SUPERFUND

EPA Should Take 

Steps to Improve Its 

Management of 

Alternatives to Placing 

Sites on the National 

Priorities List

Report to Congressional Requesters

April 2013

GAO-13-252

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-252, a report to 

congressional requesters

April 2013

SUPERFUND 

EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Its Management 

of Alternatives to Placing Sites on the National

Priorities List

Why GAO Did This Study

Under the Superfund program, EPA 

may address the long-term cleanup of 

certain hazardous waste sites by 

placing them on the NPL and 

overseeing the cleanup. To be eligible 

for the NPL, a site must be sufficiently 

contaminated, among other things. 

EPA regions have discretion to choose 

among several other approaches to 

address sites eligible for the NPL. For 

example, under the Superfund 

program, EPA regions may enter into 

agreements with PRPs using the SA 

approach. EPA may also defer the 

oversight of cleanup at eligible sites to 

approaches outside of the Superfund 

program. GAO was asked to review 

EPA’s implementation of the SA 

approach and how it compares with the 

NPL approach. This report examines 

(1) how EPA addresses the cleanup of 

sites it has identified as eligible for the 

NPL, (2) how the processes for 

implementing the SA and NPL 

approaches compare, and (3) how SA 

agreement sites compare with similar 

NPL sites in completing the cleanup 

process. GAO reviewed applicable 

laws, regulations, and guidance; 

analyzed program data as of 

December 2012; interviewed EPA 

officials; and compared SA agreement 

sites with 74 NPL sites selected based 

on their similarity to SA agreement 

sites. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other 

things, that EPA issue guidance to 

define and clarify documentation 

requirements for OCA deferrals and 

clarify its policies on SA agreement 

sites. EPA agreed with the report’s 

recommendations.

What GAO Found

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) most commonly addresses the 

cleanup of sites it has identified as eligible for the National Priorities List (NPL) by 

deferring oversight of the cleanup to approaches outside of the Superfund 

program. As of December 2012, of the 3,402 sites EPA identified as potentially 

eligible, EPA has deferred oversight of 1,984 sites to approaches outside the 

Superfund program, including 1,766 Other Cleanup Activity (OCA) deferrals to 

states and other entities. However, EPA has not issued guidance for OCA 

deferrals as it has for the other cleanup approaches. Moreover, EPA’s program 

guidance does not clearly define each type of OCA deferral or specify in detail 

the documentation EPA regions should have to support their decisions on OCA 

deferrals. Without clearer guidance on OCA deferrals, EPA cannot be reasonably 

assured that its regions are consistently tracking these sites or that their

documentation will be appropriate or sufficient to verify that these sites have 

been deferred or have completed cleanup. Under the Superfund program, EPA 

oversees the cleanup of 1,313 sites on the NPL, 67 sites under the Superfund 

Alternative (SA) approach, and at least 38 sites under another undefined 

approach. 

The processes for implementing the SA and NPL approaches, while similar in 

many ways, have several differences. EPA has accounted for some of these 

differences in its SA guidance by listing specific provisions for SA agreements 

with potentially responsible parties (PRP), such as owners and operators of a 

site. One such provision helps ensure cleanups are not delayed by a loss of 

funding if the PRP stops cleaning up the site. However, some EPA regions have 

entered into agreements with PRPs at sites that officials said were likely eligible 

for the SA approach without following the SA guidance. Such agreements may 

not benefit from EPA’s provisions for SA agreements. EPA headquarters officials 

said the agency prefers regions to use the SA approach at such sites, but EPA 

has not stated this preference explicitly in its guidance. In addition, EPA’s 

tracking and reporting of certain aspects of the process under the SA approach 

differs from that under the NPL approach. As a result, EPA’s tracking of SA 

agreement sites in its Superfund database is incomplete; the standards for 

documenting the NPL eligibility of SA agreement sites are less clear than those 

for NPL sites; and EPA is not publicly reporting a full picture of SA agreement 

sites. Unless EPA makes improvements in these areas, its management of the 

process at SA agreement sites may be hampered. 

The SA agreement sites showed mixed results in completing the cleanup 

process when compared with 74 similar NPL sites GAO analyzed. Specifically, 

SA agreement and NPL sites in GAO’s analysis showed mixed results in the 

average time to complete negotiations with PRPs and for specific cleanup 

activities, such as remedial investigation and feasibility studies, remedial designs, 

and remedial actions. In addition, a lower proportion of SA agreement sites have 

completed cleanup compared with similar NPL sites. SA agreement sites tend to 

be in earlier phases of the cleanup process because the SA approach began 

more recently than the NPL approach. Given the limited number of activities for 

both NPL and SA agreement sites in GAO’s analysis, these differences cannot 

be attributed entirely to the type of approach used at each site. 

View GAO-13-252. For more information, 

contact David C.Trimble at (202) 512-3841 or 

trimbled@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-252 Superfund

Letter 1 

Background 5

EPA Defers Oversight of a Majority of Sites Eligible for the NPL to 

Approaches Outside of the Superfund Program 14

Processes for Implementing the SA and NPL Approaches Differ in a 

Few Significant Ways 23

SA Agreement Sites Showed Mixed Results in Completing the 

Cleanup Process When Compared with Similar NPL Sites 33

Conclusions 36

Recommendations for Executive Action 37

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 38

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 39

Appendix II Long-Term Cleanup Approaches by EPA Region 45

Appendix III Data Analysis of SA Agreement Sites and Similar NPL Sites 47

Appendix IV Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency 50

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Tables

Table 1: Number of Sites by Region and Long-Term Cleanup 

Approach, as of December 2012 45

Table 2: Percentage of Sites by Region and Long-Term Cleanup 

Approach, as of December 2012 46

Table 3: Median Length of Negotiations in Months for Agreements 

between EPA and PRPs at 66 SA Agreement Sites and 74 

Similar NPL Sites for Agreements Finalized from June 2002 

through December 2012 47

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-252 Superfund

Table 4: Median Length of Cleanup Activities for 66 SA Agreement 

Sites and 74 Similar NPL Sites Completed from June 2002 

through December 2012 48

Figures

Figure 1: EPA’s 10 Regions 6

Figure 2: Approaches Identified by EPA to Clean Up Sites Eligible 

for the NPL 8

Figure 3: Long-Term Cleanup Process at Sites under the Superfund 

Program 10

Figure 4: Current Sites Identified as Eligible for the NPL Using 

Different Long-Term Cleanup Approaches, as of 

December 2012 17

Figure 5: Number of SA Agreement Sites by EPA Region, as of 

December 2012 30

Figure 6: Construction Completions at SA Sites and Similar NPL 

Sites 35
Page iii GAO-13-252 Superfund

Abbreviations

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Act

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

and Liability Information System

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

IG Inspector General

NPL National Priorities List

NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRD natural resource damages

OCA Other Cleanup Activity

PRP potentially responsible party

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

SA Superfund Alternative

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-252 Superfund

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 9, 2013

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman

Ranking Member

Committee on Energy and Commerce

House of Representatives

The Honorable John D. Dingell

House of Representatives

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that one in four 

Americans lives within 3 miles of a hazardous waste site. Many 

hazardous waste sites pose serious risks to human health and the 

environment, and their cleanup can be expensive and take many years to 

complete. While these sites may not necessarily be subject to a federal 

cleanup requirement, several approaches exist to address such long-term 

cleanups. EPA manages the Superfund program—the federal 

government’s principal program to clean up hazardous waste sites—

under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980.1 Under this program, EPA can place sites 

with contamination that is sufficiently severe on the National Priorities List 

(NPL), a list of sites for attention under the federal Superfund program 

that includes sites among the nation’s most seriously contaminated.2 At 

sites on the NPL, EPA oversees the cleanup, which may be performed by 

potentially responsible parties (PRP)3

 

1

CERCLA, Pub. L. No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767 (1980) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 

§§ 9601- 9675 (2012)). Hereinafter, references to CERCLA sections are as amended. 

or by EPA itself. Aside from placing 

an eligible site on the NPL, EPA can also ensure cleanup through the 

2

There is no legal requirement that EPA clean up a site on the NPL or that it do so under a 

particular time frame. As we have previously reported, EPA’s future costs to conduct 

remedial construction at nonfederal NPL sites will likely exceed recent funding levels. The 

limited funding, coupled with increasing costs of cleanup, has forced EPA to choose 

between cleaning up a greater number of sites in a less time and cost-efficient manner or 

cleaning up fewer sites more efficiently. See GAO, Superfund: EPA’s Estimated Costs to 

Remediate Existing Sites Exceed Current Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected 

to Be Added to the National Priorities List, GAO-10-380 (Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2010).

3

PRPs generally include current or former owners and operators of a site or the 

generators or transporters of the hazardous substances. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Superfund Alternative (SA) approach.4 Under this approach, PRPs agree 

to clean up sites (hereafter referred to as SA agreement sites), and EPA 

does not list the sites on the NPL at that time, which allows PRPs to avoid 

the perceived stigma of having a site on the NPL. Since EPA first issued 

guidance on the SA approach in 2002, EPA and its Office of Inspector 

General (IG) have evaluated the approach and made various 

recommendations to improve its implementation. In 2010, EPA reported 

to the IG that it had implemented the recommended actions.5 Where EPA 

decides not to address the site under the Superfund program (i.e., list the 

site on the NPL, use the SA approach, or otherwise retain oversight), 

EPA may defer6 sites whose contamination makes them eligible for the 

NPL to other federal and state cleanup approaches.7

EPA’s regional offices may discover potential hazardous waste sites, or 

such sites may come to EPA’s attention through reports from other 

federal agencies, state agencies, or citizens. EPA then reviews available 

information about each site to decide whether to add it to the Superfund 

program database—the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). At some 

point after a site is added to CERCLIS, EPA assesses the severity of the 

contamination at the site to determine whether the site is eligible to be 

placed on the NPL. If the site has some contamination but is not eligible 

for the NPL, EPA will not pursue a long-term cleanup under the 

Superfund program; state cleanup programs or other programs may still 

address the contamination at the site. Long-term cleanups at sites eligible 

for the NPL that are conducted under the Superfund program generally 

follow an established process. This process consists of several phases, 

including studying site conditions, selecting a method to clean up the site, 

 

4

Where hazardous waste sites are owned or controlled by a federal agency, that agency 

may also have a significant role in cleanup. Processes and provisions specific to these 

federal sites are generally not discussed in this report and, according to EPA, the SA 

approach has not been used at a federal site. 

5

We did not assess the extent to which EPA implemented all of the IG’s recommendations 

because it was beyond the scope of our review.

6

For purposes of this report, deferral refers to sites where EPA elects not to use its 

Superfund authorities for a long-term cleanup because another program will provide 

oversight of the site’s cleanup.

7

Forty-seven states have followed the federal government’s lead and established their 

own version of the Superfund program to identify and clean up sites not covered by the 

federal program.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-252 Superfund

and conducting the actual cleanup. In some cases, cleanup of a site is 

divided into smaller parts, known as operable units, and cleanup may 

proceed at different rates at each of these operable units.8

In addition to conducting long-term cleanups, EPA may use its Superfund 

emergency response authorities to conduct removal actions at sites. 

