Office of Inspector General

Audit Report

Superfund Sites Deferred to RCRA

E1SFF8-11-0006-9100116

March 31, 1999
Inspector General Division(s)

 Conducting the Audit

Headquarters Audit Division

Washington, DC

Eastern Audit Division

Boston, MA

Mid-Atlantic Audit Division

Philadelphia, PA

Northern Audit Division

Chicago, IL

Western Audit Division

San Francisco, CA

Region(s) covered Region 2

New York, NY

Region 3

Philadelphia, PA

Region 5

Chicago, IL

Region 9

San Francisco, CA

Program Office(s) Involved Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

- Office of Emergency and Remedial Response

- Office of Solid Waste
March 31, 1999

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Superfund Sites Deferred To RCRA 

Audit Report E1SFF8-11-0006-9100116

FROM: Michael Simmons /s/ Michael Simmons

Deputy Assistant Inspector General 

 for Internal Audits

TO: Timothy Fields, Jr.

Acting Assistant Administrator

 for Solid Waste and Emergency Response

 

Attached is the subject audit report. Generally, we found that: (1) the deferral

program goal has not yet been achieved, (2) many sites were inappropriate for deferral,

and (3) EPA did not know the cleanup status of some sites.

In accordance with EPA Order 2750, please provide this office a written

response to the report within 90 days of the report date. For corrective actions planned

but not yet completed by your response date, reference to specific milestone dates will

assist us in deciding whether to close this report.

This audit report contains findings and corrective actions the OIG recommends

to help improve the RCRA Deferral program. As such, it represents the opinion of the

OIG. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in

accordance with established audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the issues

contained in this report do not represent the final EPA position, and are not binding

upon EPA in any enforcement proceeding brought by EPA or the Department of

Justice.

Again, we would like to thank your staff for their cooperation. Should your staff

have questions about this report, please have them contact Norman E. Roth, Divisional

Inspector General, Headquarters Audit Division at 202-260-5113, or Bill Samuel of my

staff at 202-260-3189.

Attachment

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

Report No. 9100116

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION The Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) or 

“Superfund” was enacted in 1980 to clean up the

worst abandoned or inactive waste sites in the nation. 

In 1984, amendments to the Resource Conservation

and Recovery Act (RCRA) authorized EPA to compel

owners of RCRA hazardous waste treatment,

storage, and disposal (TSDF) facilities to clean up

releases of hazardous wastes and constituents at

their facilities. This cleanup process is referred to as

RCRA corrective action. Sites that have been

prioritized and in the cleanup universe are called the

corrective action workload. Using authorities granted

under both statutes has enabled EPA to effect

cleanup of hazardous wastes at all sites--active,

inactive, or abandoned.

EPA developed a policy to “...maximize the number of

site responses achieved through the RCRA corrective

action authorities, thus preserving the CERCLA Fund

for sites for which no other authority is available.” 

Sites had to be subject to the corrective action

authorities of RCRA Subtitle C in order to be

deferred. The Agency’s Superfund program has

transferred cleanup responsibility for approximately

3,000 sites to the RCRA program. For the purposes

of this report, we will refer to sites transferred out of

Superfund as deferred sites, and the process by

which this activity occurs as a deferral.

OBJECTIVES We had three objectives.

1. Has the National Priorities List (NPL)/RCRA

deferral policy achieved its goal?
ii Report No. 9100116

2. Were the deferrals made in accordance with the

policy?

3. Were procedures for deferring sites from one

program to another effective?

RESULTS IN BRIEF In our view, EPA’s deferral program has not achieved

its goal of effecting more cleanups using RCRA

corrective action authorities. The Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act Information System

(RCRIS) indicates that less than 2 percent of deferred

sites have been cleaned up1. (See Appendix 6 for

endnotes.) Only about 30 percent of the deferred

sites are in the RCRA corrective action workload. 

However, many of those have cleanup activities in

progress. GAO, in an October 1997, report entitled,

“Progress Under the Corrective Action Program Is

Limited, But New Initiatives May Accelerate

Cleanups,” credits the Agency for having begun

cleanups at about half of the sites in the corrective

action workload. 

In contrast to cleanup activity in the corrective action

workload, the remaining deferred sites (70 percent),

are not in the corrective action workload, and are

unlikely candidates for cleanup in the near future. 

RCRIS reported that cleanup had begun at only

about 3 percent of our statistically sampled sites not

in the corrective action workload. 

We cannot say that deferred sites not included in the

corrective action workload would have been any

further in the cleanup process in the Superfund

program if they had not been deferred. We can say

that deferred sites which are not in the corrective

action workload have a much reduced chance of

being addressed. Furthermore, while not all deferred

sites may pose a current threat to human health and

the environment and some states may have taken

cleanup actions not reflected in information we

obtained, many sites may still pose serious risks. For 
iii Report No. 9100116

example, about one-third of the deferred sampled

sites having Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scores

not in the RCRA corrective action workload had 

scores high enough to be potentially eligible for

placement on the NPL.

EPA needs to review and improve its policies and

procedures for deferring sites. Chapter 3 discusses

sites which, according to Agency policy, should not

have been deferred from Superfund to RCRA. Sixtyseven percent (210 out of 313) of the sampled sites

not in the corrective action workload fell into this

category. Sampled sites inappropriate for deferral

had been in EPA’s inventory an average of about 17

years. In addition, as discussed in Chapter 4, we

could not readily locate another 253 sites. For some

of these sites, the states informed us that actions had

been taken or were underway.

This report contains recommendations to address

those sites which were inappropriate for deferral or

could not readily be found, and to improve

communication and decisions for future deferrals. 

Chief among these is our recommendation that EPA

and the states conduct a cooperative effort to

evaluate sites’ current cleanup needs. EPA and

states will need to determine which program has

available resources and legal authority to address

sites starting with those that pose the greatest threats

to human health and the environment.

AGENCY COMMENTS The Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste

and Emergency Response indicated that (1) the

findings and recommendations will improve the

efficiency of the deferral process, and (2) OSWER is

prepared to reassess many of the site management

decisions to ensure that EPA and state response

efforts protect human health and the environment. 

The Acting Assistant Administrator also suggested

that we revise various parts of the report to clarify the

issues discussed.
iv Report No. 9100116

We made necessary revisions, and have included the

full text of the Acting Assistant Administrator’s

comments and the OIG evaluation of the comments

as Appendix 4.
v Report No. 9100116

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................ i

ABBREVIATIONS .................................................... vii

CHAPTER 1 ......................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1

Objectives ..................................................... 1

Background .................................................... 1

Scope and Methodology .......................................... 4

CHAPTER 2 ......................................................... 5

DEFERRAL PROGRAM GOAL NOT ACHIEVED ............................. 5

Most RCRA Deferrals Not in the Corrective Action Workload .............. 6

Sixty-seven Percent of Sites Inappropriate for Deferral ................... 7

RCRIS Indicates Sites Not Being Cleaned up .......................... 7

Deferral Program Goal Not Achieved ................................ 8

Next Steps ..................................................... 8

Recommendation ............................................... 11

CHAPTER 3 ........................................................ 12

MANY SITES WERE INAPPROPRIATE FOR DEFERRAL .................... 12

67% of Sites Inappropriate for Deferral to RCRA ...................... 13

Better Communication and Adherence to Policy Would Improve Decisions . . 14

Deferred Sites May Need Attention ................................. 16

First Example ............................................ 17

Second Example .......................................... 18

Conclusions ................................................... 19

Recommendations .............................................. 20

CHAPTER 4 ........................................................ 21

EPA DID NOT KNOW CLEANUP STATUS OF SOME SITES .................. 21

Deferred Sites Not in RCRIS ...................................... 21

ID Number Changed ....................................... 22

Deferred to Another EPA Program ............................ 22

Deferred to States ......................................... 23

Status Unknown to EPA .................................... 26
vi Report No. 9100116

Communication And Procedures Need Strengthening .................. 28

Conclusions ................................................... 29

Recommendations .............................................. 30

APPENDIX 1 ........................................................ 32

Scope, Methodology, And Prior Audit Coverage ............................ 32

APPENDIX 2 ........................................................ 37

Details of Sites Inappropriate For Deferral ................................. 37

APPENDIX 3 ........................................................ 40

Information on Sites Not Inappropriate For Deferral ......................... 40

APPENDIX 4 ........................................................ 42

Agency Response And OIG Evaluation ................................... 42

APPENDIX 5 ........................................................ 46

Distribution ......................................................... 46

APPENDIX 6 ........................................................ 47

Endnotes .......................................................... 47
vii Report No. 9100116

ABBREVIATIONS

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act (1980)

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and

Liability Act Information System

GAO U.S. General Accounting Office

HRS Hazard Ranking System

HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments 

NCAPS National Corrective Action Prioritization System

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substances

 Pollution Contingency Plan

NPL National Priorities List 

OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information System

TSCA Toxic Substances and Control Act

TSDF Treatment, Storage or Disposal Facility

1 Report No. 9100116

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION 

OBJECTIVES In response to a request from the Office of Solid

Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER), we

have performed an audit of sites deferred from the

Superfund program to RCRA. We had three

objectives.

1. Has the National Priorities List (NPL)/RCRA

deferral policy achieved its goal?

2. Were the deferrals made in accordance with the

policy?

3. Were procedures for deferring sites from one

program to another effective?

BACKGROUND CERCLA was enacted in 1980 in response to the

dangers of uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous

waste sites. To implement CERCLA, EPA revised the

National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution

Contingency Plan (NCP). 

