the contaminated site,

design and conduct the cleanup. The Superfund program also addresses

immediate health threats from hazardous substances by actions such as

removing the hazardous waste. These shorter-term measures are referred

to as removal actions. EPA has the authority to compel parties responsible

for the contaminated site to perform the cleanup, or it may pay for the

cleanup and attempt to recover the costs. EPA’s cleanup and enforcement

activities are financed through a trust fund, commonly called the

Superfund.

ATSDR’s Superfund

Activities

EPA provided ATSDR with $59 million in fiscal year 1996 and $64 million in

fiscal year 1997 for products and services that were related to the human

health effects of exposure to the hazardous substances at hazardous waste

sites. Recent audits performed by the Department of Health and Human

Services’ Inspector General showed that ATSDR is generally complying with

applicable laws, regulations, and other requirements in its spending of

Superfund money.

Many of ATSDR’s products and services are useful to EPA in its efforts to

clean up hazardous waste sites, according to EPA regional officials. These

include ATSDR’s (1) consultations, which are typically issue-specific,

short-term efforts addressing unique health issues at sites;

(2) participation at public meetings about sites; and (3) collection and

analysis of blood samples from residents near sites. However, EPA officials

said that ATSDR’s health assessments, which are typically long-term,

extensive efforts, generally had little or no impact on EPA’s cleanup

decisions because they duplicated or were inconsistent with EPA’s

information, were not issued when EPA needed them, and did not take

definitive positions about the health effects of hazardous waste sites.

Recognizing the need to improve its health assessment process, ATSDR

began a health assessment enhancement initiative in 1994, which EPA

officials believe has addressed several of their concerns. However, both

agencies believe that the requirement that ATSDR conduct a full health

Page 3 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

assessment at all Superfund sites may not make the best use of ATSDR’s

funds.

ATSDR Uses Superfund

Funds for a Variety of

Health-Related Activities

To carry out its responsibilities, ATSDR is organized into the following four

divisions:

• The Division of Health Assessments and Consultations. This division

prepares health assessments and/or consultations for individual hazardous

waste sites. To complete an assessment, ATSDR reviews available

information about the (1) nature and extent of contamination, (2) ways in

which humans are exposed to the contamination, (3) size and

susceptibility of the community exposed, (4) exposure limits for the

substances involved, and (5) diseases associated with the observed levels

of exposure. This division also performs health consultations, which are

usually requested by EPA or the communities near waste sites and are more

focused than health assessments. Consultations address specific health

issues at sites and are provided on an as-needed basis throughout the

cleanup process.

• The Division of Toxicology. This division prepares and updates the

toxicology profiles of the 275 hazardous substances on the CERCLA Priority

List of Hazardous Substances. These profiles interpret available

toxicological and epidemiological information in order to identify

exposure levels that are harmful to humans. According to ATSDR, state and

local health agencies, as well as EPA, use the profiles to estimate the

potential human health risks that may result from exposure to hazardous

substances.

• The Division of Health Studies. This division performs and supports

health studies that evaluate the relationship between exposure to a

hazardous substance and adverse health effects. For example, one study

looked at the long-term effect of lead exposure on the health of women

who worked in a lead smelter facility. The division also maintains a

national registry of persons exposed to hazardous substances as an aid in

assessing the long-term health consequences of this exposure.

• The Division of Health Education and Promotions. This division

conducts and supports health education activities, such as working at

specific sites to develop and promote strategies to mitigate the health

impacts of exposure to hazardous substances at specific Superfund sites.

For example, ATSDR works with the medical professionals near hazardous

waste sites to improve their ability to identify, evaluate, and treat persons

who have been exposed to the site’s hazardous substances. ATSDR often

Page 4 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

works with federal, state, and local health agencies to develop and

implement these public health activities.

In addition, ATSDR uses grantees and contractors to perform many of its

Superfund activities. ATSDR has cooperative agreements with 23 state

health agencies, referred to as Cooperative Agreement States, that it uses

to address health-related issues at specific sites. Approximately 60 percent

of ATSDR’s Superfund obligations for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 were for

cooperative agreements, interagency agreements, and contracts.