Removal actions are usually short-term cleanups at sites that pose 

immediate threats to human health or the environment. Under the 

removal program, EPA has conducted thousands of cleanup actions 

instead of or in combination with long-term cleanups.

To accomplish 

the cleanup, EPA may, among other options, negotiate and enter into 

agreements with PRPs for them to address contamination at the site. 

These agreements may cover one or more phases of the cleanup 

process and may address one or more operable units. Furthermore, EPA 

may enter into more than one agreement with a PRP at a site. Alternately, 

for sites listed on the NPL, EPA may conduct the cleanup itself and 

pursue costs from PRPs through administrative or judicial actions.

In this context, you asked us to review the implementation of the SA 

approach and how this approach compares to listing sites on the NPL. 

Our objectives were to examine (1) how EPA addresses the cleanup of 

sites it has identified as eligible for the NPL, (2) how the processes for 

implementing the SA and NPL approaches compare, and (3) how SA 

agreement sites compare with similar NPL sites in completing the cleanup 

process.

To conduct this work, we analyzed applicable federal laws and EPA 

regulations and guidance to understand the available approaches to 

address hazardous waste sites that are reported to the Superfund 

program and have a level of contamination that makes them eligible for 

the NPL. We also conducted interviews with officials in all 10 EPA 

regions. To determine how EPA addresses the cleanup of sites eligible 

for the NPL, we analyzed EPA data from the CERCLIS database to 

establish the number of such sites that are being addressed through each 

approach as of December 2012. To assess the reliability of these data, 

we analyzed related documentation, examined the data for errors or 

inconsistencies, and interviewed agency officials about any known data 

 

8

Operable units may address geographical portions of a site, specific site problems, or 

initial phases of a cleanup action. 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-252 Superfund

problems and to learn more about their procedures for maintaining the 

data. We determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for calculating 

durations for completing different cleanup activities, including 

negotiations, at SA agreement and NPL sites. We also interviewed a 

nonprobability, convenience sample of officials from 13 state cleanup 

programs who were familiar with available cleanup approaches. The 

sample consisted of representatives from state environmental 

departments taking part in an Association of State and Territorial Solid 

Waste Management Officials conference call who agreed to speak with 

us. Because this was a nonprobability sample, the results of our analysis 

cannot be generalized to all states; however, these officials provided 

important information about the cleanup process. To compare the 

processes for implementing the SA and NPL approaches, including the 

cleanup process and EPA’s oversight, we discussed the processes with 

EPA headquarters officials and officials from all 10 of EPA’s regions, 

obtained relevant supporting documentation, and analyzed previous 

reviews of the SA approach. To determine how SA agreement sites 

compare with similar NPL sites in completing the cleanup process, we 

constructed a comparison group of 74 NPL sites with agreements 

between EPA and PRPs similar to agreements at 66 SA agreement 

sites.9

 

9

Our analysis of how SA agreement sites compare with similar NPL sites in completing 

the cleanup process did not include all SA agreement sites because some of these sites 

did not have relevant cleanup activities.

For example, all sites had agreements that were entered into from 

June 2002 through December 2012 that involved cleanup actions at the 

site. Additionally, to match the characteristics of most SA agreements, we 

included only NPL agreements involving relatively few PRPs and 

agreements whose estimated costs were similar to costs at SA 

agreement sites. Once we identified the group of NPL sites from these 

agreements, we compared the duration of relevant cleanup actions, 

including negotiations, with those at SA agreement sites. The 74 NPL 

sites that were selected for comparison with SA agreement sites are not 

representative of the universe of all NPL sites because they were 

selected based on specific criteria. For example, we selected for 

comparison only NPL sites at which a PRP agreed to conduct at least 

some part of the cleanup. The results of our analysis cannot be 

generalized to all NPL sites; however, these sites can provide important 

information about the cleanup process. Appendix I provides a more 

detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-252 Superfund

We conducted this performance audit from December 2011 to April 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

This section discusses EPA’s process for assessing sites under the 

Superfund program and the approaches identified by EPA for conducting 

long-term cleanups at sites eligible for the NPL under the Superfund 

program and under other available approaches.

Under the Superfund program, EPA assesses hazardous waste sites for 

long-term cleanups through a specific process. At some point after a 

potential hazardous waste site is reported to the Superfund program and 

entered into CERCLIS, EPA regional officials, their contractors, or states 

acting under cooperative agreements with EPA evaluate the relative 

potential for a site to pose a threat to human health and the environment. 

EPA’s 10 regional offices each are responsible for implementing 

Superfund within several states and, in some cases, territories. Under 

CERCLA, EPA may only pay for a remedial action at a site if the relevant 

state agrees, among other things, to pay a portion of the cleanup 

expenses, as well as all operations and maintenance costs. In addition, 

under a cooperative agreement with EPA, a state may assume the lead 

oversight role at a site in the Superfund program. Figure 1 shows the 

states included in each of the 10 EPA regions.

Background 

EPA’s Process for 

Assessing Sites under the 

Superfund Program
 

Page 6 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Figure 1: EPA’s 10 Regions

During the initial phases of the long-term cleanup process—known as 

preliminary assessment and site inspection—EPA regional officials or 

their counterparts evaluate the potential need for additional investigation 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-252 Superfund

or action in connection with a release of hazardous substances from a 

site. Specifically, the preliminary assessment phase involves an 

evaluation of readily available information about a site and its surrounding 

area to determine if the release or potential release poses enough of a 

threat to human health and the environment that further investigation is 

needed. If further investigation is needed, a site inspection is performed. 

During this phase, investigators typically collect environmental and waste 

samples to determine what hazardous substances are present. 

Information collected during the preliminary assessment and site 

inspection is used to calculate and document a site’s preliminary Hazard 

Ranking System score, which indicates a site’s relative threat to human 

health and the environment based on potential pathways of 

contamination.10 Sites with a Hazard Ranking System score of 28.50 or 

greater are eligible for listing on the NPL. Information collected from the 

initial assessment phases to develop Hazard Ranking System scores is 

not intended to be sufficient to determine either the extent of 

contamination or how to clean up a particular site. After a site is 

determined to be eligible for the NPL, EPA chooses which long-term 

cleanup approach is best suited to the site. In some cases, EPA may 

conduct a short-term cleanup known as a removal action or otherwise 

delay selection of a long-term cleanup approach.

EPA may choose among several approaches to address sites with a 

relative threat to human health and the environment that is sufficiently 

severe to make them eligible for listing on the NPL. For long-term 

cleanups, EPA can retain oversight of sites under the Superfund program 

or defer the oversight of sites to other approaches, as shown in figure 2.

 

10These potential pathways of contamination include groundwater migration, surface 

water migration, soil exposure, and air migration. 

Approaches Identified by 

EPA for Conducting LongTerm Cleanups at Sites 

Eligible for the NPL
 

Page 8 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Figure 2: Approaches Identified by EPA to Clean Up Sites Eligible for the NPL

Under its Superfund program, EPA conducts long-term cleanups using 

three approaches. The first and most common approach under the 

Superfund program involves listing a site on the NPL. To do so, EPA first 

proposes the site for listing on the NPL in the Federal Register. EPA then 

Superfund Program 

Approaches for Conducting 

Long-Term Cleanups 
 

Page 9 GAO-13-252 Superfund

accepts public comments on the proposal and responds to the comments 

in a second and final Federal Register listing announcement of the site; 

then the agency may place on the NPL those sites that continue to meet 

the requirements for listing. The second approach that EPA may use 

under the Superfund program is the SA approach, which began informally 

in the 1990s whereby some EPA regions negotiated site cleanup 

agreements with PRPs for sites that PRPs, states, or local government 

officials and communities did not want to have listed on the NPL. To 

promote consistency across regions, EPA issued guidance in 2002 

formalizing the SA approach, which it subsequently updated in 2004 and 

2012.11 According to EPA’s guidance, to qualify for the SA approach, (1) 

a site’s contamination must make it eligible for listing on the NPL; (2) EPA 

must anticipate a long-term cleanup at the site; and (3) there must be a 

willing, capable PRP who will negotiate and sign an agreement with EPA 

to perform the investigation or cleanup. The third approach EPA can use 

for long-term cleanup of sites is to address sites under the Superfund 

program but not list them on the NPL or address them through the SA 

approach.12

Irrespective of the approach chosen, all sites under the Superfund 

program approaches follow the same general phases for long-term 

cleanup, as shown in figure 3, and EPA officials oversee the cleanup at 

all of these Superfund sites.

These “Other” sites under the Superfund program can vary 

widely and include, among others, some sites with cleanup agreements 

that preceded the SA approach. Under these older agreements, for which 

there was no guidance at the time they were negotiated, EPA agreed not 

to list the site on the NPL, and the PRPs agreed to conduct the cleanup, 

according to EPA officials.

 

11EPA, Response Selection and Enforcement Approach for Superfund Alternative Sites

(Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2002); EPA, Revised Response Selection and Settlement 

Approach for Superfund Alternative Sites (Washington, D.C.: June 17, 2004); and EPA, 

Updated Superfund Response and Settlement Approach for Sites Using the Superfund 

Alternative Approach (SAA) (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2012).

12For non-NPL sites, EPA does not have the option to perform a long-term cleanup itself 

and seek reimbursement from PRPs; however, EPA may enter into settlements with PRPs 

where applicable conditions for enforcement actions are met.
 

Page 10 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Figure 3: Long-Term Cleanup Process at Sites under the Superfund Program

Note: Phases of the long-term cleanup process may overlap, and multiple phases may be 

concurrently under way at a site.

a

Postconstruction completion includes activities such as operation and maintenance, long-term 

response actions, and 5-year reviews, which ensure that Superfund cleanup actions provide for the 

long-term protection of human health and the environment.

After the initial phases of the long-term cleanup process, EPA or a PRP 

conducts a two-part study of the site: (1) a remedial investigation to 

further characterize site conditions and assess the risks to human health 

and the environment, among other actions, and (2) a feasibility study to 

evaluate various cleanup options to address the problems identified in the 

remedial investigation. At the conclusion of these studies, EPA selects a 

remedy for addressing the site’s contamination and develops a cost 

estimate for implementing the remedy; both of these are included in a 

record of decision. According to EPA officials, the level of cleanup 

depends on site-specific conditions, not the particular approach selected. 

EPA or a PRP then develops the method of implementation for the 

selected remedy during the remedial design phase and implements it 

during the remedial action phase, when actual cleanup of the site occurs. 