The National Priorities List CERCLA requires that the NCP include a list of

national priorities among the known releases or

threatened releases of hazardous substances,

pollutants, or contaminants throughout the United

States. EPA is to revise the NPL at least annually. 

The principal mechanism for determining these

priorities is the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). EPA

calculates the HRS score by estimating risks

presented in four potential pathways of human or

environmental exposure: groundwater, surface water,

soil and air. Numerical values are computed for each

factor within the four categories to arrive at a final site

score on a scale of 0 to 100. Those sites that score 
2 Report No. 9100116

28.50 or greater on the HRS are potentially eligible

for the NPL.

The NPL/RCRA Policy Since the NPL was first published as a final rule

(September 8, 1983), the Agency’s policy has been to

defer listing sites that could be addressed by RCRA

Subtitle C corrective action authorities, even though

EPA has the statutory authority to list all RCRA sites

that have an HRS score of 28.50 or greater. The

enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments (HSWA) in 1984 greatly expanded

RCRA Subtitle C corrective action authorities. As a

result, the Agency publicized its policy to defer to the

RCRA program sites subject to RCRA corrective

action authorities unless and until the Agency

determined that RCRA corrective action was not likely

to succeed or occur promptly. The RCRA Deferral

policy states that the intent of the policy was to

maximize the number of site responses achieved

through the RCRA corrective action authorities, thus

preserving the CERCLA Fund for sites for which no

other authority is available.

In 1986, EPA decided that certain RCRA waste sites

would continue to be placed on the NPL and not

deferred to RCRA. The sites included, among others,

generators or transporters of hazardous waste, which

are not required to have a final RCRA permit. In

1988, four new categories of handlers were to be

considered for listing and not deferred: (1) non- or

late-filers for RCRA permits [Treatment, Storage, or

Disposal (TSDFs) who do not file for RCRA permits

or file late]; (2) converters (TSDFs that closed or

became generators only); (3) protective filers

(handlers that filed as a TSDF for a RCRA permit to

protect themselves from the penalties of failing to file,

but were later determined not to be TSDFs); and (4)

sites holding permits before the enactment of HSWA. 

According to data from the Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability

Act Information System (CERCLIS), 2,941 sites were

deferred from the Superfund program. According to
3 Report No. 9100116

deferral dates we located, these sites were deferred

between fiscal years 1983 and 1997. Approximately

two-thirds of the deferrals occurred as a result of the

Agency’s Environmental Priorities Initiative (the

Initiative). 

Environmental Priorities

Initiative

The Initiative, which began in 1988 and ended in

fiscal 1992, was designed to utilize Superfund

resources to assist RCRA activities in regional offices

in setting corrective action priorities. This would allow

the Agency to address in a timely manner those sites

that presented the greatest threat to human health

and the environment. To accomplish this objective,

Headquarters officials provided regional officials with

a list of active storage and treatment facilities, as well

as closing treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. 

These deferrals would be recorded in the CERCLIS

inventory. Superfund resources would then be used

to complete a preliminary assessment, and in some

cases, a site inspection/ RCRA Facility Assessment

for each site. RCRA officials would use these

assessments to determine the site’s priority in the

RCRA corrective action workload, to estimate

environmental significance, and to provide a basis for

permitting or enforcement action.

Since Agency guidance does not supersede federal

rule, the deferrals of the Initiative sites back to RCRA

should have been consistent with criteria enumerated

in 40 CFR Part 300 (the NPL/RCRA deferral policy). 

For this reason, we did not differentiate Initiative

deferrals from non-Initiative deferrals in sample

selection or for reporting purposes. We do, however,

recognize that the Initiative was the cause of

approximately two-thirds of the deferrals in the

universe.

Archived Sites Seven hundred and forty (740) of the 2,941 deferred

facilities were classified as sites awaiting a Superfund

decision (active in CERCLIS), while 2,201 were

archived (inactive) from CERCLIS. EPA introduced

the CERCLIS archiving effort in 1995, as part of the

Agency’s Brownfields Initiative on economic
4 Report No. 9100116

redevelopment. When sites are archived, no further

interest under the federal Superfund program exists. 

The Agency created the archive list to address the

concern that sites listed in CERCLIS carried a

perceived potential threat for Superfund liability (also

known as the “CERCLIS stigma.”) Once sites are

deferred to RCRA, they should also be archived from

CERCLIS, if no further federal Superfund interest

exists.

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY We conducted this audit from March 1998 to January

1999. To accomplish the objectives, we conducted

fieldwork in Headquarters OSWER and in Regions 2,

3, 5, and 9. OSWER provided us with the universe of

sites deferred from Superfund. From this CERCLIS

data, we selected the above four regions primarily

based on the total number of deferrals, the status of

state corrective action authority, and the number of

sites not appearing in RCRIS. The four regions

selected contained over 50 percent of all sites

deferred, and over 70 percent of the deferred sites

which did not appear in the corrective action

workload. Appendix 1 presents additional information

on the scope, methodology, and prior audit coverage.

We performed our audit in accordance with the U.S.

General Accounting Office’s (GAO’s) Government

Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller

General of the United States (1994 Revision). We

also reviewed OSWER’s Federal Managers’

Financial Integrity Act reports for fiscal years 1997

and 1998. The reports did not identify any material

weaknesses or vulnerabilities related to RCRA

deferrals. We did not detect any control weaknesses

except for those discussed in this report.
5 Report No. 9100116

CHAPTER 2

DEFERRAL PROGRAM GOAL NOT ACHIEVED

Since the NPL/RCRA deferral policy was published in

1983, Superfund officials have transferred cleanup

responsibility to RCRA for approximately 3,000 sites. 

The universe for cleanups under RCRA Subtitle C

authority is called the corrective action workload. 

However, RCRIS indicates that less than one-third of

the sites deferred from Superfund are in the

corrective action workload. When we looked more

closely at sites not in the workload, we found that in

our four-region sample, 67 percent of the sites were

inappropriate for deferral. 

Although almost 3,000 sites were deferred, according

to RCRIS only 49 have been cleaned up, and 32 of

those cleanups were from the corrective action

workload. The fact that sites were not in the

corrective action workload does not mean that the

sites are low or no risk. About one-third of all sites

scored but not in the corrective action workload had

HRS scores which were high enough to be

considered for listing on the NPL.

Deferring sites to RCRA which do not meet the

criteria for placement in the corrective action

workload will not maximize cleanups. RCRA focuses

its resources on cleaning up sites in the corrective

workload. Sites not in the workload will not normally

be a priority for cleanup. Because so many of these

sites were inappropriate for deferral, Superfund and

RCRA officials will now have to revisit and perhaps

reassess and score many of them, especially those

that have the greatest risk to human health and the

environment.
6 Report No. 9100116

Superfund Sites

Deferred To RCRA

CA Workload (In RCRIS) 

842

Not in CA Workload (In RCRIS)

1846

Status Unknown

253

Total: 2941

MOST RCRA

DEFERRALS NOT IN

THE CORRECTIVE

ACTION WORKLOAD

The intent of the NPL/RCRA deferral policy was to

maximize the number of site responses by using

RCRA cleanup authorities. At the time the policy was

developed (1983 - 1989), there were thousands of

sites needing Superfund attention, but a finite amount

of resources in the Fund. The policy would preserve

the Fund for use on sites where there was no other

cleanup authority and at the same time effect cleanup

of some of these sites using RCRA corrective action

authorities. 

EPA has determined which facilities it considers to be

its universe for cleanups under the Corrective Action

Program and has identified them as the corrective

action workload universe within RCRIS. Sites are in

the corrective action workload because the facility

owners are seeking or have a permit to treat, store,

and dispose of hazardous materials. A site may also

be in the workload when a facility owner volunteers to

begin corrective action or when a state makes the

site a priority. EPA and state resources and cleanup

efforts are focused on those sites in the corrective

action workload.

However, RCRA analysis of CERCLIS data from April

1998, showed that of the 2,941 sites deferred, only

842 (29 percent) were in the corrective action

workload. The following pie chart shows the status of

sites deferred to RCRA.
7 Report No. 9100116

SIXTY-SEVEN PERCENT

OF SITES

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

DEFERRAL

We found that in the four regions sampled (which

included 1,388 of the 1,846 sites not in the corrective

action workload) 67 percent of the sites were

inappropriate for deferral. Most were inappropriate

because the facility owners were no longer seeking a

permit to function as a TSDF. Therefore, these sites

would not be in the corrective action workload. We

learned from our sample that the sites inappropriate

for deferral have been in EPA’s inventory an average

of about 17 years, and 29 of 108 (26%) of the

sampled sites having HRS scores had scores high

enough to be considered for the NPL. Chapter 3

provides a detailed discussion of the sites that were

not in the corrective action workload and were

inappropriate for deferral. 

Further, approximately 10 percent (253) of the

deferred sites did not appear in the RCRIS database. 

We discuss these sites in Chapter 4. Therefore, we

will limit discussion for the rest of this chapter to the

2,688 sites in RCRIS–those in the corrective action

workload (842) and those not in the corrective action

workload (1,846).

RCRIS INDICATES

SITES NOT BEING

CLEANED UP

RCRIS indicates that of the 2,688 sites deferred from

Superfund, 49 (less than 2%) have been cleaned up. 

Of these 49 sites, 32 were in the corrective action

workload and 17 were not. GAO, in an October 1997,

report entitled, “Progress Under the Corrective Action

Program Is Limited, But New Initiatives May

Accelerate Cleanups,” credits the Agency for having

begun cleanups at about half of the sites in the

corrective action workload. 