ATSDR reports its Superfund obligations by budget activities that are closely

related to the four divisions described above. ATSDR’s Superfund

obligations by budget activity for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 are shown in

table 1.

Table 1: ATSDR’s Superfund

Obligations, by Budget Activity, Fiscal

Years 1996 and 1997 Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997

Dollars in millions

Budget activity Dollars

Percent of

total

funding Dollars

Percent of

total

funding

Public health assessments, health

consultations, and site-specific

health activities $22.4 38.0 $25.2 39.4

Scientific assessment, research,

and information dissemination 16.0 27.1 13.9 21.7

Surveillance/ epidemiologic/health

studies and registries 14.3 24.2 13.8 21.6

Health education and promotion 6.3 10.7 11.1 17.3

Total $59.0 100.0 $64.0 100.0

Audits performed by the Department of Health and Human Services’

Inspector General for fiscal years 1994 through 1997 found that ATSDR

generally administered Superfund funds in accordance with the federal

government’s applicable laws, regulations, and other requirements.

EPA’s Use of ATSDR’s

Health Consultations,

Health Assessments,

and Other Services

EPA regional officials told us that many of ATSDR’s products and services

were useful in EPA’s efforts to clean up hazardous waste sites, especially

the consultations that EPA requests to address unique health concerns at

sites and other services, such as attending public meetings and conducting

blood tests. However, these officials also said that ATSDR’s health

assessments had little or no impact on EPA’s cleanup decisions because,

Page 5 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

among other things, they were not issued when needed and were not

conclusive about the health effects of Superfund sites. Recognizing the

problems with assessments, ATSDR undertook an initiative to address these

concerns. Although they believe that the initiative has resolved some of

the problems, EPA and ATSDR officials questioned the continuing need for

the legislative requirement that full health assessments be prepared for all

Superfund sites.

EPA Views Health

Consultations and Other

Services as Useful

Superfund officials in EPA’s regional offices found ATSDR’s health

consultations very helpful in making cleanup decisions. ATSDR’s

consultations range from a one-day, one-page summary of the latest

research on a certain chemical to months of work by a team of ATSDR

officials evaluating a specific health hazard at a site. EPA officials noted

that they relied on ATSDR to provide up-to-date expertise on the health

effects of many chemicals—expertise that some EPA regions may not have.

Because consultations fill data gaps and ATSDR usually responds quickly,

EPA regional officials reported that almost all consultations were useful.

They said that the extent to which they used ATSDR’s consultations

depended on the types of sites and the staff’s capabilities in the regions.

Regions may have ATSDR advise on the type of action needed to protect

human health or ways to implement that action. ATSDR also helps

determine (1) what the appropriate cleanup levels are for certain

chemicals and (2) whether site contamination is the cause for nearby

residents’ health problems. It may also help educate the public about a

site’s hazards. In emergency situations, such as train wrecks and chemical

plant accidents, some officials said they depend heavily on a quick

response from ATSDR on a number of issues. Emergencies often involve

chemicals that EPA is less familiar with, and officials need ATSDR’s advice

on the toxicity of the chemicals, their possible effect on human health, the

symptoms doctors might see in local residents, and the treatment of those

symptoms.

EPA regional officials also spoke highly of other types of ATSDR’s assistance,

such as its participation in public meetings that EPA conducts at various

stages of the hazardous waste cleanup process. Because ATSDR’s

representatives have medical expertise, the public often considers them

more credible than EPA on health issues. EPA regional officials also rely on

ATSDR to design blood tests for residents living near sites. For example, at

one site, lead screening for area children demonstrated that their blood

levels of lead were 20 to 30 times higher than the state average. ATSDR also

Page 6 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

worked with state and local health agencies to educate the public on how

to prevent the health hazards of lead. Some EPA regional officials said that

they would like ATSDR to expand these types of assistance at sites that have

effects on human health and at those where the issue of health effects is

controversial.