Multiple cleanup activities can occur within a given phase at the same or 

different operable units at one site. For example, one remedial action at 

an operable unit may address soil contamination, while another remedial 

action at the same operable unit may address groundwater 

contamination. When EPA or a PRP finishes the cleanup remedy at a 

site, all immediate threats have been addressed, and all long-term threats 

are under control, EPA generally considers the site to be “construction 

complete.” For sites listed on the NPL, when EPA, in consultation with the 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-252 Superfund

state, determines that no further site response is appropriate, the agency 

may delete the site from the NPL. EPA reports achievements at NPL 

sites, including completion of some phases of the cleanup process, as 

part of the agency’s implementation of provisions under the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).13

CERCLA provides EPA with authority to enter into agreements with PRPs 

to conduct cleanup actions at sites;

The act requires federal 

agencies to develop strategic plans with outcome oriented agency goals 

and objectives, performance measures to track the progress made toward 

achieving goals, annual goals linked to achieving the long-term goals, and 

annual reports on the results achieved. EPA does not report publicly the 

same achievements for sites that are not on the NPL.

14 this authority is relevant to all three 

approaches where EPA maintains oversight under the Superfund 

program. Model agreements for different phases of cleanup with standard 

provisions are to serve as the basis for negotiations and for the agency’s 

legal documents. According to EPA officials, the agency typically uses 

legal documents known as “administrative orders on consent”—which do 

not require court approval—to record the agreements between EPA and 

PRPs for conducting remedial investigation and feasibility studies. An 

EPA agreement with a private party for conducting a remedial action 

generally takes the form of a “consent decree,” which must be approved 

by a court.15

 

13The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 

285 (1993), amended by the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act 

of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011).

Although agreements under the SA approach generally 

follow these model agreements, EPA guidance states that SA 

agreements are to include specific provisions, depending on the phase of 

cleanup to which the agreement applies. These provisions are intended to 

ensure equivalency between the SA and NPL approaches. In addition to 

negotiating agreements, EPA has authority to issue enforcement orders, 

such as “unilateral administrative orders,” or to coordinate with the 

14CERCLA § 122(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9622(a) (2012).

15CERCLA § 122(d)(1)(A), 42 U.S.C. § 9622(d)(1)(A) (2012). EPA tracks separately the 

duration of negotiations for (1) remedial investigation and feasibility study agreements and 

(2) remedial design and remedial action agreements.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Department of Justice in seeking an injunction to require PRPs to conduct 

cleanup.16

As an alternative to addressing a site under the Superfund program, EPA 

may defer oversight of the cleanup of a site eligible for the NPL to other 

cleanup approaches, including federal and state cleanup programs. For 

example, EPA may defer a site from its Superfund program to its 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) program. Congress 

passed RCRA in 1976, establishing requirements, as well as giving EPA 

regulatory authority, for the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, 

and disposal of hazardous waste.17

 

16CERCLA § 106(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9606(a) (2012).

While CERCLA focuses on cleanup of 

sites where hazardous substances have been released, including inactive 

and abandoned hazardous waste sites, RCRA generally focuses on 

facilities currently generating, treating, storing, and disposing of 

hazardous waste—hazardous materials that are destined for disposal or 

recycling. RCRA authorizes EPA to issue administrative cleanup orders 

where an imminent and substantial danger to health and the environment 

may exist. At a given site, certain authorities of CERCLA and RCRA may 

be applicable to a cleanup. EPA also may defer certain sites to the 

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The NRC licenses commercial 

nuclear facilities, including power reactors, and regulates and oversees 

their safe operation, including the decommissioning and decontamination 

associated with shutting down a licensed reactor. In what are known as 

“formal state deferrals,” EPA may also defer sites to states or other 

entities, such as federally recognized tribes where applicable conditions 

are met. According to EPA guidance on this approach, the EPA region 

and the state cleanup program should enter into a memorandum of 

agreement certifying that the state has the necessary authority and 

capability to adequately supervise the PRP’s cleanup actions, among 

other things. The state will then oversee cleanup actions conducted and 

funded by the PRPs at the site. The quality of these cleanup actions 

should be substantially similar to a cleanup required under CERCLA 

authorities, according to EPA guidance on this approach. Under this 

17Pub. L. No. 94–580, 90 Stat. 2795 (1976) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§6901-

6992k (2012)). Although RCRA amended the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Pub. L. No. 89–

272, Title II, 79 Stat. 997 (1965), the amended law is nonetheless sometimes referred to 

as RCRA, a convention we follow here. Subtitle C of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. ch. 82, subch. III 

(§§ 6921-6939f), governs hazardous waste management. Hereinafter, references are to 

RCRA as amended.

Approaches Outside of the 

Superfund Program for 

Conducting Long-Term 

Cleanups 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-252 Superfund

formal state deferral approach, the EPA region still negotiates the level of 

oversight appropriate for the particular site.

EPA may also defer oversight of the long-term cleanup of a site eligible 

for the NPL through the Other Cleanup Activity (OCA) approach. OCA 

deferrals go to one of four types of entities (described below): states, 

federal agencies, tribes, or private parties.

• OCA deferral to a state places a site under that particular state’s 

environmental regulations, as opposed to CERCLA authorities. In 

contrast to formal state deferrals, the OCA deferral to a state involves 

no formal EPA oversight other than periodic discussions between 

EPA regional officials and state officials. Since 2012, EPA guidance 

has indicated regions should have these discussions.

• OCA deferral to federal agencies places a site under that particular 

federal agency’s oversight and authorities, according to EPA. Certain 

federal agencies, such as the Department of Defense, have 

responsibility and authority for some or all cleanups at their facilities.18

EPA assigns a status of “Other Cleanup Activity: Federal Facility 

Lead” to federal facilities that EPA tracks in its CERCLIS database 

and are being cleaned up outside of the NPL approach19

• OCA deferral to a tribe places the site under that tribe’s environmental 

regulations. EPA periodically checks in with tribal regulators on the 

status of cleanup work at these sites.

(these sites 

are eligible for listing but are not listed on the NPL). EPA periodically 

checks in with other federal agencies on the status of cleanup work at 

these sites.

• OCA deferral to private parties applies to certain sites where the 

cleanup is conducted by a private party.

 

18See, e.g., 10 U.S.C. § 2701 (2012), giving DOD responsibility for environmental 

restoration at its facilities, among other things. See also Executive Order 12580, 

Superfund Implementation, 52 Fed. Reg. 2923 (Jan. 23, 1987). The executive order was 

issued in 1987 to respond to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act and 

delegates to EPA certain regulatory authorities that the statute assigns to the President, 

while delegating to the Departments of Defense and Energy authority for removal and 

remedial actions at their facilities, subject to certain provisions of CERCLA. This executive 

order generally gives other federal agencies authority for cleanups at non-NPL listed sites.

19Federal facility sites on the NPL are subject to certain additional requirements, see 42 

U.S.C. § 9620(e) (2013).
 

Page 14 GAO-13-252 Superfund

EPA most commonly addresses the cleanup of sites eligible for the NPL 

by “deferring” oversight to approaches outside of the Superfund program. 

EPA regions select the cleanup approach and defer oversight of more 

than half the sites eligible for the NPL to approaches outside of the 

Superfund program, primarily through OCA deferrals. Though OCA 

deferrals include the majority of NPL eligible sites, EPA’s guidance on this 

approach is less detailed than guidance on other approaches.

EPA provides regions with discretion in selecting the cleanup approach 

for a given hazardous waste site. According to the Superfund Program 

Implementation Manual—which lists EPA’s Superfund program 

management priorities, procedures, and practices—each region is to 

select an appropriate cleanup approach after determining a site is eligible 

for the NPL. Officials in all 10 regions said that when they select cleanup 

approaches they attempt to use the most appropriate cleanup approach 

for a given site. For example, complex sites, such as contaminated 

waterways, may be more suited to the NPL approach than to deferral to a 

state cleanup program because EPA typically has more resources to 

oversee and manage such complex cleanups. Officials in four regions 

noted that states will sometimes request the NPL approach for large or 

complex sites.

EPA regions can establish their own processes for selecting a cleanup 

approach for a given site. Three of the 10 regions have some type of 

regional guidance related to their decision-making process. For example, 

Region 7 has guidance for its regional decision team that outlines the 

stakeholders within the region who will participate, when the team will 

meet, and how decisions are to be made at the meeting. Region 10 has 

guidance that focuses on how the region will prioritize sites that are 

eligible for the NPL. All of the regions may consult with relevant 

stakeholders across EPA programs about a given site, whether the 

regions have written guidance or not. These stakeholders might include 

staff from the office of regional counsel or the removal program. Five of 

the 10 regions use regional decision teams to evaluate sites that have 

been found eligible for the NPL and select which approach should be 

used to clean up the site. The other 5 regions do not use regional 

decision teams, opting instead for more informal decision-making 

processes or meetings on an as-needed basis. For example, in Region 5 

there is a practice of coordinating between the region’s long-term cleanup 

and removal programs on sites that may be of interest to both programs.

EPA Defers Oversight 

of a Majority of Sites 

Eligible for the NPL to 

Approaches Outside 

of the Superfund 

Program 

EPA Regions Exercise 

Discretion in Selecting the 

Cleanup Approach for 

Sites 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-252 Superfund

EPA officials said the regions consider many potentially relevant factors 

to select the appropriate approach for each site. The major factors 

influencing regional officials’ choice of cleanup approach at a site include 

the preferences of the state regarding how the site will be addressed and 

the existence of a PRP that is willing to and capable of addressing the 

site. Specifically, officials in all 10 regions highlighted state preference as 

a factor they consider. State preference can be particularly important 

because EPA has a policy of obtaining state concurrence before listing a 

site on the NPL. According to Region 5 officials, if a state opposes an 

NPL listing, they will typically give preference to other approaches, such 

as an OCA deferral to the state or the SA approach. In addition to state 

preference, officials in 9 of 10 regions said that the existence of a willing 

and capable PRP can be a factor in determining the cleanup approach. 

For example, a willing and capable PRP is necessary for the SA 

approach, which requires the PRP to conduct the cleanup under an 

agreement with EPA. EPA officials in one region said that the existence of 

a PRP can also be important for cleanups under state cleanup programs 

because states can have very limited funding to conduct cleanups on 

their own. State environmental officials from four states we contacted 

confirmed that they had limited or, in some cases, no state funding to 

conduct their own long-term cleanups.

Regional officials also identified other factors that can sometimes 

influence what cleanup approach the region will select. For example, 

officials in Region 5 noted that if the contamination presents an 

immediate threat to health and safety, they may use the Superfund 

removal program, which is more suited to a quick response than longterm cleanup approaches. Depending on the circumstances at a site, the 

removal program may be sufficient to deal with all of the contamination, or 

the site may need to be referred to a long-term cleanup approach for 

further work. Regional officials can also consider other relevant legal 

authorities that could apply to a site, such as RCRA. When a site is 

eligible for cleanup under both RCRA and Superfund, EPA policy 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-252 Superfund

provides that the agency generally will defer the site to the RCRA 

program for cleanup.20

Among the 3,402 sites reported to the Superfund program in CERCLIS 

that EPA has identified as having contamination making them eligible for 

the NPL,21

 

20See 48 Fed. Reg. 40,658 (Sept. 8, 1983) (discussing original deferral policy), 60 Fed. 