In contrast to cleanup activity in the corrective action

workload, RCRIS reported that cleanup had begun at

about only 3% of our statistically sampled sites not in

the corrective action workload. Stated another way,

97% of the sites not in the corrective action workload

have not been addressed beyond prioritization. This

would be consistent with the Agency’s decision to
8 Report No. 9100116

focus resources on sites in the corrective action

workload.

The fact that sites did not get in the corrective action

workload does not mean that the sites contain low or

no risk to human health and the environment. We

reviewed HRS scores for all of the sampled sites that

did not appear in the corrective action workload and

found that about one-third, or 86 of the 242 sites that

had been scored, had HRS scores which were high

enough to be considered for listing on the NPL. We

learned from our statistical sample that sites not in

the corrective action workload have been in EPA’s

inventory for about 17 years on average.

DEFERRAL PROGRAM

GOAL NOT ACHIEVED

In conclusion, the low number of completed cleanups,

the low percentage of deferred sites in the corrective

action workload, and the long amount of time the

sites not in the corrective action workload have been

in EPA’s inventory with little or no activity beyond

prioritization, suggest that the NPL/RCRA deferral

policy has not achieved its objective. Because sites

not in the corrective action workload are not expected

to be addressed using corrective action “promptly” or

any time in the near future, the intent of the policy

would not be met and cleanup of these deferrals

would not be maximized. Because so many of these

sites were inappropriate for deferral, Superfund and

RCRA officials will now have to revisit, and perhaps

reassess and score, many of these deferred sites,

especially those having the greatest risk to human

health and the environment. 

NEXT STEPS The results of our audit suggest that the Agency

needs to revisit many of these deferred sites. Based

on our audit work, we are suggesting an approach

which may enable Agency officials to prioritize their

efforts to focus first on those sites which pose the

greatest risk.

We suggest that Agency officials start with deferred

sites not in the corrective action workload, since they

are not normally a priority for RCRA. These would
9 Report No. 9100116

include all sites not in the corrective action workload,

whether or not we considered them to be appropriate

for deferral. 

During our four-region review, we found that only

about half of the sites deferred to RCRA had HRS

scores. We would suggest reviewing unscored sites

to determine the severity of the threats posed by

these sites and their eligibility for listing on the NPL. 

Recognizing that some of the scores on scored sites

may be based on old HRS criteria, updating the

scores of some sites may be appropriate as well. 

To complete the universe of deferred sites with HRS

scores not in the corrective action workload,

Superfund and RCRA officials must also locate all of

the 253 status unknown sites (discussed in Chapter

4). They should determine whether they are RCRA

deferrals (some in our sample were state Superfund

sites) not in the corrective action workload, and score

them if necessary. 

Once the universe is identified, we suggest that

Agency officials look first at sites that had HRS

scores of 28.5 or higher, or sites that were assigned a

high NCAPS ranking in RCRIS. We initially expected

to find a great deal of overlap of sites ranked high in

Superfund and high in RCRA because the NCAPS is

based on the HRS. We did not find this to be the

case. In fact, the HRS scores and the NCAPS priority

rankings did not usually correlate. For example, a

site with an HRS score of 28.5 or above may have

been assigned a medium, low or no priority in RCRA. 

Conversely, there were sites with HRS scores below

28.5 with high priority assignments in RCRA. 

Though we did not audit for the cause of this lack in

correlation, Agency officials and we speculated at an

exit conference that this could be caused by the age

of some HRS scores or that NCAPS rankings were

amended after interim actions. Nevertheless,

because we cannot be confident of this speculation,

we believe that the lack of correlation in the HRS
10 Report No. 9100116

High

NCAPS

Ranking

High

HRS

Score

Relationship Between

High Superfund Program (HRS) Score

And High RCRA Program (NCAPS) Ranking

High HRS score and 

NCAPS ranking not high.

 (45 sites)

High NCAPS ranking 

and HRS not high.

Both HRS score and (17 sites)

NCAPS ranking were high.

 (7 sites)

scores and NCAPS rankings warrants consideration

during this assessment process.

As the Venn diagram above illustrates, 69, or 22%, of

the 313 statistically sampled sites had an HRS score

of 28.5 or more or were ranked “high” in the National

Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPS)–the

RCRA method of prioritizing sites. Forty-five of

these sites had an HRS score > than or equal to 28.5,

while 17 sites ranked high in NCAPS. However, only

7 of the 69 sites were a high priority in both programs

(HRS > than or equal to 28.5 and high NCAPS).

The differing assignments of site priorities, along with

the low program priority of the sites not in the

corrective action workload, suggests a reexamination of the prioritization of sites is needed. 

Finally, we suggest that Agency officials work

together with states to determine the current status of

the high priority sites. Using this information, EPA

and states could maximize cleanups and address the

“worst sites first.” As current cleanup status is

identified, RCRIS should be updated. 

As Agency and state officials work together to

address the RCRA deferrals, we suggest a multi-
11 Report No. 9100116

program approach, as provided for in EPA policy.

Using its deferral policy, EPA intended to maximize

cleanups by using a multi-program approach. The 

policy provided for the use of combined resources

when it said “RCRA authorities may be used by

themselves or in conjunction with CERCLA removal

and enforcement authorities to initiate corrective

action or to continue actions already begun.” This

allows the use of CERCLA authority at non-NPL sites. 

The policy also recognized that “deferred sites may

later be added to the NPL if corrective action is not

being taken.” To maximize cleanups, EPA and states

should share expertise, consider resources available,

and avoid duplication of efforts.

Because there were almost 2,000 sites deferred to

RCRA that are not in the corrective action workload, it

may be appropriate for OSWER to reinstitute

something similar to the Environmental Priorities

Initiative. OSWER officials have indicated a

willingness to revisit unaddressed sites. Whatever

method is developed, we are in agreement that sites

posing the greatest risk should be evaluated first.

RECOMMENDATION The Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste

and Emergency Response should:

2-1. Develop a method and procedures for EPA

regions and the states to use to evaluate deferrals

not in the RCRA corrective action workload, but

which may pose risk to human health and the

environment. (Note: Recommendations 3-1, 4-4, 4-6,

and 4-7 should be considered when developing the

method and procedures.)
12 Report No. 9100116

Not In RCRIS C.A. Workload

1846

Status Unknown

253

RCRIS C.A. Workload

842

Total: 2941

Of The Deferred Sites,

1846 Were Not In The

Corrective Action Workload

Sample

313

Not Sampled

1533

Total: 1846

Audit Reviewed 313 Sites

From Four Regions

Inappropriate

210

Not Inappropriate

103

Total: 313

Majority Of Sampled Sites

Were Inappropriate For Deferral

CHAPTER 3

MANY SITES WERE INAPPROPRIATE FOR DEFERRAL

Of the 2,941 sites deferred from the Superfund

program, only 842 are in the corrective action

workload. As we will discuss in Chapter 4, 253 did

not appear in the RCRIS database. The remaining

1,846 sites (63 percent) were deferred to RCRA, but

were not part of the corrective action workload. 

We took a closer look at sites not in the corrective

action workload and found that in the four regions

sampled, 67 percent of the deferrals were

inappropriate because:

 (1) Decisions were made without sufficient 

communication between RCRA and Superfund 

program officials as to which authority would 

best address the site; 

 (2) Deferral guidance2 was lacking; and, 

 (3) There was either misinterpretation or 

inconsistent application of the NPL/RCRA 

policy and the Environmental Priorities Initiative 

 guidance3. 

The sampled sites have been in EPA’s inventory for

about 17 years on average, and, according to RCRIS,

less than one percent (2 of 313) of them have been

cleaned up, despite the fact that a significant number

of them may be NPL-caliber sites. One-hundred

seven of 210 sites inappropriate for deferral had HRS

scores and 29 of the 108 (26%) scored equal to or

above 28.5. Because a site is not in the corrective 
13 Report No. 9100116

action workload does not mean that it does not pose

a threat. The examples discussed later in this

chapter demonstrate the need to determine the

current threat to human health and the environment

for sites that were inappropriate for deferral.

67% OF SITES

INAPPROPRIATE FOR

DEFERRAL TO RCRA

To review deferral decisions, we took a statistical

sample of sites not falling in the RCRA corrective

action workload in four regions. The regions in our

sample contained 1,388 of the 1,846 sites not in the

corrective action workload. By reviewing information

in Superfund files on which deferral decisions were

based and comparing that information to the

NPL/RCRA deferral policy and related EPA

guidance4, we concluded that approximately 67

percent of our sampled sites (210 of 313) were

inappropriate for deferral. 

In general terms, most of the sites determined to be

inappropriate candidates for deferral had a change in

permitting status. For instance, a site may have been

a TSDF at the time RCRA was enacted, but then

changed status to a generator only, rather than

obtain a RCRA permit. This facility would be known

as a converter, and according to the NPL/RCRA

deferral policy, not an appropriate candidate for

deferral. Appendix 2 details the reasons why the 210

facilities were inappropriate for deferral. 

The following page contains a table showing the

number of sites we sampled, the number we found to

be inappropriate for deferral, and the projection of

sites inappropriate for deferral to the universe.
14 Report No. 9100116

Projection of Inappropriate Sites

Sample

 Size

Number of

Inapprop.

Sites

Weighted

Projection of

Inapprop.