EPA Questions the Utility

of Health Assessments

In 1991, we reported that ATSDR’s health assessments generally had not

been useful to EPA and others because the assessments duplicated EPA’s

own information, did not add to EPA’s own analysis of site risks, and

recommended actions that EPA had already planned.1

 We also reported that

EPA officials found ATSDR’s health consultations useful. During our current

work, we found that these observations have not materially changed. Most

EPA regional officials responsible for managing the cleanup of Superfund

sites continue to question the utility of ATSDR’s health assessments. EPA

regional officials said that while some health assessments have been

useful to EPA, most had little or no impact on its cleanup decisions because

they (1) duplicated or were inconsistent with EPA’s own health-related

information, (2) were not issued when EPA needed them, and (3) did not

take definitive positions about the health effects of hazardous waste sites.

Several regional officials stated that ATSDR’s health assessments often

included health information that duplicated the information that EPA

already had available. In other instances, regional officials said that the

health assessment information was inconsistent with the information that

EPA had already developed about the health effects of Superfund sites, thus

requiring EPA and ATSDR to reconcile the differences. For example,

according to officials in EPA’s regional office in New York City, ATSDR’s

health assessments were generally not useful because they duplicated the

health-related information that EPA already had in its own risk

assessments. They also said that inconsistencies between EPA’s risk

assessment and ATSDR’s health assessment can surprise and confuse the

public if the health assessment is prepared in a vacuum rather than in

cooperation with EPA.

The timing of ATSDR’s health assessments also limited their usefulness to

EPA in making cleanup decisions. According to EPA regional officials,

ATSDR’s health assessments were often completed after EPA had decided on

the appropriate cleanup measures for a site. In other instances, ATSDR

sometimes issued health assessments before EPA needed the information;

1

Superfund: Public Health Assessments Incomplete and of Questionable Value (GAO/RCED-91-178,

Aug. 1, 1991).

Page 7 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

in these cases as well, the health information in the assessments was not

useful to EPA. For example, officials in EPA’s regional office in Seattle

stated that sometimes ATSDR issued assessments too early, without

complete information, and therefore reached a conclusion about a site’s

adverse health effects that was different from the conclusion that it and

EPA might have reached with more complete information.

In addition, according to EPA regional officials, some health assessments

were not definitive enough in quantifying or qualifying the adverse health

effects of hazardous waste sites, and other assessments did not have

enough health information for EPA to draw conclusions about the health

effects caused by a site. For example, according to officials in EPA’s

regional office in New York City, some health assessments were not useful

because they were inconclusive about the health risks from exposure to

hazardous substances. According to these officials, it would have been

better not to issue health assessments than to have inconclusive

information. According to officials in EPA’s regional office in San

Francisco, ATSDR seldom had enough information in the health

assessments to serve as the basis for EPA’s decisions about cleaning up

sites. Furthermore, according to officials in EPA’s regional office in

Chicago, the health assessments tended to oversimplify the issues because

the information was written to be understandable for all audiences,

including the general public, and therefore the information was not

specific enough to be useful to EPA.

EPA officials in most EPA regional offices noted that, because of the

problems with timeliness, completeness and other concerns about ATSDR’s

health assessments, the health information in the assessments often had

little or no effect on EPA’s final cleanup decisions for hazardous waste

sites. For example, officials in EPA’s regional office in Denver believed that

the health assessments did not add anything to the information the region

already had about the sites. Even though health assessments may not be

used directly in EPA’s cleanup decisions, some regional officials said that

the information was useful because it provided additional support for the

cleanup decisions that EPA had already made at some hazardous waste

sites.

ATSDR Recognizes the

Need to Amend the Health

Assessment Process

EPA regional and ATSDR officials attributed the problems with health

assessments largely to inadequate communication between ATSDR and EPA

and the statutory requirement for preparing full health assessments for all

sites listed or proposed for listing on EPA’ s National Priorities List. ATSDR

Page 8 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

officials also said that increased flexibility would allow them to provide

more focused or customized products, such as health consultations, that

may be more appropriate for a given site.

In December 1994, ATSDR began an effort—known as the Health

Assessment Enhancement Initiative—to revise its health assessment

process and better integrate it into EPA’s Superfund process. The initiative

was implemented as a pilot program at 24 hazardous waste sites. One of

the initiative’s key features was the use of site teams—composed of staff

from ATSDR and state health agencies—and the adoption of a

customer-oriented, phased approach for the health assessment process.