Reg. 14,641 (Mar. 20, 1995) (providing explanation of deferral policy and revisions to 

RCRA policy), 54 Fed. Reg. 41,000 (Oct. 4, 1989) (discussing EPA development of its 

approach to RCRA deferral), 53 Fed. Reg. 23,978 (June 24, 1988) (discussing revisions to 

RCRA deferral). See also EPA Memorandum, Coordination between RCRA Corrective 

Action and Closure and CERCLA Site Activities (1996); and EPA, “NPL Deletion/Deferral 

Policy and RCRA Subtitle C Corrective Action,” EPA: 540-R-95-002g (1995).

EPA deferred 1,984 sites to cleanup approaches outside of the 

Superfund program (see fig. 4). Sites under the Superfund program make 

up the 1,418 sites that remain, with the vast majority of those sites being 

addressed through the NPL.

21We identified the approximately 3,400 sites based on whether the site was undergoing 

long-term cleanup. According to EPA officials, sites under each of the long-term cleanup 

approaches would have a Hazard Ranking System score of at least 28.50, otherwise the 

site would have been classified as “no further remedial action planned.” These sites do not 

include sites that EPA has archived in CERCLIS. 

EPA Defers Oversight of 

More Than Half the Sites 

Eligible for the NPL to 

Approaches Outside of the 

Superfund Program
 

Page 17 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Figure 4: Current Sites Identified as Eligible for the NPL Using Different Long-Term Cleanup Approaches, as of December 

2012

Notes: Sites listed above only include sites that are currently active in CERCLIS and do not include 

sites that have been archived by EPA or sites where no further site response is required, such as 

sites deleted from the NPL.

EPA addresses more sites eligible for the NPL through the OCA deferral 

approach than any other cleanup approach: 1,766 of the 3,402 sites (52 

percent). Moreover, because EPA deferred most of these 1,766 sites to 

states, OCA deferrals to states account for about 47 percent of all 

identified eligible sites.22

 

22States also oversee cleanup at an undetermined additional number of sites that may be 

eligible for the NPL but are not listed in CERCLIS. States are not obligated to report all 

potentially eligible sites to the Superfund program, and environmental officials in several 

states confirmed that they have conducted or overseen cleanups at sites not listed in 

CERCLIS that may have been eligible for the NPL.

EPA regions’ use of OCA deferrals to states 

ranges widely, from 7 sites in each of three regions (6, 7, and 8) to 470 

sites in Region 1 (see app. II for a breakdown of cleanup approaches by 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-252 Superfund

region). According to officials in Region 1, states in the region have 

mature environmental programs willing and capable of overseeing many 

sites, which makes the OCA deferral to states well suited to that region. In 

contrast, officials we spoke to in some regions noted that they needed to 

consider states’ capacity to oversee a site before using the OCA deferral 

to states. Nine states have no OCA deferrals, and other states oversee 

hundreds of these sites, with the most in Massachusetts (247 sites), New 

Jersey (221), and California (180). Environmental officials in several 

states we contacted confirmed that states’ use of and experience with 

OCA deferrals can differ substantially. One state official noted that these 

differences are likely related to how industrialized a state may be and the 

extent of cleanup programs in a given state. OCA deferrals to federal 

agencies, private parties, and American Indian tribes account for an 

additional 181 sites. OCA deferrals to federal agencies primarily involve 

military sites: 76 percent of these deferrals were to the Army, Navy, or Air 

Force. In addition, a majority of OCA deferrals to private parties come 

from Florida where, on the basis of a state law, PRPs can conduct 

cleanup without any formal agreement or order from the state, according 

to Region 4 officials. PRPs conducting such cleanups must submit regular 

reports to the state on their progress, and the state reserves the right to 

take the PRP to court, if necessary.

EPA currently addresses 1,418 sites (42 percent of those identified as 

eligible for listing on the NPL) through approaches under the Superfund 

program—most commonly, through listing the sites on the NPL. 

Specifically, sites listed on the NPL account for 1,313 sites, over 90 

percent of sites under the Superfund program.23

 

23NPL sites do not include sites that have been deleted from the NPL. 

According to officials in

one region, EPA has access to more resources than states and typically 

addresses sites that require greater or more specialized resources 

through the NPL approach. For example, regional officials noted, states 

face different limitations that can prevent them from pursuing cleanup 

under their programs including: technical capacity, legal resources, and 

financial resources. In addition, EPA officials in four regions noted 

examples where a state environmental program requested that the 

Superfund program pursue NPL listing because the state was having 

trouble getting a PRP to cooperate or the PRP went bankrupt.
 

Page 19 GAO-13-252 Superfund

In addition to listing sites on the NPL, EPA also oversees the long-term 

cleanup of sites through two other approaches under the Superfund 

program. First, the Superfund program currently oversees 67 sites under 

the SA approach.24

EPA addressed the remaining sites eligible for the NPL through different 

deferral approaches, primarily through deferrals to the RCRA program. 

Specifically, deferrals to the RCRA program account for 193 of these 

remaining sites (89 percent).

Second, EPA oversees at least 38 other sites with 

long-term cleanups under the Superfund program for which EPA has no 

documented definition and no consistently applied method of counting. 

EPA officials provided different estimates of the number of such sites. 

One EPA official provided a method to identify these sites based on a 

code in CERCLIS, which resulted in the 38 sites listed above. However, 

another EPA official provided us a list of 35 such sites that had reached 

the remedial action phase. Of these 35 sites, 12 matched the 38 sites 

identified by the code in CERCLIS. In addition, 16 of the sites on the list 

of 35 had a code of “status undetermined” or had no code at all. EPA 

regional officials also identified other specific sites under the Superfund 

program, but some of those sites could not be identified by the code in 

CERCLIS, were not on the list of 35, or had no code at all. As of 

December 2012, 270 sites had the “status undetermined” code, and 101 

had no such code in CERCLIS, making it impossible to determine the 

exact number of sites that EPA oversees under the Superfund program 

that are not being addressed under either the NPL or SA approaches. 

Tracking of these sites is discussed later in this report.

25

 

24EPA has had SA agreements at 70 sites in total; 3 of these sites have switched from the 

SA approach to the NPL approach. 

Aside from these deferrals to the RCRA 

program and a few deferrals to NRC, EPA deferred 21 sites to state 

programs using the formal state deferral approach in 4 of its 10 regions. 

EPA officials said that the OCA deferral to states approach has largely 

replaced the formal state deferral approach, and EPA does not anticipate 

using the formal deferral approach much in the future.

25EPA officials said the Superfund program had deferred 10 sites to the RCRA program in 

the last 5 years, and that deferrals from the RCRA program to the Superfund program 

probably have been more common recently, because of business bankruptcies. Active 

hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facilities at which contamination has 

occurred may be eligible to be cleaned up as corrective actions in the RCRA program. 

These cleanups are generally the responsibility of the party owning or operating the 

permitted facility. If the party goes bankrupt, the party may be unable to complete the 

RCRA corrective action. 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-252 Superfund

As discussed above, EPA addresses more sites through OCA deferrals 

than any other approach but has less guidance to define this approach or 

how deferral decisions should be documented than for its other deferral 

approaches. Unlike OCA deferrals, EPA has guidance or other 

documents outlining the process for deferrals to the RCRA program, 

deferrals to the NRC, and formal state deferrals. These documents clearly 

define or provide mechanisms to define the roles of the Superfund 

program and the entity that will conduct oversight at the site. For 

example, guidance for the formal state deferral approach specifies that 

the EPA region and the state should enter into a memorandum of 

agreement in which they clarify mutual expectations for their interaction 

and each party’s responsibilities at deferred sites.26 After the deferral, the 

region continues to review the state’s progress and conduct any other 

activities required by its individual agreements with the state in each 

case.27

In contrast, EPA has not issued guidance focused on OCA deferrals that 

clearly defines the different types of OCA deferrals or what detail would 

be sufficient or appropriate to support its decisions at these sites. Instead, 

EPA describes OCA deferrals in the Superfund Program Implementation 

Manual (which is updated annually). EPA recently added to its 

instructions in the manual regarding sites with OCA deferrals. Specifically, 

in its 2012 version of the manual, EPA added more language explaining 

that there is to be no continuous and substantive involvement on EPA’s 

part while cleanup work is ongoing at OCA deferral sites. In addition, in 

this version of the manual, EPA added an instruction for regions to check 

on the status of OCA sites periodically. Officials in EPA regions noted that 

they use different approaches for tracking OCA sites; for example, for an 

OCA deferral to states, EPA regions’ tracking activities range from 

checking state websites to meeting with states to receive status updates 

every 3 months. Officials in some regions noted that they will need to 

modify their processes to meet this new instruction.

 

26EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Guidance on Deferral of NPL 

Listing Determinations While States Oversee Response Actions, EPAl540/F-95/002 

(Washington, D.C.: May 1995), 4.

27CERCLA also establishes requirements related to formal state deferrals; see 42 U.S.C. 

§ 9605(h) (2012).

EPA Has Less Detailed 

Guidance for OCA 

Deferrals Than for Other 

Less Commonly Used 

Deferral Approaches
 

Page 21 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Even with EPA’s additions to the manual, the available instruction does 

not clearly define each type of OCA deferral, particularly OCA deferrals to 

private parties, which has resulted in inconsistent identification of those 

OCA deferrals by different regions. While the manual defines OCA 

deferrals generally, it does not define each type of OCA deferral. When 

asked to define OCA deferrals to private parties, Superfund program 

officials in headquarters referred us to EPA regional officials for more 

information, and officials in 6 of 10 EPA regions were unsure about how 

to define OCA deferrals to private parties or how they should be used.28

In addition, the manual instructs regions to track OCA deferrals and 

completion of cleanups at these sites but does not clearly specify the 

documentation required to support these actions. The manual provides 

overarching program management priorities, procedures, and practices 

for the Superfund program. For OCA deferrals, the manual explains how 

EPA regions should identify the deferral date of an OCA site and the date 

of completion of cleanup at that site,

Moreover, officials in another 6 regions confirmed that some sites 

identified as OCA deferrals to private parties in CERCLIS should have 

been identified as OCA deferrals to states. Without clearer guidance 

defining the different OCA deferrals, EPA cannot be reasonably assured 

that it is consistently tracking its OCA deferral sites in CERCLIS, which 

can make it difficult to identify what entity is responsible for conducting 

oversight at the site.

29

 

28All six of these regions had at least one site identified as an OCA deferral to private 

parties.

but it provides little detail on what 

type of documentation would be acceptable to support these 

determinations. For example, according to the manual, the deferral date 

of a site entered into CERCLIS is supposed to be “supported by existing 

documentation,” described as “documentation between EPA and the nonEPA party leading the cleanup,” with no further detail of what 

documentation would be appropriate or sufficient. In addition, the 

instruction for entering the date for completion of the cleanup refers to 

required documentation, without further clarification about what 

documentation is needed from the entities conducting oversight. Regional 

officials told us that, in practice, the amount and type of documentation 

29The completion of cleanup date at an OCA deferral site is the date of the determination 

that cleanup was successfully completed, that cleanup was not necessary, or that the 

other entity will not complete cleanup and the site will be referred back to the Superfund 

program. 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-252 Superfund

regions collect to support OCA deferrals covers a broad range, including 

no written documentation, an e-mail from a state official, letters from state 

officials attesting to the cleanup, or a copy of the legal order or agreement 

between the state and PRP. Similarly, regions relied on different forms of 

documentation, including various e-mails, letters, or reports from state 

officials to document the completion of cleanup at OCA deferral sites. 