Sites Universe

313 210 1003 1388

As described above, 210 of the 313 sites not in the

corrective action workload were inappropriate for

deferral. While some of the remaining 103 sites may

have been appropriate for deferral at the time of

deferral, they may now be appropriate for

consideration under CERCLA, because they are not

in the corrective action workload and are not planned

to be addressed promptly. Appendix 3 details the

information on the 103 sites. 

BETTER

COMMUNICATION AND

ADHERENCE TO

POLICY WOULD

IMPROVE DECISIONS

We believe insufficient communication between

Superfund and RCRA has contributed to the high

percentage of inappropriate deferrals. EPA’s

“Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments

Under CERCLA,” (EPA /540/G-91/013) recommends

that the Superfund site assessment contacts discuss

with RCRA officials whether or not to proceed with

Superfund investigative activities or to defer the site

to RCRA. However, our file reviews and interviews

with Superfund and RCRA regional officials have

shown that these decisions usually have been made

by Superfund staff, with only occasional input from

RCRA staff. RCRA, the amendments to it, the

regulations supporting it, and the guidance

explaining it, make up a voluminous and complex

body of knowledge which is not normally the area of

expertise of those Superfund officials who have been

making decisions as to whether cleanup can best be

effected under RCRA or CERCLA. The complexity of 
15 Report No. 9100116

the RCRA program would seem to necessitate

frequent communication on a site-by-site basis in

order to make good decisions about the

appropriateness and priority of the deferral. 

Although the NPL/RCRA deferral policy was

published as a final rule in 1983 and amended in

1989, EPA did not issue guidance covering deferrals

of sites (cited above) until 1991. Sites have been

deferred from Superfund to RCRA, however, since

1983. While those inappropriate deferral decisions

that occurred prior to the guidance might have been

reduced had it been published sooner, we found no

evidence in the files referencing the guidance or its

decision-making technique. For instance, the

guidance included a “RCRA Eligibility Checklist” to

aid Superfund officials in making a determination

regarding site deferral eligibility. Yet, we found no

checklists or evidence of similar decision matrices in

the Superfund site assessment files. 

Lastly, there was misinterpretation or inconsistent

application of the NPL/RCRA deferral policy and the

Environmental Priorities Initiative guidance. Under

the Initiative, Superfund resources were to be used

to perform enhanced preliminary assessments for

some unassessed RCRA sites. Once the

assessments were completed, at least one region did

not adhere to the NPL/RCRA policy. Our meetings

with RCRA and Superfund officials indicated

confusion over which sites should be deferred. 

Superfund staff deferred facilities (back) to RCRA

that did not always meet the deferral criteria, such as

generators. One region’s Initiative agreement

stipulated that all facilities were to be deferred to

RCRA upon completion of the site assessments. 

Because no consideration for the appropriateness of

the deferrals was given, this stipulation was

inconsistent with the NPL/RCRA deferral policy. 
16 Report No. 9100116

DEFERRED SITES MAY 

NEED ATTENTION

Of the 313 sites in our sample, we identified 210 as

inappropriate for deferral to RCRA. For some of

these sites we gathered additional information. Using

data from RCRIS we checked on current status and

progress toward cleanup. We found that the majority

of these sites had not been addressed beyond site

prioritization. In fact, only two of the 210 facilities had

been reported in RCRIS as having been cleaned up. 

Almost half of the sites which were inappropriate for

deferral had no HRS score. For those sites that were

scored, 26% of them scored high enough to be

considered for listing on the NPL. 

We made a further attempt to obtain current cleanup

information for more than one-third of the 210 sites. 

We asked selected states in Regions 3 and 5 for the

current status of 79 sites in their regions that were

inappropriate for deferral. The 79 sites either had an

HRS score of 28.5 or higher, or had no HRS score. 

States provided responses for 66 of the 79 sites. 

States indicated that only 15 of the 66 sites had

RCRA corrective action underway, or state Superfund

or voluntary cleanup planned, underway, or

completed. It is unknown whether these cleanups

meet RCRA standards. The remaining 51 of 66 sites

may need cleanup.

In addition, while 41 of the 66 facilities had closed,

contamination could still exist from previous

operations. (We do not know whether closures were

before or after cleanup, or, if after, whether RCRA

cleanup standards were met for all cases.) Once the

Agency verifies that RCRA standards for these

facilities have not been met, RCRIS should be

updated to reflect the current status. 

The sites that have not been addressed by EPA or

states may need attention. The two examples

presented below illustrate the effect of inappropriate 

deferrals. Based on HRS scores, these sites could

have been considered for listing on the NPL at the

time of deferral. Instead, they were deferred 
17 Report No. 9100116

(inappropriately) and archived from CERCLIS (in

accordance with the archiving guidance5). Potential

threats may exist to human health and the

environment for the surrounding communities.

First Example The first site was inappropriate for deferral because it

was a facility that converted from TSDF status to

generator status before deferral. According to the

deferral policy, this site would not be eligible for

deferral because a converter would not be a priority

for the RCRA program. 

Nevertheless, this site was deferred to the RCRA

program in 1995 after a Superfund contractor

assessing the facility concluded that the facility was

regulated under RCRA. Nowhere in regional files did

we find evidence that Superfund officials coordinated

with RCRA officials regarding the appropriateness of

the deferral. 

Once deferred, the site was not included in the

corrective action workload because the facility was

not actively seeking a permit to operate as a TSDF. 

Even though the site was not in the workload, it was

given a “high” priority ranking in NCAPS.

According to a June 1992, Corrective Action

Stabilization Questionnaire, lead contamination had

migrated off site and was found in the closest of four

residential wells located within one mile of the facility. 

The lead levels found in samples taken from the wells

were four times higher than allowable tolerances

under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Employees

working at the facility (in 1995 there were 2,350),

should be restricted from going in to the areas of

contamination.

 

The official completing the 1992 RCRA Stabilization

Questionnaire recommended that as a stabilization

initiative, EPA could reduce risks to human health

and the environment by providing alternate water

supplies to the four residences. It also recommended 
18 Report No. 9100116

further investigation to define and characterize the

impact of the facility on the groundwater. 

We cannot tell from Superfund or RCRA files whether

the investigation was completed, the alternate water

was supplied, the employees were restricted from

access to contaminated areas, or whether the

employees have been affected by the contamination. 

However, the state authorized for ensuring corrective

action at the facility indicated to us in December 1998

that it is devoting its limited resources, in concert with

the EPA regional office, to those facilities that are

high environmental priorities and are in the corrective

action workload. This facility, however, is not in the

corrective action workload.

The state also indicated that “...based on the RCRA

corrective action priority status of most of the

deferred facilities, [the state] cannot understand why

most, if not all, of these facilities [deferrals in the state 

authorized for corrective action] were ever considered

for deferral by U.S. EPA in the first place.”

Second Example The second site was inappropriate for deferral

because it would not be subject to corrective action. 

This site is not in the corrective action workload and

as of September 1998, when we conducted our

regional fieldwork, RCRA had not assigned an

NCAPS priority to the site.

In March 1995, Superfund officials deferred the site

because it was a RCRA facility. As with the previous

example, we found no evidence in the files that

Superfund officials had coordinated with RCRA

officials regarding the appropriateness of the deferral.

The facility has a history of non-compliance. In order

to perform a site inspection, state personnel had to

obtain a search warrant. In addition, based on an

anonymous call, state personnel witnessed the

dumping of substances believed to contain cyanide,

barium, and trichloroethylene into the ground near

the facility’s plant. According to state personnel, no 

First Example:

– Not in the corrective action

workload

– High NCAPS priority

– HRS score above 28.5

– Alternate water supply may

be needed

– Investigation may be

needed

– Employees may be exposed

to contaminants
19 Report No. 9100116

cleanup action was ever taken because samples

showed that the cyanide in the groundwater samples

was below the levels needed to take an enforcement

action. However, concerns that barium and

trichloroethylene may have contaminated the

groundwater remain. The groundwater is the only

source of drinking water for the town (population

10,000).

It appears that, just prior to the 1995 deferral

decision, Superfund officials were considering

performing a listing site inspection, the results of

which would be used to determine whether to list the

site on the NPL. In January 1999, the same month in

which we received information about the status of the

site, the state sent a letter to the facility requesting an

investigation of the site. 

As the two sites demonstrate, inappropriately

deferred sites can have serious environmental

problems, yet not fall within the corrective action

workload. Human health and the environment may

still be threatened because neither EPA nor the

states have identified beyond site prioritization the

extent to which cleanup is needed.

CONCLUSIONS Almost 3,000 sites have been deferred from the

Superfund program to RCRA, yet less than one-third

are in the corrective action workload. A four-region

statistical sample of sites in the RCRA program but

not in the corrective action workload has shown that 

67 percent of these sites were inappropriate for

deferral. Decisions to defer can be improved by

better coordination and communication between the

two programs and better adherence to the

NPL/RCRA deferral policy and guidance. 

The effect of these inappropriate deferrals can be

serious. Twenty-six percent of the sites inappropriate

for deferral and having HRS scores were potentially

eligible for listing on the NPL. Yet RCRIS shows that

less than one percent of these sites (2 of 210) have

been cleaned up. The sampled sites have been in 

Second Example:

– Not in the corrective action

workload

– No NCAPS priority

– HRS score above 28.5

– History of non-compliance

– Suspicion of groundwater

contamination

– Groundwater is town’s only

source of drinking

water (pop. >10,000)
20 Report No. 9100116

EPA’s inventory for an average of about 17 years. 

The extent to which human health and the

environment may be threatened currently is unknown.