The teams focused their efforts on the specific circumstances at each

waste site and provided health-related products and services when EPA and

other stakeholders needed them rather waiting to issue a final health

assessment. The site teams preferred health consultations to assessments

because they considered consultations more focused, shorter, and more

responsive to EPA’s and other stakeholders’ needs. In contrast, many site

teams considered health assessments to be bulky, inflexible, and complex,

producing information that did not respond to many of the stakeholders’

needs in a timely manner.

EPA regional officials generally told us that they had a positive impression

of the health-related products and services provided under the initiative,

such as consultations, blood testing, and participation at public meetings.

For example, officials in EPA’s regional office in Philadelphia believed that

the initiative had increased ATSDR’s level of involvement at hazardous

waste sites by making ATSDR a full partner in governmental efforts to

assess health hazards and address community concerns. Several other

regions stated that ATSDR was more timely and responsive in addressing

site-specific health issues. EPA regional officials also said that under the

initiative, communication between ATSDR and EPA officials had improved.

Nevertheless, most regional officials stated that if ATSDR had the flexibility

to prepare other health-related products and services in lieu of

assessments, EPA’s needs would be better met. Many of the EPA officials we

interviewed believed that ATSDR should have the option of preparing full

health assessments only when they are needed rather than requiring them

for each site.

According to its draft report, ATSDR has changed the health assessment

process as a result of the initiative to include (1) requiring site teams for

all sites and (2) keeping EPA, the public, and other stakeholders involved in

Page 9 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

and informed about the site teams’ activities and findings.2 Taken together,

the actions resulting from the initiative and EPA’s overall favorable reaction

to them indicate that a number of the past shortcomings for the health

assessment process are being addressed. Nevertheless, it is doubtful

whether the changes made by the initiative will address all of EPA’s

concerns about the overall health assessment process—specifically, the

statutory requirement that ATSDR prepare health assessments for all

Superfund sites.

The Acting Assistant Administrator of ATSDR told us it would be beneficial

if ATSDR had more flexibility to decide which health-related products and

services would best meet EPA’s and other users’ needs for each Superfund

site. In fact, in 1998, ATSDR proposed amending CERCLA to allow it more

flexibility in designing the appropriate response to individual sites. ATSDR

noted that because sites vary in their physical, chemical, and demographic

characteristics, other health-related activities—such as health

consultations, health education, and health studies—may be more

appropriate than health assessments. Furthermore, persons living near a

Superfund site would benefit by a more timely and appropriate response

than would be feasible with the time required for a health assessment.

Finally, the proposal said that increased flexibility would be cost

beneficial, potentially reducing the average unit cost of ATSDR’s

involvement at individual sites.

Justice’s Superfund

Activities

As the litigator for EPA, Justice conducts work in a wide variety of areas

associated with the Superfund program, from compelling responsible

parties to clean up hazardous waste sites to defending EPA in lawsuits

concerning EPA’s implementation of the program. Justice received about

$32 and $30 million from EPA in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, respectively, to

conduct this work. To help ensure that the Superfund funds it receives are

used only for authorized Superfund litigation, Justice uses an independent

accounting firm to allocate costs to cases and bill EPA. Moreover, CERCLA

requires Justice’s Inspector General to audit Justice’s Superfund

expenditures annually to determine the adequacy of Justice’s internal

controls. These audits have revealed no material problems during the

1990s.

Justice Carries Out

Litigation for EPA

EPA begins the enforcement process at hazardous waste sites by

identifying the parties responsible for the contamination and collecting

2

“Public Health Assessment Enhancement Initiative Close-Out Report” (draft), Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry, Jan. 11, 1999.

Page 10 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

evidence to show that the government has a valid claim against them. EPA

then refers cases to Justice for initiating a lawsuit or negotiating a

settlement. Once a case is referred, EPA attorneys continue to support the

case, but Justice takes the lead in negotiating and settling or litigating the

case.