Officials in three regions reported that there was no consistent standard 

for documentation within their region. Moreover, Region 9 officials noted 

that the region had not tracked the completion of cleanups at OCA 

deferrals in CERCLIS in the past and may have no documentation for 

some of its older OCA deferral sites. Without guidance that details the 

documentation needed to support regions’ OCA deferral decisions, EPA 

cannot be reasonably assured that its regions’ documentation will be 

appropriate or sufficient to verify that these sites have been deferred or 

have completed cleanup. EPA officials noted they were working on 

additional guidance for OCA deferrals. However, these officials said that 

development of the guidance was in the planning stage; therefore, a draft 

of this guidance, detailed information on what will be included in the 

guidance, or a planned issuance date for the guidance, were not yet 

available.

EPA provides the least detailed guidance for the small number of sites 

that are undergoing long-term cleanup under the Superfund program 

outside of the SA and NPL approaches. Such sites do not have specific 

guidance at the program level, regional level, or a section in the 

Superfund Program Implementation Manual describing how they should 

be defined or tracked. In contrast, EPA has developed instructions in the 

manual for how to track sites cleaned up under the SA approach. EPA 

also has guidance for the NPL approach, such as how the agency should 

propose, list, and delete sites from the NPL. EPA officials noted that sites 

that are cleaned up under the other Superfund program approach often 

involve unique situations, making it difficult to establish any guidance that 

would cover all possible situations. For example, one of these sites is 

using a hybrid approach under both RCRA and CERCLA authorities, 

according to an EPA official. However, in 10 cases, regional officials 

described these sites as standard cleanups under CERCLA authority that 

used standard procedures. While there are unique and standard cases 

among sites being cleaned up under the other Superfund program 

approach (i.e., outside of the SA and NPL approaches), EPA officials 

could not provide a reliable estimate of these other sites because the 

agency has no consistently applied method for counting them. Without a 

method to identify and track such sites, EPA headquarters has no way to 

determine the extent to which regions use this approach or evaluate
 

Page 23 GAO-13-252 Superfund

regions’ use of this approach. As a result, it will be difficult for EPA 

headquarters to hold regions accountable for using the approach.

The processes for implementing the SA and NPL approaches have 

similarities, but also several differences, some of which EPA has 

accounted for through specific provisions in its agreements with PRPs at 

SA agreement sites. However, some sites may not benefit from EPA’s 

efforts to account for these differences. Furthermore, the agency’s 

tracking and reporting of SA agreement sites differs significantly from its 

tracking and reporting of NPL sites. Using the SA approach at sites has 

certain potential advantages for EPA and some PRPs and states, but 

communities’ views on this approach are mixed.

The processes for implementing the SA and NPL approaches have many 

similarities. According to the agency’s SA guidance, at its SA agreement 

sites, EPA is to generally act in accordance with the practices normally 

followed at sites listed on the NPL. For example, according to EPA 

guidance, SA agreement and NPL sites should follow the same 

investigation and cleanup processes, including the phases and 

milestones of long-term cleanups shown earlier in figure 3. EPA regions 

should also use the same response techniques, standards, and guidance 

for SA agreement sites as they do for NPL sites. According to EPA’s 

guidance, SA agreements should eventually achieve cleanup levels that 

are comparable to those required at NPL sites. EPA regions should also 

take steps to ensure equivalency between the SA and NPL approaches in 

the absence of NPL listing.

Despite these similarities, there are certain differences in the overall 

processes and EPA’s authority under the NPL and SA approaches. 

Through specific provisions in its SA agreements with PRPs, EPA has 

sought to make the two approaches comparable by accounting for the 

following four key differences:

Processes for 

Implementing the SA 

and NPL Approaches 

Differ in a Few 

Significant Ways

The SA and NPL Processes 

Are Similar in Many Ways 

and EPA Has Accounted 

for Some Differences 

Between Them
 

Page 24 GAO-13-252 Superfund

• First, EPA has the authority to pay for remedial actions only at sites 

listed on the NPL.30

• Second, EPA is authorized to provide technical assistance grants that 

help communities participate in decision making only at sites that are 

listed or proposed for listing on the NPL. An initial grant of up to 

$50,000 is available to qualified community groups so they can 

contract with independent advisors to help the community understand 

technical information about the site. EPA includes a provision in SA 

agreements to help ensure that a community’s opportunity to receive 

technical assistance at an SA agreement site is comparable to that at 

an NPL site. This provision requires the PRPs, with EPA oversight, to 

administer and fund a technical assistance plan, under which a 

qualified community group can receive up to $50,000 for the same 

purposes as a technical assistance grant from EPA.

To account for this difference, SA agreements 

include a provision to help ensure cleanups are not delayed by a loss 

of funding if the PRP ceases work during the remedial action phase of 

cleanup. Specifically, this provision requires the PRP to obtain a 

readily available source of funds that the agency can use if it needs to 

take over the cleanup work. EPA can use those funds to continue the 

work while the agency lists the site on the NPL, if necessary.

• Third, if a PRP were to clean up an SA agreement site to the extent 

that it no longer scored at least 28.50 on the Hazard Ranking System, 

according to EPA, it might lose the option of listing the site on the 

NPL, a concern that is not present when a site is listed on the NPL. To 

prevent this, SA agreements state that the PRP will not challenge 

listing the site on the NPL if a partial cleanup of the site results in 

changed site conditions. EPA officials noted that this provision gives 

the agency assurance that it can step in and clean up the site under 

the NPL approach if the PRP were to default on the SA agreement.

• Fourth, CERCLA states that an action for natural resource damages 

(NRD) at NPL sites must start within 3 years after completion of the 

remedial action.31

 

30Specifically, CERCLA established a trust fund from which EPA receives annual 

appropriations for Superfund program activities. Superfund trust funds are available for 

long-term cleanups only at sites on the NPL. EPA may use these funds for investigation 

and removal actions at any nonfederal site. EPA also can seek reimbursement from the 

PRPs after incurring these costs.

This period is longer than the general statute of 

limitations for NRD claims, which states that an action must start 

31NRD claims are made for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources. CERCLA 

defines natural resources broadly to include land, fish, wildlife, groundwater, and other 

resources belonging to or managed by federal or other governmental entities. 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-252 Superfund

within 3 years after the discovery of the loss and its connection with 

the contamination. SA agreements contain a provision that clarifies 

that the longer statute of limitations for NPL sites also applies to SA 

agreement sites.

Even with EPA’s efforts to achieve equivalence of SA agreement and 

NPL sites through these provisions, some sites may not benefit from 

these efforts because EPA regions have entered into agreements with 

PRPs at sites that they said were likely eligible for the SA approach 

without following the SA guidance. Agreements at such sites may not, for 

example, ensure that a community has access to funds to pay for 

technical assistance or that remedial action can continue if a PRP stops 

cooperating. Officials from some EPA regions told us they have continued 

to enter into agreements with PRPs since 2002 without following the SA 

guidance. We identified six sites where this has occurred as follows:

• In Region 7, officials entered into an agreement with a PRP to 

conduct remedial design and remedial action at a site. Regional

officials stated that the SA approach, which can be suggested for a 

site by the PRP or the region, never came up during their discussions 

with the PRP.

• In Region 10, officials stated that the agreements they had entered 

into with PRPs at five sites might qualify for the SA approach but that, 

at the time they entered into the agreements, the officials had not 

focused on whether the agreements met the SA criteria; rather, they 

were focused on obtaining enforceable agreements.

According to EPA headquarters officials, if regions are going to conduct a 

long-term cleanup under the Superfund program at a site, but not list it on 

the NPL, the agency prefers regions to use the SA approach. EPA 

headquarters officials said that they believed this preference was implicit 

in the agency’s SA guidance and stated they discussed this preference 

with regional officials at periodic meetings; however, they also 

acknowledged that this preference is not stated explicitly anywhere in 

guidance for the regions. If regions continue to enter into agreements for 

some sites without following the SA guidance, these sites may be denied 

some of the advantages built into the SA agreements to ensure that the 

cleanups will be comparable to those under the NPL approach.
 

Page 26 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Some differences remain between the way EPA tracks sites under the SA 

and NPL approaches. In CERCLIS, EPA tracks sites’ status in relation to 

the NPL regardless of any changes in cleanup approach. Specifically, 

sites that have been proposed for listing on the NPL, are currently on the 

NPL, have been deleted from the NPL, or have been removed from 

proposal can always be identified as such in CERCLIS, which allows EPA 

to accurately identify sites that are or have been on the NPL. In contrast, 

EPA cannot similarly track an SA agreement site as such if it is 

subsequently listed on the NPL.32 Specifically, EPA currently tracks SA 

agreement sites through a single database code identifying only that a 

site has an SA agreement, and the identifying code is not maintained in 

the database if the site is later added to the NPL. The agency has not 

clarified in its guidance when to leave this SA identifying code in place, 

and when to remove it, even though the EPA IG recommended in a 2007 

report that EPA develop specific instructions on when to use the SA 

designation and update the Superfund Program Implementation Manual

(which is updated annually) to incorporate these instructions.33 According 

to the IG report, these instructions should specify that the SA code should 

not be removed even if the site is cleaned up or proposed for the NPL, so 

that controls over documentation of sites with SA agreements can be 

maintained. As the EPA IG pointed out, absence of guidance can result in 

poor quality data on the SA universe. While EPA indicated in 2010 that it 

would implement this recommendation,34

 

32Under certain circumstances—for example, if EPA determines that a PRP that has 

entered into an SA agreement for a site is not adequately fulfilling the requirements of the 

agreement—EPA may decide to list the site on the NPL.

the 2012 manual does not 

include any instructions about maintaining the SA code. Because EPA 

has not implemented the IG’s recommendation, the manner in which the 

agency tracks the identity of SA agreement sites in CERCLIS is 

incomplete. For example, while an EPA website identifies all sites that 

have or have had SA agreements, three sites that had SA agreements 

and were later added to the NPL cannot be identified in CERCLIS as 

having had SA agreements. As a result, all sites that have had SA 

agreements are not identifiable in CERCLIS, which may hamper EPA’s 

33EPA IG, EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to 

Superfund Cleanups, 2007-P-00026 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2007).

34EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, “Certification to Close OIG 

Audit Report, ‘EPA Needs to Take More Action in Implementing Alternative Approaches to 

Superfund Cleanups’” (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 30, 2010).

EPA’s Tracking and 

Reporting of Certain 

Aspects of the Process 

under the SA Approach 

Differ Significantly from 

That under the NPL 

Approach 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-252 Superfund

ability to effectively manage long-term cleanups and track outcomes at 

SA agreement sites.