RECOMMENDATIONS The Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste

and Emergency Response should:

3-1. In cooperation with the states, assess the sites

that were inappropriate for deferral. Develop criteria

to determine which of them will be evaluated, update

site characterizations, prioritize the sites, and identify

the best legal authority and available resources to

effect cleanup.

3-2. Reemphasize the need for communication and

collaboration between Superfund and RCRA regional

officials prior to deferring sites from one program to

another. Restate the criteria for deferring sites, and

require regions to maintain written documentation (for

example, the deferral checklist) which shows that the

decision to defer has been agreed to by both

programs. Sites should not be considered deferred,

or coded as such in respective information systems,

until written acceptance of the proposed deferral(s)

by the receiving program is obtained.
21 Report No. 9100116

Not In RCRIS C.A. Workload

Status Unknown 1846

253

RCRIS C.A. Workload

842

Total: 2941

Of The Deferred Sites,

Status Was Unknown For 253

Status Unknown

Deferred To States 58

34

Different Identifier

15

Deferred Elsewhere

1

Total: 108

Status Was Discovered For

Many, But Not Most, Sites Sampled

Not Sampled

145

Sample 108

Total: 253

Audit Reviewed 108 Sites

From Four Regions

CHAPTER 4

EPA DID NOT KNOW CLEANUP STATUS OF SOME SITES

DEFERRED SITES 

NOT IN RCRIS

Chapter 3 discussed sites in the RCRIS data base

which were inappropriate for deferral to RCRA. 

However, almost 10 percent (253) of the total number

of Superfund deferred sites were not found in the

RCRIS database. We attribute this to system

incompatibilities (between RCRIS and CERCLIS),

insufficient communication between the two

programs, and weak deferral procedures. As

discussed later in this chapter, not all of these sites

would be expected to be found in RCRIS because

they were not intended to be deferred to the RCRA

program. In addition, Agency officials indicated that

some of these sites may never have handled

hazardous wastes and would not appear in RCRIS. 

We agree this is possible. However, information

found in the Superfund files for sites not found in

RCRIS indicated that some of these sites were part of

the Initiative program or had notified EPA that they

handled RCRA hazardous waste. We also found

misidentified sites that were handlers of RCRA

hazardous waste. While these sites were originally

not identified in RCRIS under one site identification

number, they were in RCRIS under another. 

If our four region sample of the sites not appearing in

RCRIS holds true nationwide, about 31 percent (34

of 108 sampled sites) of these sites have HRS

scores high enough to be potentially eligible for

listing on the NPL. Since these sites may still pose

risks to human health and the environment, they

should be of continued federal interest. Yet EPA is

generally unaware of the status of cleanup, and is

not monitoring cleanup progress. By following up at

the state level, we were able to get limited status

information on many of these sites. 
22 Report No. 9100116

The four regions we reviewed contained 154 of the

253 sites not appearing in RCRIS. We included 108

of them in our sample. By reviewing regional files

and automated systems, we were able to locate 50 of

the 108 sites as shown below.

Disposition of Sampled Sites

Disposition Number of Sites

ID Number Changed 15

Deferred to Another EPA Program 1

Deferred to States 34

Unknown 58

Total 108

ID Number Changed Fifteen (15) of the 108 sites did not retain the same

site identification (ID) numbers in RCRIS that they

had in CERCLIS. For example, adjacent properties

owned by the same company were given two site

identification numbers in CERCLIS. When the sites

were deferred and entered into RCRIS, RCRA

officials consolidated the sites into one and issued a

new site identification number. The 15 sites in this

category are being tracked in RCRIS, albeit under

new site identification numbers. Because there is no

crosswalk between the two automated systems,

Agency officials will have to manually search program

files to ensure that all deferred sites are accounted

for.

Deferred to Another EPA

Program

One of the 108 sampled sites was deferred to the

Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) program

for monitoring. In this case, the RCRA deferral code

was recorded in CERCLIS because there was no

code for deferring a site to another EPA program. 
23 Report No. 9100116

Deferred to States Thirty-four (34) of the 108 sites were intended to be

deferred to state, not RCRA, authorities. However,

there was no code in CERCLIS to indicate deferral to

states.

We identified the deferral to states coding problem in

the OIG audit report entitled, “State Deferrals: Some

Progress, But Concerns for Long-Term

Protectiveness Remain” (Report No. 8100234,

September 10, 1998). In response to this report, EPA

officials indicated that a code for state deferrals was

being developed. The fiscal 99/00 Superfund

Program Implementation Manual issued in July 1998,

indicated the development of the state deferral code.

Thirteen of the 34 state deferrals scored low enough

that no further remedial action would have been

planned. In these cases, a No Further Remedial

Action Planned (NFRAP) code should have been

entered in CERCLIS. 

Seven of the 34 state deferrals were not scored. 

Because of this, we cannot determine whether any

federal interest exists at these sites.

Regions 3 and 5 contained five of the seven

unscored sites. We followed up with nine states in

these regions. State officials indicated that two

cleanups were underway, the state had no

information on two of the sites, and the state did not

provide a response for the remaining site.

Fourteen of the 34 state deferrals scored high

enough (HRS score equal to or above 28.5) to merit

federal interest. The May 3, 1995, OSWER Directive

9375.6-11, entitled “Guidance on Deferral of NPL

Listing Determinations While States Oversee

Response Actions,” requires a written agreement

between EPA and the states for cleanup of sites

where a federal interest exists. The agreement would

specify the activities a state will perform and the

reduced level of oversight EPA would provide. 

Before the May 1995, guidance, and the pilot state
24 Report No. 9100116

deferral program that preceded it (from 1993-1995), 

there were no provisions to defer sites to states

where a federal interest existed. Of the 14 state

deferred sites which scored high, 10 were deferred

prior to the pilot deferral program, 3 were deferred

after the guidance was published , and 1 had no

deferral date. We could not find any written

agreements for these 14 state deferrals.

The following example shows why a written

agreement is important. One of the Superfund

deferrals scored well above the minimum requirement

to be listed on the NPL and was located in a state not

authorized for corrective action. Superfund site

assessment personnel indicated that the state was

going to take the lead on cleaning up the site. 

However, the state changed its priorities and shifted

resources to another state program. When the site

was deferred, the state appeared to have good

intentions to enforce cleanup, but according to the

EPA Superfund site assessment manager, the

cleanup has stalled. A written agreement would have

committed state resources for cleanup, established

cleanup milestones, and committed EPA to monitor

progress against the milestones. These assurances

might have prevented the cleanup being stalled.

We followed up on the status of these 14 sites with

high HRS scores. Information from state officials and

a state database showed that two sites had been

cleaned up, three cleanups were underway, and

three were in the inventory for cleanup. For the

remaining six sites, we either received no response

or found no information in the state database.

OSWER officials told us the sites were not formally 

deferred to states and were incorrectly coded as

deferred to RCRA. Formal deferrals did not occur 

because there were no written agreements. The

officials who put the deferral codes in the system

(coded as deferrals in CERCLIS due to the lack of a

state deferrals code) are not authorized to code sites

as a state deferral until a written state deferral
25 Report No. 9100116

agreement is in place. Therefore, even if a state

deferral code existed at the time, the sites should not

have been assigned the code until a written

agreement was in place.

Regional officials refer to sites that state and tribes

are working on but EPA has not yet listed or given up

its right to list as “informal deferrals.” In addition to

the 14 sites we found which merit federal interest,

GAO reported in its report entitled “Unaddressed

Risks at Many Potential Superfund Sites”

(GAO/RCED-99-8, issued November 1998) on

approximately 800 similar sites in CERCLIS. 

Although states, tribes, or PRPs may be addressing

the sites, they still merit federal interest. NCP

requirements do not apply to the sites identified in

GAO’s report and ours. Thus, the preference for

permanence and treatment, the five-year review, and

community involvement may not be afforded for these

NPL-caliber sites. Our 1998, report on State

Deferrals (Report No. 8100234, September 10, 1998)

raised this concern for sites that were formally

deferred to states. In that report, we found that a

majority of the remedies were containment, rather

than permanent or treatment solutions, and only a

few had a requirement similar to the five-year review. 

Thus, remedies may not remain protective over the

long term.

Agency officials told us that they cannot require

states to follow NCP requirements for non-NPL sites. 

They also said that some states have indicated they

will not report site progress to EPA. Agency officials

could indicate in CERCLIS that states and tribes were

remediating sites, and that they have already begun

to track this information.

EPA officials also told us that they do not have the

resources to monitor the ongoing progress of

hundreds or potentially thousands of non-NPL sites. 

They are currently focused on addressing sites they

plan to list or have listed on the NPL. 
26 Report No. 9100116

We understand the Agency’s position concerning the

states. We also recognize that states and tribes are

cleaning up some of these sites. However, we are

concerned about whether all cleanups at NPL-caliber

sites or sites that merit federal interest will be similar

to NPL cleanups in terms of community involvement,

remedy selection and long-term protectiveness of

remedies.

Status Unknown to EPA Documentation in EPA regional files did not indicate

the disposition of the remaining 58 of 108 sites in our

sample. These sites were coded generally in

CERCLIS, indicating deferral to RCRA. However,

neither RCRA officials nor we were able to identify

the sites by identification number or name as being in

the RCRA program. From documentation obtained

from Superfund files, we know that 53 percent of the

sites that were scored in our sample of status

unknown sites, scored high enough to be considered

for listing on the NPL. 