Justice’s Superfund efforts include three major areas. First, Justice

negotiates with responsible parties about performing cleanups. Justice

attempts to settle the case by having the responsible parties agree to

conduct and/or finance cleanup activities and pay the government’s

cleanup costs. If the negotiation is successful, EPA and the responsible

parties must sign a consent decree—that is, a legal document filed in court

that sets forth the requirements for cleanup and/or payment. Because

these cases often involve many responsible parties and complex technical

issues, they are resource-intensive, consuming a significant percentage of

resources on Justice’s Superfund docket.

Second, when EPA has cleaned up sites because the responsible parties

were unwilling or unable to do so, Justice files suit against the responsible

parties, when practicable, to recover EPA’s cleanup costs. These cases

range from very small cases of emergency removals to very large cases

with many responsible parties. This area of work currently constitutes the

largest number of Superfund cases on Justice’s docket.

Third, to support its attempts to locate responsible parties and establish

liability at hazardous waste sites, EPA has the authority to request financial

or other records from responsible parties. EPA also has the authority to

enter properties to, among other reasons, perform cleanups, inspect

contaminated sites, and obtain pertinent records. Justice handles cases

involving EPA’s exercise of these authorities.

Justice also conducts other types of work for EPA using Superfund

resources. For example, the parties responsible for a contaminated site

may challenge EPA’s decision to list the site on the National Priorities List.

In addition, Justice prosecutes criminal violations of CERCLA, which may

occur when a person fails to notify relevant officials of hazardous

substance releases into the environment. According to Justice officials,

these cases always include additional charges under other statutes, such

as the Clean Water Act. To facilitate reimbursing Justice for its Superfund

work, EPA and Justice annually negotiate an interagency agreement, which

establishes the type of activities EPA expects Justice to perform and an

annual estimated amount of funding for Justice.

Page 11 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

Audits Identify No Material

Problems With Justice’s

Superfund Activities

In fiscal year 1987, Justice initiated a cost accounting system for its use of

Superfund resources that was developed by an independent certified

public accounting firm. The accounting firm developed procedures to

ensure that all direct costs are allocated accurately to cases and a system

to fairly allocate indirect costs to cases. Since then, Justice has used this

accounting system to calculate charges to the Superfund. This accounting

system, as well as the costs charged to the Superfund and the

requirements of the interagency agreement, have been audited annually by

Justice’s Inspector General. Since the early 1990s, Justice has received

annual audit reports with no material findings.

In the early 1990s, EPA was concerned that Superfund resources were not

being used entirely for authorized Superfund activities in cases that

included alleged violations under CERCLA and other environmental statutes

(called mixed-count cases). At that time, Justice was charging all

mixed-count cases entirely to the Superfund. Because of EPA’s concerns,

Justice changed its accounting for these cases in 1995. Specifically, when

work for the Superfund counts can be separated out from work on the

other counts, Justice charges the Superfund only for work done for the

Superfund counts. However, when all the counts are factually linked

(work for the Superfund counts also supports the non-Superfund counts),

Justice charges the entire case to Superfund. Mixed-count cases charged

entirely to Superfund totaled $2.3 million in fiscal year 1997, or 8 percent

of Justice’s total Superfund resources for the year. EPA and Justice’s

Inspector General are satisfied with Justice’s current accounting approach

for mixed-count cases and have voiced no further concerns.

Conclusions Concerns about the usefulness of ATSDR’s health assessments have

persisted for almost a decade. Recognizing these concerns, ATSDR has

analyzed its process for conducting health assessments and made several

changes that, if properly implemented, should address a number of past

concerns. Nevertheless, ATSDR is still required to prepare health

assessments for all Superfund sites. Both ATSDR and EPA officials believe

that increased flexibility would allow ATSDR to produce alternative

products and services, such as health consultations that would be more

timely, effective, and cost beneficial in addressing the human health

effects related to Superfund sites. We believe that providing ATSDR with

greater flexibility would enable it to better use its resources for other

health-related products and services, such as health consultations, health

testing, and education.