Furthermore, the standards for specifying what documentation is 

sufficient to support the Hazard Ranking System score of SA agreement 

sites are less clear than those for NPL sites. When sites are proposed for 

listing on the NPL, EPA procedure requires they have a Hazard Ranking 

System documentation record—a specific document that includes 

detailed justification for the Hazard Ranking System score. In contrast, 

both the 2004 and 2012 SA guidance state that EPA should have 

“adequate documentation” supporting a Hazard Ranking System score of 

28.50 or higher but do not define what is meant by “adequate” 

documentation or provide criteria for assessing adequacy. The guidance 

documents specify that regions may rely on a draft Hazard Ranking 

System documentation record or “other adequate documentation,” but do 

not provide an explanation of what other documentation might be 

adequate. EPA headquarters officials told us that documentation of a 

preliminary calculation of the Hazard Ranking System score during the 

initial assessment phases would qualify as adequate, and said that this 

has been discussed with regional officials during periodic meetings. EPA 

officials acknowledged, however, that this interpretation of the guidance 

has not been included in any written guidance to the regions. As the EPA 

IG pointed out in its 2007 report, consistent and reliable documentation of 

Hazard Ranking System scores at SA agreement sites is an internal 

control to ensure compliance with the SA guidance and approach.35

Under the federal standards of internal control, agencies are to clearly put 

in writing (i.e., in management directives, administrative policies, or 

operating manuals) internal controls, such as this interpretation of the 

guidance, and have them readily available for examination.36

In addition to the differences in its tracking, EPA has not reported the 

agency’s performance on the progress of cleanup at SA agreement sites 

as it has for NPL sites. EPA reports achievements at NPL sites, including 

Without 

more specific written guidance, EPA regional officials may not develop 

adequate documentation of Hazard Ranking System scores at SA 

agreement sites.

 

35EPA IG, EPA Needs to Take More Action, 6. 

36GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
 

Page 28 GAO-13-252 Superfund

completion of some phases of the cleanup process, as part of the 

agency’s implementation of provisions under GPRA, which generally aims 

to hold federal agencies accountable for using resources wisely and 

achieving program results. Two of the Superfund program’s three GPRA 

performance measures—sites where human exposure is under control 

and sites that are ready for their anticipated use—refer only to NPL sites. 

One additional performance measure tracks the completion of the initial 

assessment phases, which generally precede EPA’s decision about 

which cleanup approach to use at a site, including the SA or NPL 

approach. EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, which 

manages the Superfund program, reports these performance measures 

for NPL sites in several annual reports available on EPA’s website.37

However, EPA does not include in these reports the cleanup milestones 

reached at SA agreement sites, such as how many SA sites have human 

exposure under control. The EPA IG recommended in 2007 that EPA 

track and report the same GPRA performance measures at SA 

agreement sites as it does at NPL sites.38 As the IG reported, by 

measuring and tracking all performance measures at SA agreement sites, 

EPA could demonstrate the outcomes of the Superfund program’s work 

and provide an incentive to regions by more thoroughly accounting for 

their performance. In 2010, EPA indicated that it would implement the 

IG’s 2007 recommendation to track and report all Superfund GPRA 

performance measures at SA agreement sites using an annual report.39

 

37See, for example, EPA, The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Fiscal 

Year 2010 End of the Year Report (Washington, D.C.). Available at 

EPA officials noted that the agency has begun tracking Superfund 

performance measures for SA agreement sites, but they acknowledged 

that EPA is not reporting these results publicly. Until the agency reports 

performance information on the progress of cleanup at SA agreement 

sites as it does for NPL sites, EPA is not providing the public and 

Congress with a full picture of SA agreement sites. Without such 

information, Congress lacks complete information on the progress of the 

Superfund program to inform its legislative actions, including 

appropriations.

http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomplishments.htm. Accessed March 22, 2013. 

38EPA IG, EPA Needs to Take More Action, 10. 

39EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, “Certification to Close OIG 

Audit Report,” 2. 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Using the SA or the NPL approach can have advantages or 

disadvantages for the parties involved, including EPA, PRPs, states, and 

communities. Specifically, using the SA approach generally allows EPA to 

avoid at least some of the cost and time associated with listing a site on 

the NPL. For example, NPL listing requires preparation of a Hazard 

Ranking System documentation record, which is not required for sites 

with SA agreements.40

Some EPA regions have seen the advantages of using the SA approach 

more than others. As shown in figure 5, of the 67 SA agreement sites, 57 

sites, or 85 percent, are in EPA Regions 4 and 5.

EPA officials estimated each such record costs an 

average of about $65,000 to prepare. In addition, when EPA decides to 

propose a site for listing on the NPL, the agency sometimes conducts an 

expanded site inspection if further information is necessary to document a 

Hazard Ranking System score. EPA officials estimated this step costs 

about $92,000 on average. In addition, to list a site on the NPL, EPA has 

to work through the formal listing process, including issuing notices in the 

Federal Register with a public comment period. This process takes time 

to complete, which may affect the progress at the site. In Region 3, EPA 

officials stated that the volume of comments received on a particular site 

proposed for the NPL, in addition to the likelihood of litigation from one or 

more parties if the site were finalized on the NPL, led the region to 

address the site through the SA approach.

 

40Region 4 prepares a draft Hazard Ranking System documentation record for SA 

agreement sites because the region wants the site to be ready for listing on the NPL, if 

necessary. In addition, in some cases, sites were already proposed to the NPL when the 

SA agreement was entered, negating any savings from avoiding this step.

The SA Approach Has 

Potential Advantages for 

EPA, Some PRPs, and 

States, but Communities’ 

Views on its Benefits Are 

Mixed
 

Page 30 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Figure 5: Number of SA Agreement Sites by EPA Region, as of December 2012

Differences in usage of the SA approach among regions relate to a 

region’s specific circumstances and preferences. According to EPA 

headquarters officials, Regions 4 and 5 had early experience with SA 
 

Page 31 GAO-13-252 Superfund

agreements and may have been more comfortable in starting new ones 

as a result. These two regions have also listed many sites to the NPL 

since the SA approach was formalized in 2002. Region 4 officials told us 

that they have found that the SA approach is best suited to sites with one 

or two PRPs and no questions about the PRPs’ liability or ability to 

conduct the investigation or cleanup. They said they have also found that 

it is helpful when a PRP has a financial interest in finishing the cleanup 

quickly, as in the case of a potential redevelopment project at a site. 

Other regions have used the SA approach in limited circumstances. For 

example, officials in Region 9 described one case in which they pursued 

the SA approach because the state did not want a particular site listed on 

the NPL. Two regions—Regions 1 and 2—have never used the SA 

approach. Officials in Region 1 explained that few sites that have willing 

and capable PRPs and are eligible for the NPL come to the region’s 

attention because state programs prefer to take on oversight of such 

sites. Region 2 officials said they did not see a reason to use the SA 

approach—if a site’s contamination is severe enough, the region will 

propose the site to the NPL, unless the state is addressing the site.

Using the SA approach allows PRPs to avoid the perceived stigma 

associated with an NPL site, according to EPA officials. Sites with SA 

agreements have to meet all of the qualifications of NPL sites, and thus 

may have contamination that is just as severe, but the potential stigma of 

NPL listing appears to influence PRPs. Officials in 7 of 10 regions 

mentioned the stigma of an NPL site as a concern for PRPs. Concerns 

about this stigma may also arise when a company is to be sold and does 

not want to list an NPL site as part of its liabilities, according to EPA 

regional officials. Related to this stigma, EPA officials said they believed 

that avoiding listing on the NPL may help local government officials and

PRPs in some cases, such as facilitating a site’s redevelopment or its 

financing. Previous reports have also pointed to the potential stigma of 

NPL listing as motivation for pursuing a different cleanup approach.41

 

41See, for example, EPA, “Superfund Alternative Approach Baseline Assessment” 

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2011); GAO, Superfund: Greater EPA Enforcement and 

Reporting Are Needed to Enhance Cleanup at DOD Sites, 

For 

example, an assessment of the effectiveness of the SA approach in 

Region 4 (hereafter referred to as the Region 4 study) found that sites 

GAO-09-278 (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 13, 2009); Industrial Economics Incorporated, Effectiveness Assessment of the 

Region 4 Superfund Alternative Approach, a report prepared for the EPA, November 

2010.
 

Page 32 GAO-13-252 Superfund

using the SA approach may have a higher potential for redevelopment 

than comparable NPL sites if avoiding this stigma increases PRPs’ 

financing options and their willingness to redevelop.42

In addition, some states generally prefer that EPA not list sites on the 

NPL, according to EPA officials, which makes the SA approach more 

appealing. According to EPA policy, EPA typically obtains a state’s 

concurrence before listing a site on the NPL. Officials in all 10 EPA 

regions mentioned the states’ views as one of the factors they used to 

determine whether to pursue an NPL listing or other approaches. 

Moreover, officials in 4 of 10 regions said there were states in their region 

that were generally reluctant to have EPA list sites on the NPL. For 

example, Region 9 officials said two of their states generally do not want 

EPA to list sites on the NPL; specifically, one of these states wanted to 

avoid the associated stigma of having NPL sites in the state.

The SA approach also has advantages and disadvantages for 

communities. According to an EPA official, it may be easier for 

communities to obtain technical assistance funds from PRPs at SA 

agreement sites than to obtain the equivalent funds from EPA at NPL 

sites. This official said obtaining funds from PRPs at SA agreement sites 

often involved the absence of a “match” requirement as well as fewer 

paperwork requirements for the communities because the technical 

assistance plans do not have to follow federal grant requirements. 

However, under the SA approach, communities have no opportunity for a 

formal comment process on EPA’s selection of the SA approach itself, as 

they do under the NPL approach. Specifically, when EPA proposes a site 

for the NPL in the Federal Register, the public has 60 days to comment 

on the proposed listing. EPA then responds in writing to significant public 

comments in conjunction with the final Federal Register listing 

announcement of the site. No such opportunity exists when EPA decides 

to enter into an SA agreement at a site, although EPA provides numerous 

opportunities under the SA approach for communities to comment on the 

cleanup process.

Communities also may have mixed reactions to the SA approach for other 

reasons as well. According to EPA officials, communities may have 

concerns about the SA approach and may require outreach from the

 

42Industrial Economics Incorporated, Effectiveness Assessment, ES-7. 
 

Page 33 GAO-13-252 Superfund

agency to explain the approach. For example, at one site in Region 5, the 

region expanded its outreach efforts after some community members 

protested the use of the SA approach at the site. A regional official 

explained that some individuals in the community believed the site would 

not follow the same cleanup process as an NPL site. Some community 

members may support listing on the NPL over the SA approach to bring 

increased attention to a site, helping to ensure its cleanup. Other regional 

officials said other community members may be more open to the SA 

approach and oppose listing on the NPL for fear of its effect on property 

values. The Region 4 study confirmed that the SA approach is often 

considered advantageous by community members and leaders 

concerned about property values and stigma.43 However, this report also 

found that other community members require confirmation that the 

process will not result in more limited resources or reduced remediation 

compared to listing on the NPL.