HRS Scores For Status Unknown

Status

 HRS >

or = to

28.5

HRS <

28.5

No HRS

Score Total

 Unknown 15 13 30 58

While EPA could not provide information about the

disposition or cleanup status of these 58 sites, we

found that relevant states were able to supply us with

additional information. We chose to pursue current

status in two of the four regions in our sample. We

selected Regions 3 and 5 because no states in

Region 3 had corrective action authority, while, in

contrast, all states in Region 5 had corrective action

authority.

Regions 3 and 5 contained 36 of the 58 status

unknown sites. Selected states in Regions 3 and 5

provided cleanup status on 17 of the 36 sites. 
27 Report No. 9100116

Cleanup was complete or underway for five of these

sites. Cleanup had not begun, but the site was in the

state inventory for 11 sites. States had no

information on one site. The following table depicts

these 17 sites based on whether they are NPL-caliber

or not. 

Status and Potential NPL Eligibility of 17 Sites

Status

HRS

> or = 

28.5

HRS

< 28.5

HRS

Unknown Total

Cleanup

Complete/

Underway

 3 0 2 5

Site in

Inventory

 3 2 6 11

No Info. 1 1

The 58 sites in the status unknown category are not

being tracked in RCRIS (at least not under their

CERCLIS site identification number). Many of them

are no longer being tracked in CERCLIS either

because they have been archived. Of the 58 status

unknown sites, 45 have federal interest (HRS score

equal to or above 28.5) or no HRS score.

Status Of Sites With Potential Federal Interest 

CERCLIS

Status

NPL

Eligible -

HRS > or

= 28.5

No HRS

Scores Totals

Active 7 3 10

Archived 8 27 35

Totals 15 30 45
28 Report No. 9100116

The October 1996 CERCLIS archiving guidance says

that “Sites which will be addressed under

RCRA...should also be archived (by definition, no

further Superfund interest should exist at these

sites).” Three of the four regions in our sample

archived most of their sites after deferral. 

One Regional office took a conservative approach to

archiving sites. During our review, Region 2 officials

told us they did not archive sites until they were

“absolutely” sure that no further CERCLA action was

needed at sites. In fact, Region 2 officials were going

through a process to check with states and other

programs, including RCRA, to determine whether

cleanup was needed or occurring under those

authorities before archiving the sites. Thus, even

though some of the Region 2 deferrals did not appear

in RCRIS, at least one program (Superfund) retained

lead authority for ensuring that environmental

problems were addressed. 

COMMUNICATION AND

PROCEDURES NEED

STRENGTHENING

The Superfund Program Implementation Manual

indicates that a “D” should be entered in CERCLIS

when a site is deferred to RCRA, but does not

discuss how the deferral is to occur. The September

1991, “Guidance for Performing Preliminary

Assessments Under CERCLA” advises Superfund

officials to notify the site assessment contact “who

will discuss the situation with representatives of the

RCRA program and decide whether to proceed with

CERCLA investigative activities.” While this

guidance addresses the need for communication with

RCRA officials on a site-by-site basis, it does not

detail the actual transfer and acceptance process.

Superfund officials told us that they reviewed site

documentation and coded sites in CERCLIS with a

“D” if they decided to defer the sites. They also told

us that they communicated informally with RCRA

officials. We did not see any documentation of these

informal discussions during our Superfund file

reviews, nor did we find any receipt or

acknowledgment of acceptance of lead authority in
29 Report No. 9100116

RCRA files. Superfund officials in one region told us

that they sent a list of sites that they intended to defer

to RCRA and gave those officials 30 days to review

and comment on the proposed deferral actions. 

Since they got no response in the 30-day time period,

they deferred all the sites to RCRA. 

Because CERCLIS and RCRIS do not interface,

RCRA officials would be unaware of lead authority for

a site being transferred to them without discussion

and agreement between offices. As discussed in

Chapter 2, enhanced communication on a site-by-site

basis is necessary to ensure that sites are placed

with the program having the legal authority and

resources to effect cleanup at the earliest

opportunity. 

CONCLUSIONS Almost 10 percent of the total number of sites

deferred from Superfund to RCRA were not found in

the RCRIS data base. We attribute this discrepancy

to data system incompatibilities (between RCRIS and

CERCLIS), insufficient communication between

officials in the two programs, and weak deferral

procedures. In addition, some of these sites were

never intended to be deferred to the RCRA program.

The number of sites not appearing in RCRIS are

shown below by region.

Sites With Status Unknown

Region Number Of Sites

01 14

02 33

03 82

04 36

05 27

06 22

07 24

08 2

09 12

10 1

Total 253
30 Report No. 9100116

If our sampling of four regions is consistent among all

regions, we would expect Superfund and RCRA

program officials to be able to locate about half of

these sites through regional file review. The other

half may require coordination with state officials. 

Many of the sites we followed up on were in state

inventories, although EPA does not know their

cleanup status. 

It is important that EPA account for all of these sites. 

In the group of sites not appearing in RCRIS, more

than 53 percent of the scored sites had an HRS score

equal to or above 28.5. Not only would they be

potentially eligible for listing on the NPL, but they

may still pose significant risk to human health and the

environment. For these reasons, EPA needs to

ascertain the status of these sites and monitor

cleanup progress. 

RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Acting Assistant

Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency

Response instruct Superfund, and RCRA regional

officials as appropriate, to:

4-1. Add a code in CERCLIS for deferring sites to

other EPA programs.

4-2. Change the status of the 13 sites with low HRS

scores in CERCLIS to reflect the NFRAP designation

rather than deferral to RCRA.

4-3. Revise CERCLIS to reflect the appropriate

status of the 14 sites scoring equal to or above 28.5

in the HRS that were incorrectly coded as deferred to

RCRA. 

4-4. Delay archiving sites until OSWER develops a

policy to determine whether state or tribal cleanups

are adequate. Include as a prerequisite to archiving,

a requirement for five-year reviews or some

comparable process for sites where hazardous

substances have been left on site so protectiveness

of remedies can be assured over the long term.
31 Report No. 9100116

4-5. Enter into written agreements when sites of

federal interest are deferred to states. 

4-6. Determine whether the sites that were not

scored but were deferred to states merit federal

interest, and proceed with recommendation 4-2 or 4-3

and 4-4 and 4-5 as appropriate.

4-7. Determine the appropriateness of the deferral

(see Chapter 2 for guidance and discussion) for the

58 status unknown sites. After coordination with

RCRA and state officials, either defer and update

RCRIS accordingly, assess for potential listing on the

NPL, or retain and monitor state cleanup progress in

CERCLIS.

4-8. Adjust the active/archived status in CERCLIS as

necessary.
32 Report No. 9100116

APPENDIX 1

SCOPE, METHODOLOGY, AND PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY We conducted this audit from March 1998, to January

1999. To accomplish the objectives, we conducted

fieldwork in Headquarters OSWER and in Regions 2,

3, 5, 9. OSWER officials provided us with the

universe of sites Superfund officials deferred to the

RCRA program. We analyzed this CERCLIS data

and selected the four regions based on the total

number of deferrals, the status of state corrective

action authority, and the number of sites not

appearing in RCRIS. Headquarters OSWER officials

provided input for the regions we selected.

An OSWER official provided us with a CERCLIS 3

listing of 2,941 deferrals to RCRA as of 

March 6,1998. We provided the list of deferrals to

RCRA officials to analyze and tell us which sites were

in RCRIS and their status in RCRIS. In April 1998,

RCRA officials analyzed the data and divided the

sites into four groups: (1) sites that had been

deferred and fell into the corrective action workload,

(2) sites that were subject to corrective action but

were not in the corrective action workload (subject to

sites), (3) sites that were not subject to corrective

action and were called RCRA handlers, and (4) sites

that had been deferred but did not appear in the

RCRIS database. We chose not to review the

corrective action workload sites because GAO had

recently performed a review of this population in a

report entitled,”Progress Under the Corrective Action

Program Is Limited, But New Initiatives May

Accelerate Cleanups,” (GAO/RCED-98-3) in October

1997 and we believe it appropriate to give the Agency

time to address the recommendations.
33 Report No. 9100116

For the three remaining groups, the sites subject to

corrective action, the RCRA handlers, and the sites

not in RCRIS, we selected a random sample in each

group in each region for file reviews. While we

selected separate samples in the subject to and

RCRA handlers groupings, we reported on them as

one group in this report because we found sites that

were subject to corrective action in the RCRA

handlers group. 

For our randomly selected sites, we reviewed

Superfund site assessment files for discovery dates

(dates that EPA became aware of the sites),

preliminary assessments of environmental conditions

and site inspections, deferral documentation, HRS

scoring, and other site assessment information. We

also reviewed selected RCRA corrective action files

for evidence of progression of cleanup of the sampled

facilities where the HRS scores for the facilities were

not completed or were equal to or greater than 28.5

(potentially eligible for NPL consideration) or where

the sites did not appear in the RCRIS database. We

also looked for evidence of the decision to defer and

acceptance of deferral. We interviewed HQ RCRA

and CERCLA staff and managers. We also spoke

with regional officials responsible for the deferral

process in the RCRA and CERCLA programs in

Regions 2, 3, 5, and 9 regarding the controls over the

deferrals to RCRA. We also reviewed removal files

for selected sites to find out whether immediate risks

at certain sites had been addressed. We also

attended a regional decision team meeting in 

Region 2 which included Superfund officials. We

identified which states or territories were authorized

for corrective action and which sites were subject to

corrective action according to the Agency’s definition

of what it means to be subject to corrective action. 

An Office of General Counsel opinion indicates that

the Agency has the ability to have facilities conduct

corrective action if they have, had, or should have

had interim status. Interim status, simply stated,

refers to the status a facility holds between
34 Report No. 9100116

application and receipt of a RCRA permit. Interim

status is granted by a state or EPA.