Page 12 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
B-281999 

Recommendation to

the Congress

We recommend that the Congress amend the requirement that the Agency

for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry conduct a detailed health

assessment at each site proposed for listing on the National Priorities List

in order to provide the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

with more flexibility in choosing the appropriate health-related product or

service that will best meet EPA’s and other users’ needs.

Agency Comments We provided a draft of this report to the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry, EPA, and the Department of Justice for their review and

comment. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry and EPA

both stated that they agree with our recommendation. The Agency for

Toxic Substances and Disease Registry also provided additional

information regarding its health assessment efforts. See appendixes II and

III, respectively, for the text of the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry’s and EPA’s comments. The Department of Justice stated

that it fully concurred with both the description of its program and our

overall findings. (See app. IV.)

We conducted our review from July 1998 through February 1999 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. See

appendix I for our detailed scope and methodology.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly 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 to other appropriate

congressional committees, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the Department of

Justice. We will also make copies available to others upon request.

If you have any further questions about this report, please call me at

(202) 512-6111. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Peter F. Guerrero

Director, Environmental Protection Issues

Page 13 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

16

Appendix II 

Comments From the

Agency for Toxic

Substances and

Disease Registry

17

Appendix III 

Comments From the

Environmental

Protection Agency

20

Appendix IV 

Comments From the

Department of Justice

21

Appendix V 

Major Contributors to

This Report

22

Table Table 1: ATSDR’s Superfund Obligations, by Budget Activity,

Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997

5

Abbreviations

ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,

and Liability Act of 1980

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Page 14 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
Page 15 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

To determine the amount and purpose of Superfund money provided to

the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the

Department of Justice (Justice) for fiscal years 1996 and 1997, we

reviewed the agencies’ financial statements and summary reports of actual

expenditures. We also interviewed Justice, ATSDR and Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) headquarters officials about the activities that

Justice and ATSDR performed with Superfund resources and reviewed

agencies’ annual reports. We were unable to include complete fiscal year

1998 data because of time lags in the agencies’ reporting of expenditures.

To determine how EPA uses health assessments and consultations in

making cleanup decisions, we conducted telephone interviews with

remedial and removal officials in EPA’s 10 regional offices. We asked these

officials about, among other things, the usefulness and timeliness of

assessments and consultations that ATSDR completed for their regions in

fiscal years 1996 and 1997. We also asked them about the effect of ATSDR’s

enhancement initiative in their regions. We discussed these same issues

with the EPA headquarters officials responsible for coordination with ATSDR

and with ATSDR headquarters officials. In addition to EPA, other users of

ATSDR’s products and services include the public, such as people who live

near Superfund sites. We did not obtain information from other users

about the usefulness of ATSDR’s products and services. We reviewed

ATSDR’s draft report on the results of the enhancement initiative and

discussed them with ATSDR and EPA officials.

To determine the processes in place at Justice and ATSDR to help ensure

that Superfund funds are used only for authorized activities, we reviewed

the mandated annual Inspector General audits of Justice’s and ATSDR’s

Superfund activities. We discussed these reports and the status of any

corrective actions needed with officials in the Department of Health and

Human Services and with Justice’s Office of Inspector General. We also

discussed EPA’s implementation of its interagency agreements with Justice

and ATSDR with the EPA officials responsible for negotiating and carrying

out these agreements. Finally, we discussed Justice’s Superfund

accounting system with representatives of Justice’s independent certified

public accounting firm.

We conducted our review from July 1998 through February 1999 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Page 16 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
Appendix II 

Comments From the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry

Page 17 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
Appendix II 

Comments From the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry

Page 18 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
Appendix II 

Comments From the Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry

Page 19 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
Appendix III 

Comments From the Environmental

Protection Agency

Page 20 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
Appendix IV 

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 21 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report

Resources,

Community, and

Economic

Development Division

Charles Barchok, Assistant Director

Joseph L. Turlington, Evaluator-in-Charge

Mary Pniewski Marca, Senior Evaluator

David A. Rogers, Assistant Director

Office of General

Counsel

Richard P. Johnson, Senior Attorney

(160451) Page 22 GAO/RCED-99-85 Superfund Program Activities
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