For sites with agreements from June 2002 through December 2012, SA 

agreement sites and similar NPL sites we selected showed mixed results 

in the time needed to complete negotiations for agreements, specific 

cleanup activities, and achieving the construction completion milestone 

(see app. I for more details on our objectives, scope, and methodology 

and app. III for more information on our results). Specifically, SA 

agreement and NPL sites in our analysis showed mixed results in the 

average time to complete negotiations with PRPs and for specific cleanup 

activities, such as remedial investigation and feasibility studies, remedial 

designs, and remedial actions. In addition, a lower proportion of SA 

agreement sites have reached construction completion compared with 

similar NPL sites. SA agreement sites tend to be in earlier phases of the 

cleanup process because the SA approach began more recently than the 

NPL approach.

For agreements finalized from June 2002 through December 2012 at 

sites in our analysis, SA agreement and similar NPL sites showed mixed 

results in the length of time to complete negotiations, with SA agreement 

sites taking about as long as similar NPL sites for remedial investigation 

and feasibility study negotiations and less time for remedial design and 

remedial action negotiations. EPA regional officials confirmed that 

 

43Industrial Economics Incorporated, Effectiveness Assessment, ES-8. 

SA Agreement Sites 

Showed Mixed 

Results in Completing 

the Cleanup Process 

When Compared with 

Similar NPL Sites
 

Page 34 GAO-13-252 Superfund

negotiations can be faster at SA agreement sites because the PRPs are 

more cooperative. For example, Region 4 officials highlighted one SA 

agreement site where the PRP pushed for a quicker negotiation process 

by turning in documents ahead of deadlines, unlike many other PRPs. In 

another case, Region 5 officials said they negotiated three SA 

agreements for remedial investigations and feasibility studies covering 19 

sites of a similar nature with the same PRP. Region 5 officials noted that 

these negotiations were particularly smooth and cooperative. Moreover, 

the Region 4 study also found, based on interviews with PRPs and EPA 

officials, that the tone of SA negotiations is more productive than at NPL 

sites.44

The SA agreement and similar NPL sites in our analysis showed mixed 

results in the length of time it took to complete specific cleanup 

activities,

However, given the relatively limited number of negotiations for 

both NPL and SA agreement sites in our analysis, the differences in the 

average length of negotiations cannot be attributed entirely to the type of 

approach used at each site.

45

A lower proportion of SA agreement sites have reached construction 

completion compared with similar NPL sites in our analysis (see fig. 6).

with SA agreement sites taking substantially longer for 

remedial investigations and feasibility studies on average and about the 

same time for remedial designs and remedial actions. While SA 

agreement sites took substantially longer on average than NPL sites to 

complete remedial investigations and feasibility studies, these differences 

do not appear to be exclusively attributable to the SA and NPL 

approaches. For example, several remedial investigations and feasibility 

studies at SA agreement sites took a long time to complete due to 

individual circumstances at the site, such as dealing with a proposal to 

sell on-site materials to a manufacturing company, late participation from 

PRPs in the process, or coordination with other cleanup efforts. SA 

agreement sites and NPL sites in our analysis took about the same time 

on average to complete remedial designs and remedial actions.

 

44Industrial Economics Incorporated, Effectiveness Assessment, ES-9.

45Multiple cleanup activities can occur within a given phase at the same or different 

operable units at one site. Completion of one cleanup activity, such as a remedial 

investigation and feasibility study, does not necessarily mean all work in that phase has 

been completed. Our analysis looks at individual activities within given phases. 
 

Page 35 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Figure 6: Construction Completions at SA Sites and Similar NPL Sites

We selected NPL sites for our analysis that had agreements put in place 

between EPA and PRPs from June 2002 through December 2012, as SA 

agreement sites do. According to EPA officials, however, because the SA 

approach began in 2002, and the NPL approach was initially authorized in 

1980, more SA agreement sites began cleanup later than NPL sites and, 

therefore, are in earlier phases of the cleanup process. For example, 23 

percent of the sites in our NPL comparison group have ongoing remedial 

investigations and feasibility studies—a phase that precedes selection of 

the remedy and remedial action—while almost 60 percent of SA 

agreement sites are in this phase. Since EPA began implementing the 

NPL approach over 30 years ago, there were more sites ready to 

negotiate agreements during the period of our analysis for later phases in 

the cleanup process, which lead to construction completions.
 

Page 36 GAO-13-252 Superfund

EPA regional officials are responsible for choosing the appropriate longterm cleanup approach for sites with contamination that makes them 

eligible for the NPL. To do so, they select from among several 

approaches, including deferring responsibility for the oversight of site 

cleanup outside of the Superfund program. Of these sites deferred 

outside of the Superfund program, EPA has deferred about 1,800 sites 

through OCA deferrals—more sites than any other approach—but the 

agency has not issued guidance focused on this long-term cleanup 

approach. Instead, EPA describes OCA deferrals in the Superfund 

Program Implementation Manual, which does not clearly define each type 

of OCA deferral, particularly OCA deferrals to private parties. This has led 

to inconsistent coding of OCA deferrals in CERCLIS by different regions. 

Moreover, EPA’s guidance does not specify in detail the documentation 

regions should have to support their decisions on OCA deferrals or 

completion of cleanup at these sites. As a result, EPA regions collected 

varying types and amounts of documentation—including, in some cases, 

no documentation—to support OCA deferrals. EPA officials noted they 

were currently working on additional guidance for OCA deferrals, but they 

had not set an issuance date for this guidance. Without clearer guidance 

on OCA deferrals, EPA does not have reasonable assurance that it can 

consistently track its OCA deferral sites in CERCLIS or that its regions’ 

documentation will be appropriate or sufficient to verify that these sites 

have been deferred or have completed cleanup. In addition, EPA officials 

could not provide a reliable estimate regarding the number of sites with 

long-term cleanups under the Superfund program that are being cleaned 

up through approaches other than the NPL and SA approaches—the 

“other” Superfund program sites—because there is no consistently 

applied method for tracking them. While the agency’s estimates of the 

number of such sites is relatively small, without a method to identify and 

track such sites, it is difficult for EPA headquarters to determine the 

extent to which regions use this other approach under the Superfund 

program, evaluate regions’ use of this approach, or hold regions 

accountable for using this approach.

Furthermore, EPA guidance has made clear since 2002 that the agency 

should try to make SA agreement sites equivalent to NPL sites in terms of 

the level of cleanup achieved, among other things. EPA has largely 

accomplished this through adherence to the Superfund cleanup process 

and by adding certain provisions to SA agreements to address key 

differences between the NPL and SA approaches. The agency has not 

clarified to regions in its guidance that the SA approach is the preferred 

approach for long-term cleanup of sites under the Superfund program not 

listed on the NPL. Without clear guidance, agreements at such sites may 

Conclusions 
 

Page 37 GAO-13-252 Superfund

be denied some of the advantages built into the SA agreements to ensure 

that the cleanups will be comparable to those under the NPL approach. 

Also, while EPA accurately identifies NPL sites in CERCLIS, the agency 

cannot do the same for SA agreement sites because it has not clarified in 

writing when the database code that identifies sites with SA agreements 

should remain in place and when it should be removed. In addition, EPA’s 

standards for specifying what documentation is sufficient to support the 

Hazard Ranking System score at SA agreement sites are less clear than 

those for NPL sites. Unless EPA improves its tracking of SA agreement 

sites and clarifies its policies, its ability to effectively track outcomes of the 

SA approach at these sites and manage long-term cleanups at sites 

under the Superfund program may be hampered. Finally, while EPA 

reports performance information for NPL sites under GPRA, it does not 

report performance information on the progress of cleanup at SA 

agreement sites in an equivalent manner. Without such information on SA 

agreement sites, Congress lacks complete information on the progress of 

the Superfund program to inform its legislative actions, including 

appropriations.

To improve the Superfund program’s management of sites with 

contamination that makes them eligible for the NPL, including 

management of the SA approach and deferrals of cleanup oversight to 

other entities, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA take the 

following four actions:

• Provide guidance to EPA regions that defines each type of OCA 

deferral and what constitutes adequate documentation for OCA 

deferral and completion of cleanup.

• Develop a method for EPA headquarters to identify and track other 

sites with long-term cleanups under the Superfund program (i.e., 

those that are outside of the NPL and SA approaches).

• Update EPA’s written policies on SA agreement sites, including taking 

steps such as clarifying whether the SA approach is EPA’s preferred 

approach for long-term cleanup of sites under the Superfund program 

and outside of the NPL, specifying what documentation is sufficient to 

support the Hazard Ranking System score at SA agreement sites, 

and defining when the database code that identifies sites with SA 

agreements should remain in place.

• Report performance information on the progress of cleanup at SA 

agreement sites in a manner that is equivalent to such reporting for 

NPL sites.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 38 GAO-13-252 Superfund

We provided a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment. In 

written comments, which are included in appendix IV, EPA agreed with 

the report’s recommendations and stated that it believes the report 

contains substantial useful information. Regarding the first 

recommendation, EPA stated that it added more detail on OCA tracking in 

its fiscal year 2012 Superfund Program Implementation Manual, but it 

acknowledged that more guidance is needed. Regarding the second 

recommendation, EPA stated that it agreed with the recommendation 

without further comment. Regarding the third recommendation, EPA said 

that it will clarify that the SA approach is generally the agency's preferred 

enforcement approach for CERCLA non-NPL sites that are “NPL-caliber,” 

where feasible and appropriate. Finally, regarding the fourth 

recommendation, EPA stated that it agrees with this recommendation as 

it pertains to reporting under GPRA and provided further information on 

how EPA reports measures at SA agreement sites. EPA also provided 

technical comments on the draft report, which we incorporated as 

appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Administrator of the 

Environmental Protection Agency, the appropriate congressional 

committees, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will also 

be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix V.

David C. Trimble

Director, Natural Resources and Environment

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-13-252 Superfund

This appendix provides information on the scope of the work and the 

methodology used to examine (1) how the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) addresses the cleanup of sites it has identified as eligible 

for the National Priorities List (NPL), (2) how the processes for 

implementing the Superfund Alternative (SA) and NPL approaches 

compare, and (3) how SA agreement sites compare with similar NPL sites 

in completing the cleanup process.

To examine how EPA addresses the cleanup of hazardous waste sites 

with a level of contamination that makes them eligible for the NPL, we 

analyzed applicable federal statutes and EPA regulations and guidance to 

determine the available approaches to address sites that are reported to 

the Superfund program. We then obtained and analyzed data from EPA’s 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System (CERCLIS), the Superfund program’s database, as of 

December 2012. Specifically, we analyzed EPA’s CERCLIS database to 

determine how many sites EPA currently classified as undergoing longterm cleanup under each approach, both nationally and by each of EPA’s 

10 regions.1

 

1

We only reported information from CERCLIS’s active inventory of sites, as opposed to 

the archived inventory. EPA archives sites when no further interest exists at the site under

the federal Superfund program based on available information. 