Concurrent with this audit, GAO was conducting an

audit on sites awaiting listing to the NPL. GAO’s

audit is related to ours because some of the sites that

were deferred to RCRA remained active in CERCLIS

and would have been included in their population and

because the recommendations may be similar in

nature. The audits differ because most of the sites

that were deferred to RCRA were not in GAO’s

population and because GAO’s primary goal was to

try to determine how many sites may ultimately be

placed on the NPL and to gather detailed information

on the sites that remained potentially eligible for the

NPL. For the purposes of our review, we only sought

to determine whether the Agency’s deferral program

objective was achieved, whether deferrals were made

in accordance with the policy, and whether

procedures for deferring sites from one program to

another were effective. Because our purpose was

not to determine whether any sites should be added

to the NPL, we did not gather the same information as

GAO did for their review. During our review, we

coordinated with GAO to avoid duplication of efforts. 

GAO issued its audit reports entitled, ”Unaddressed

Risks at Many Potential Superfund Sites”

(GAO/RCED-99-8) and “Information on Potential

Superfund Sites,” (GAO/RCED-99-22) in November

1998.

At the commencement of our audit, we also

considered reviewing sites that had been deferred

from RCRA to Superfund. We performed limited work

in Region 2, but excluded them from our audit scope

because there was no commonality between these

deferrals and the sites deferred to RCRA and

because of limited resources. We may consider

further work on these deferrals at some future date. 

We also reviewed 7 NPL sites and 27 sites

deproposed from the NPL that were deferred to

RCRA. We chose not to report on these sites as they

generally appeared to be progressing.
35 Report No. 9100116

We reviewed Federal Managers Financial Integrity

Act documentation related to the audit objectives. 

We did not evaluate all of the controls over RCRIS

data, but we sought to verify data in RCRIS for

selected sites by asking state officials for status of

cleanup of facilities. We also attempted to verify the

accuracy of RCRIS corrective action data by

reviewing selected RCRA files. Like GAO, we did not

validate state responses by performing site visits or

file reviews because our recommendations will

include state participation in ensuring that human

health and environmental risks have been or will be

addressed.

PRIOR AUDIT COVERAGE The OIG issued an audit report in January 1994,

entitled, “Program Enhancements Would Accelerate

Superfund; Site Assessments and Cleanup” (Report

No. 4100180). This report evaluated many of the

sites then awaiting listing to the NPL and potential

actions for addressing the backlog. One of the

recommendations was that the Agency consider

deferring sites to other federal authorities. Agency

officials generally agreed with these

recommendations. 

GAO issued an audit report in October 1997, entitled,

“Progress Under the Corrective Action Program Is

Limited, But New Initiatives May Accelerate

Cleanups” (GAO/RCED-98-3). This report evaluated

the cleanup completions of the corrective action

workload in the RCRA program. This report

concluded that, “the step by step process for cleanup

is drawn out and cumbersome and the cost of

implementing it discourages companies from initiating

more cleanups. Protracted disagreements among

EPA, the states, and affected companies over the

cleanup standards to be met and the methods used to

meet them have also delayed cleanups. Both of

these factors can contribute to the economic

disincentives that companies face in performing

cleanups. Furthermore, these two problems are

exacerbated by the limited resources EPA and the

states have for implementing the [Corrective Action]
36 Report No. 9100116

program.” GAO generally recommended that EPA

reform the program to make it more streamlined and

consistent nationwide. EPA generally agreed to

these recommendations.
37 Report No. 9100116

APPENDIX 2

DETAILS OF SITES INAPPROPRIATE FOR DEFERRAL

Using a weighted projection, 67 percent, or 1003 of

the 1,388 sites in the sample universe were

inappropriate for deferral. (210 of the 313 sampled

sites were facilities that were inappropriate for

deferral to RCRA.) This appendix describes the

seven categories of sites that were inappropriate for

deferral. The table below summarizes the categories

we identified, the number of sites in each category,

and the corresponding projection 

PROJECTION OF SITES INAPPROPRIATE FOR

DEFERRAL 

Type of

Inappropriate

Deferral

Number

Found

Weighted

Projection to 

Universe

Sites That

Converted

Before

Deferral 69 254

Sites That

Converted

After Deferral 9 20

Other

Converted

Sites 

(Conversion or

Deferral Date

Unknown) 96 585

Non- or Late

Filers 8 33
Type of

Inappropriate

Deferral

Number

Found

Weighted

Projection to 

Universe

38 Report No. 9100116

Protective

Filers 22 80

Generators 6 31

Pre-HSWA

Permittees 0 0

Totals 210 1003

The first three categories of sites that were

inappropriate for deferral were converters. 

Converters are facilities that at one time treated or

stored RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste but have

since converted to generator-only status or closed. 

EPA or the states granted this change of status. The

first category are those sites that converted before

deferral, and the second category are those sites that

converted after deferral. The third category are

converted sites where the conversion or deferral date

was unknown. While converters remain technically

subject to RCRA corrective action, Agency officials

believed that deferral of converters was not

appropriate. Because they were no longer active

TSDFs, they were not a priority for prompt corrective

action under RCRA. The Agency believed

converters, should be placed on the NPL to ensure

prompt corrective action, when certain listing criteria

are met. 

We identified eight facilities in the fourth category of

sites inappropriate for deferral, non- or late-filers. 

Non- or late-filers did not file or filed late for a RCRA

permit and have little or no history of compliance with

RCRA. Though these sites may be subject to RCRA

corrective action, EPA decided that these facility

owners generally may not have the ability to assure

prompt compliance with RCRA standards. As a
39 Report No. 9100116

result, EPA decided that it is not appropriate to defer

non- or late-filers to RCRA.

Twenty-two sites were found in the fifth category of

sites inappropriate for deferral: protective filers. 

Protective filers are facilities that filed as a TSDF as a

precautionary measure, but were determined by a

state or EPA not to be a TSDF. Protective filers are

not subject to RCRA subtitle C; therefore, RCRA

cannot order a site to take corrective action except

where hazardous waste has caused an imminent and

substantial endangerment to human health or the

environment. 

Six of our sampled sites were in fact generators and

comprised the sixth category of sites inappropriate for

deferral. Generators are not subject to RCRA

corrective action and, according to the policy, would

continue to be placed on the NPL. 

Though we did not identify any, the seventh category

of sites that were inappropriate for deferral were sites

holding permits before the enactment of HSWA. 

Such facility owners had permits that predated

corrective action requirements and would not agree

to a voluntary reissuance of the permits to include

such requirements. 
40 Report No. 9100116

APPENDIX 3

INFORMATION ON SITES NOT INAPPROPRIATE FOR DEFERRAL

During our exit conference, Agency officials requested

that we characterize the sites that we found not to be

inappropriate for deferral. The chart below describes

the results of that characterization. For all of the 103

sampled sites below, we found insufficient information

in the files to conclude that the sites were

inappropriate for deferral based on the policy. 

Description of 103 Sites Not Inappropriate for

Deferral

Characterization Number

TSDF Status Unclear 46

Closed and Requested

Change of Status But No

Approval Found

19

Facilities Undergoing

Closure

14

Interim Status Facilities 16

Facilities Filed Part A

and B But Permit Not

Yet Received

4

Permitted 2

EPA Discussing TSDF

Status with Facility

2

 Total 103
41 Report No. 9100116

For the first 46 sites, the status of these facilities was

unclear from the documentation we reviewed during

fieldwork. In these cases, it was unclear whether

facilities notified or filed and were considered

generators or TSDFs. 

Thirty-three (33) of the 103 sites that were in the

“Closed and Requested Change of Status But No

Approval Found” or “Facilities Undergoing Closure”

groups were moving toward closure or conversion to a

status other than TSDF. These sites would eventually

be appropriate for consideration under CERCLA since

they will likely convert and are not in the corrective

action workload.

The 16 sites that appeared to be in interim status, the

four facilities that filed both parts of the RCRA permits

to be TSDFs but, based on the documentation we

obtained, had not yet received their permits, and the

two permitted facilities would be appropriate for

deferral. These facilities should be in the corrective

action workload because, according to the

documentation we obtained, they are seeking or had

obtained permits to operate as TSDFs.

EPA was discussing the TSDF status of the final two

sampled sites, according to documentation we

obtained. Until EPA resolved the TSDF status of

these two facilities, we cannot comment on the

appropriateness of these two deferrals.
42 Report No. 9100116

APPENDIX 4

AGENCY RESPONSE AND OIG EVALUATION

AGENCY RESPONSE

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Response to Draft OIG Report Superfund Sites Deferred to RCRA, 

 Audit Report E1SFF8-11-0006-DRAFT

FROM: Timothy Fields, Jr. (Signed March 23, 1999)

 Acting Assistant Administrator

TO: Michael Simmons

 Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Internal Audits

 Office of the Inspector General

This memorandum transmits the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response’s

(OSWER) comments on the subject draft audit report by the Office of the Inspector

General (OIG). We appreciate the OIG’s thorough review of the process of deferring

Superfund sites to RCRA; we feel the audit findings and recommendations will be

helpful in improving the efficiency of the deferral process.

In a March 4, 1999 meeting with the OIG, staff from both the Superfund and RCRA

programs raised issues regarding various aspects of the draft report. In follow-up to that

meeting, OSWER provided informal comments on the draft. We received a revised draft

on March 17 which incorporated many of our preliminary comments. Please note that

this written response does not address many of the minor comments discussed during

the March 4 meeting or those submitted prior to the revision of the draft report. Rather,

it addresses larger issues concerning the presentation of the OIG’s findings, and the

assumptions made during the audit.

The draft audit report identifies discrepancies between Superfund Hazard Ranking

System (HRS) scores and RCRA National Corrective Action Prioritization System

(NCAPS) rankings for the sites deferred to RCRA. The OIG concluded that a reexamination of the prioritization of sites is needed as a result of these discrepancies. 

However, both the Superfund and RCRA programs agree that there are fundamental 
43 Report No. 9100116

differences between the HRS and NCAPS ranking systems that do not support

comparisons of a score or ranking. The HRS generates a numerical score which must

be above a certain threshold to warrant Federal Superfund interest, while NCAPS

prioritizes a site relative to other RCRA sites and takes into account specific solid waste

management units that are not addressed by the HRS. Furthermore, NCAPS rankings

are updated more frequently than HRS scores to reflect current site conditions.

Therefore, priority ranking under RCRA may decrease as a result of response actions

taken at a site while the HRS score will remain the same. It is important to note in the

final audit report that these prioritization systems were developed for very different

purposes and may not necessarily yield comparable results at sites scored under both

systems.

The OIG states in the draft report that less than 2 percent of the deferred sites have

been “cleaned up.” This term is rather ambiguous and could refer to several different

types of site conditions. We would like this to be clarified in the final report so that the

entire statement reflects the actual status of those sites. Most importantly, what

standards were applied in order to make the determination that the remaining 98

percent have not been “cleaned up”?

In the draft report, the OIG suggests that the Superfund site assessment process will be

the primary tool for re-evaluating the sites that were inappropriately deferred to RCRA. 

Similarly, the draft report implies that the HRS will be the primary tool for prioritization

and that Superfund decisions will be made at all of these sites. However, the OIG

should recognize that if these sites are to be re-evaluated under Superfund, it is unlikely

that all of them will be, or will need to be, cleaned up with Superfund resources. There

are currently more than 10,000 sites in the active CERCLIS inventory needing

assessment decisions, and on average, an additional 400 sites come to EPA’s attention

each year. Any inappropriate deferrals that return to Superfund for reassessment will be

prioritized in the context of all other active sites needing assessment, and according to

the threat the site poses to human health and the environment. We believe EPA has

already conducted a Preliminary Assessment at virtually all of the sites OIG has

included in the draft report; field sampling and Site Inspections have also been

conducted at a large percentage of these sites. OSWER would like to note that

Superfund decisions have been made at over 35,000 sites since the program was

created, however, only 4 percent (less than 1,500 sites) have been placed on the

National Priorities List for long-term cleanup under the Superfund program.

Chapter 4 of the draft discusses OIG’s inability to locate the 253 “Status Unknown”

facilities in the RCRIS system. While it is possible that this resulted in part, as

suggested by OIG, from system incompatibilities, OIG’s overall premise that each of the

253 should have appeared in RCRIS may be flawed. RCRIS contains data on over

250,000 facilities that, by the Agency’s records, ever handled hazardous waste. The
44 Report No. 9100116

absence of any of the 253 from RCRIS could be explained by the fact that they never

handled hazardous waste. Chapter 4 needs to acknowledge this possibility. 

After reviewing the draft report, OSWER has some suggestions on presenting the data

in a format that readers may more easily comprehend. A possible method of clarification

would be the use of graphics, such as pie charts or graphs, to represent the most

complex data (i.e., to more clearly state when the report is referring to a random sample,

as opposed to the four-Region sample or the total National universe of deferrals). 

Another possibility may be a “data glossary” as an additional appendix, so that any

figure in the report could be easily defined.

After reviewing the audit findings, OSWER notes that the draft report clearly indicates a

need for improved communication and coordination between the Superfund and RCRA

programs in all EPA regional offices. We are prepared to reassess many of the site

management decisions identified by the audit to ensure that EPA and State agency

response efforts provide the highest level of protection of human health and the

environment.

Thank you for providing the opportunity to comment on the draft report. If you have any

questions regarding our written response, please contact Elizabeth Harris, OSWER

Audit Liaison, at (202) 260-7323.

cc: Sharon Hallinan

 Liz Harris

 Jennifer Griesert

 Anne Andrews

 Barbara Braddock

 Bill Samuel

 Judy Vanderhoef

 Barry Parker

 Tina Lovingood

OIG EVALUATION

The Acting Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response indicated 

that there are fundamental differences between the HRS and the NCAPS ranking

systems that do not support comparisons of a score or ranking. The Acting Assistant

Administrator requested that we note in the final report that these prioritization systems

were developed for very different purposes and may not necessarily yield comparable

results at sites scored under both systems.

As requested, we added language to the report to explain why these scores might be

different. However, the NCAPS system was based on the HRS, and while their
45 Report No. 9100116

purposes might be different, they are both indicators for potential threats to human

health and the environment. Accordingly, until the current environmental threat posed

by sites with different scores can be determined, the Agency cannot be certain of

whether there is cause for concern. To assist the review process, we will provide

OSWER staff with the specific data for sites with differing scores.

The Acting Assistant Administrator also commented that the draft report suggested that

the Superfund site assessment process will be the primary tool for re-evaluating the

sites that were inappropriately deferred to RCRA. He also believed the draft report

implied that the HRS will be the primary tool for prioritization and that Superfund

decisions will be made at all of these sites. 

The OIG did not intend to imply that Superfund site assessment will be the primary tool

for reassessment of sites. In fact, in the draft report, the OIG supported the NPL/RCRA

policy when it suggested a multi-program approach to addressing sites. We also

suggested a cooperative approach to include states in any evaluations of sites that

would take place. The OIG recognizes the limited resources of Superfund, RCRA and

state programs. We also recognize that legal authority is a factor in any decisions EPA

may need to make for reassessing sites when necessary. We believe that both

resources and legal authority must be considered when determining how best to

proceed. For example, just because a particular state may have legal authority does not

mean it has the resources to address the sites. 

We also recognize, as OSWER staff pointed out at the exit conference, that the 

corrective action workload is the priority for RCRA and is the reason many of these sites

may not have been addressed. For EPA RCRA officials to address these sites would

take resources away from those needed to achieve RCRA’s GPRA goal of addressing

the corrective action workload.

The OIG also agrees with the Acting Assistant Administrator that not every site may

need to be reevaluated, and that those that do need reevaluation should be prioritized

for any potential listing to the NPL. Preliminary assessments, and in some cases, site

inspections or other assessments have been conducted for these sites. However, we

found that much of the data is several years old, and OSWER and state officials should

give some consideration to increases in potentially affected populations (or targets) and

uses of the potentially affected properties.
46 Report No. 9100116

APPENDIX 5

DISTRIBUTION

OSWER Audit Liaison (5103) 

Director, State and Tribal Site Identification Center (5204G) 

Deputy Director, State and Tribal Site Identification Center (5204G) 

Deputy Director, Office of Solid Waste (5301W)

Acting Director, Permits and State Programs Division (5303W)

Associate Director, Permits and State Programs Division (5303W)

Chief, Corrective Actions Program Branch (5303W)

Superfund Reforms Coordinator (5204G)
47 Report No. 9100116

1. Sites are coded in RCRIS with the Corrective Action Event Code “CA999," or “CA Process

Terminated.” 

 In addition, in its October 1997 report entitled, “Progress Under the Corrective Action

Program Is Limited, But New Initiatives May Accelerate Cleanups” GAO defined, and in its

response EPA did not disagree that, using the code CA999 meant that cleanup was completed. 

 If the CA999 code was not used, then cleanup was not completed, for the purpose of defining

the remaining 98 percent of sites. 

2. “Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments Under CERCLA,” EPA/540/G-91/013,

September 1991, pages 16-19.

 “Superfund Program Implementation Manual, Fiscal Year 99/00,” June 1998, pages A-6 to 

A-24.

3. OSWER Directive 9932.0, “Method for Prioritizing CERCLA Preliminary Assessments at

RCRA Facilities,” May 31, 1988.

 OSWER Directive 9932.1, “Guidance for Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI) Facilities in

the Superfund Pre-Remedial Program,” January 31, 1989.

 Memorandum from Mary A. Gade, Deputy AA for OSWER, “Environmental Priorities

Initiative - Headquarters Responsibilities and Upcoming Activities,” February 11, 1991.

4. Memorandum from J. Winston Porter, AA for OSWER and Courtney M. Price, AA for

OECM, “Interpretation of Section 3008(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act,” December 16,

1985. 

5. Memorandum from Stephen D. Luftig, Director, Office of Emergency and Remedial

Response, and Michael H. Shapiro, Director, Office of Solid Waste, “Removing RCRA Facilities

from CERCLIS,” June 21, 1995.

 Memorandum from Larry G. Reed, Director, Hazardous Site Evaluation Division and Linda

Boornazian, Director, Policy and Program Evaluation Division, OSWER, “Refining CERCLIS

Archive Determinations,” July 6, 1995.

 Memorandum from Robert Myers, Acting Chief, Site Assessment Branch, OSWER

“Transmittal of CERCLIS Archive Materials: Site Lists and Guidelines,” July 14, 1995.

 Guidance entitled “CERCLIS Archive Guidelines,” October 1996.

 Memorandum from Stephen D. Luftig, Director Office of Emergency and Remedial

Response, “Archiving CERCLIS Sites,” November 13, 1996.

APPENDIX 6

ENDNOTES