According to EPA officials, sites under each of the long-term 

cleanup approaches would have a Hazard Ranking System score of at 

least 28.50, otherwise the site would have been classified as “no further 

remedial action planned.” Thus, all sites identified as being under a longterm cleanup approach were considered to have contamination making 

them eligible for the NPL. This analysis involved the review of EPA’s nonNPL status code, NPL status code, and SA code. In addition, we 

conducted semistructured interviews with officials in all 10 EPA regions to 

understand each region’s processes for selecting among long-term 

cleanup approaches and why regions used the various approaches. We 

also obtained relevant supporting documentation from these regional 

officials. In addition, we interviewed EPA headquarters officials about the 

assessment process and cleanup approaches. Finally, we interviewed a 

nonprobability, convenience sample of officials from 13 state cleanup 

programs who were familiar with available cleanup approaches. The 

convenience sample consisted of representatives from state 

environmental departments taking part in an Association of State and 

Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials conference call who agreed 

to speak with us. Because this was a nonprobability sample, the results of 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-13-252 Superfund

our analysis cannot be generalized to all states; however, these officials 

provided important information about the cleanup process.

To compare the processes for implementing the SA and NPL 

approaches, including the cleanup process and EPA’s oversight, we 

analyzed available documentation on the two approaches, including 

guidance and prior reviews. These reviews included an EPA Inspector 

General (IG) report on the SA approach, as well as several reports on the 

approach by EPA. We reviewed key findings and recommendations from 

the IG’s report, as well as the evidence provided by EPA to demonstrate 

its implementation of the report’s recommendations. We found the 

evidence to be sufficient to assess whether EPA had implemented these 

recommendations. In addition, we interviewed officials in all 10 EPA 

regions to determine how each region implemented the SA approach and 

obtained relevant supporting documentation. Finally, we interviewed EPA 

headquarters officials knowledgeable about the SA approach.

To compare how SA agreement sites and similar NPL sites complete the 

cleanup process, we identified SA agreement sites and constructed a 

comparison group of 74 NPL sites with agreements between EPA and 

potentially responsible parties (PRP) similar to those at SA agreement 

sites as follows:

• We identified 67 SA agreement sites using the SA code and added to 

that 3 SA agreement sites with their SA code removed after the site 

was listed on the NPL for a total of 70 SA agreement sites; we 

identified these three sites through our interviews with EPA officials. 

We then obtained data on the legal actions taken at these sites from 

EPA officials in the Office of Site Remediation Enforcement, which 

included all agreements at these sites. Based on discussions with 

EPA officials and the SA guidance, we isolated agreements at SA 

agreement sites by selecting: (1) agreements entered into between 

June 2002 (the date of the issuance of the first SA guidance) and 

December 2012; (2) administrative orders on consent or consent 

decrees; and (3) agreements involving a PRP-led combined remedial 

investigation and feasibility study, remedial design, or remedial action. 

After excluding four sites with SA codes that had SA agreements that 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 41 GAO-13-252 Superfund

were not relevant to our study, we had 66 SA agreement sites for our 

analysis.2

• We constructed our comparison group of 74 NPL sites starting with 

the approximately 1,300 sites on the NPL. Specifically, we identified 

the 702 sites with (1) a combined remedial investigation and feasibility 

study, (2) remedial design, or (3) remedial action led by a PRP. We 

requested data on the legal actions taken at these sites from EPA 

officials and identified agreements similar to SA agreements based on 

the date the agreement was entered into, the type of agreement, and 

whether it included PRP-led long-term cleanup actions. In addition, we 

dropped any NPL sites from Regions 1 and 2 from the analysis 

because neither region has used the SA approach.

To more precisely align the NPL comparison group with SA agreement 

sites, we analyzed, for SA agreements, the number of PRPs involved and 

estimated costs for PRP-led actions. According to EPA officials, SA 

agreement sites generally tend to have fewer PRPs. Based on this 

analysis and EPA’s comments, we established thresholds for different 

variables that agreements in our NPL comparison group could not 

exceed. Specifically, NPL agreements could have: (1) no more than 

seven PRPs involved and (2) administrative orders on consent with 

estimated values between $100,000 and $5,000,000 or consent decrees 

with estimated values between $125,000 and $30,000,000.3

After we identified the NPL sites with agreements similar to SA 

agreement sites, we merged the data on the legal actions with cleanup 

action data for NPL and SA agreement sites. We kept (1) combined 

remedial investigation and feasibility studies, (2) remedial designs, and 

These 

ranges covered the vast majority of SA agreements.

 

2

We excluded four SA agreement sites that did not have relevant agreements involving a 

PRP-led combined remedial investigation and feasibility study, remedial design, or 

remedial action. First, one agreement involved EPA’s use of a special account where the 

PRP funded the initial remedial investigation work based on the understanding that the 

PRP would conduct remedial action. Second, another site’s SA agreement involved a 

PRP-led removal action and no SA agreement for remedial investigation and feasibility 

study, remedial design, or remedial action. Third, one SA agreement site had no legal 

action data. Finally, at one SA agreement site, the PRP began conducting cleanup activity 

before establishing an SA agreement with EPA. 

3

We analyzed administrative orders on consent and consent decrees separately because 

consent decrees are used for remedial actions which can have higher costs than the 

activities under an administrative order on consent. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 42 GAO-13-252 Superfund

(3) remedial actions at sites if the action was explicitly listed as a remedy 

in an SA agreement or an SA-similar agreement (for NPL sites). We 

identified negotiations related to cleanup actions of interest by comparing 

the completion date of the negotiation with the completion date of the 

agreement in EPA’s legal action data. For remedial investigation and 

feasibility study negotiations, we kept any negotiation with a completion 

date up to 180 days before the date of an administrative order on consent 

for that site. For remedial design and remedial action negotiations, we 

kept any negotiation with a completion date up to 2 years before the date 

of a consent decree.4

We conducted additional analyses on our SA and NPL groups to 

determine if there were any unaccounted distributional differences within 

each group that would materially affect our results. Specifically, we 

examined the sensitivity of our results to differences in regional 

After keeping these cleanup actions of interest, we 

computed the durations of specific cleanup activities by calculating the 

difference in months between the start and completion dates of identified 

actions included in CERCLIS. We then calculated the mean and median 

durations for the SA and NPL groups, as well as related ranges. We 

compared the means and medians of the durations to assess whether 

reported results are affected by a possible skewed distribution. We 

decided to report the median because it is less sensitive to extreme 

values and provides a better estimate of the “average” duration for this 

analysis. Because only three SA agreement sites had reached the 

construction completion milestone, we were unable to compare the 

groups across the entire cleanup process; instead, we compared 

completion of specific activities, such as remedial designs. The results of 

our analysis cannot be generalized to all NPL sites because the 74 sites 

were a subset of all NPL sites selected to be as similar as possible to SA 

agreement sites based on key characteristics related to cleanup durations 

such as having a PRP that agreed to conduct at least some part of the 

cleanup. The comparison group was created for purposes of assessing 

whether alternative approaches for addressing the long-term cleanup of 

hazardous waste sites under the Superfund program can make a 

difference in cleanup durations and not for making generalizations about 

the larger universe of all NPL sites.

 

4

Consent decrees, which are used for remedial actions, must be approved by a court. Due 

to this requirement, there can be delays between completion of negotiations and the 

decree becoming official, so we included agreements with completed consent decrees 

within 2 years of the end of the negotiation. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-13-252 Superfund

distribution because the SA approach has different regional usage 

patterns than the NPL approach. While 85 percent of SA agreement sites 

are in Regions 4 and 5, only 34 percent of the similar NPL sites are in 

Regions 4 and 5. In one analysis, we restricted SA agreement and similar 

NPL sites to Regions 4 and 5, and the results were generally similar to 

the analysis using the full set of SA agreement and similar NPL sites.5 In 

addition, we examined the sensitivity of our results to differences in the 

complexity of SA agreement sites and similar NPL sites measured 

through the distribution of megasites6 and single operable unit sites in 

each group. The results for length of negotiations were not sensitive to 

differences between SA agreement sites and similar NPL sites in the 

distribution of megasites, though the results for the length of cleanup 

activities were somewhat sensitive to distributional differences.7

To assess the reliability of the data from EPA’s CERCLIS database used 

in this report, we analyzed related documentation, examined the data for 

errors or inconsistencies, and interviewed agency officials about any 

known data problems and to learn more about their procedures for 

maintaining the data. Where there were discrepancies in the data, we 

worked with EPA officials to clarify. For example, we identified certain SA 

agreement sites that did not appear to have agreements with long-term 

cleanup actions and reviewed these with EPA officials. Miscoded data 

were corrected, and EPA officials provided explanations for unique 

The 

results for length of negotiation and cleanup durations were, in general, 

not sensitive to differences in the distribution of sites with one or more 

operable units. 

 

5

The one exception involved remedial actions, with NPL comparison sites taking 20 

months longer, on average, to complete remedial actions than their SA agreement site 

counterparts in our regional analysis restricted to regions 4 and 5. However, this 

comparison involved only a small number of NPL sites since Regions 4 and 5 only contain 

around one-third of the complete set of NPL comparison sites used in our analysis.

6

Generally, a site is considered to be a megasite if the combined extramural, actual and

planned, removal, and remedial action costs incurred by Superfund or by PRPs are 

greater than $50 million. The megasite designation may be applied to any federal or nonfederal facility NPL or non-NPL site. 

7

While the duration of cleanup activities was somewhat sensitive to the distribution of 

megasites, it was not always in the expected direction. For example, SA agreement sites 

in which megasites were excluded took longer on average to complete remedial action 

activities than the entire SA group. In contrast, NPL comparison sites in which megasites 

were not included took less time, on average, to complete remedial investigation and 

feasibility study activities than the entire set of NPL comparison sites. 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-13-252 Superfund

circumstances with certain agreements. We determined the data to be 

sufficiently reliable for calculating durations for completing different 

cleanup activities, including negotiations, at SA and NPL sites.

We conducted this performance audit from November 2011 to April 2013 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Long-Term Cleanup Approaches 

by EPA Region

Page 45 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Tables 1 and 2 provide a breakdown of cleanup approaches by region. 

Table 1 shows the number of sites within each region that are being 

cleaned up under the various cleanup approaches. Table 2 shows each 

region’s percentage of the total number of sites cleaned up under each 

approach.

Table 1: Number of Sites by Region and Long-Term Cleanup Approach, as of December 2012

Region NPL SA 

Other sites 

under 

Superfund 

program

OCA 

deferral 

to states

OCA 

deferral to 

federal 

agencies 

OCA 

deferral 

to private 

parties

OCA 

deferral 

to tribes

Deferral to 

EPA’s 

RCRA 

program

Formal 

state 

deferrals

Deferral 

to the 

NRC Total

1 100 0 0 470 4 1 0 2 0 0 577

2 215 0 8 247 5 0 0 5 0 0 480

3 170 2 1 119 22 5 0 23 0 2 344

4 185 23 11 289 7 55 0 71 5 0 646

5 244 34 3 111 22 5 0 13 0 0 432

6 90 1 0 7 0 3 0 20 0 0 121

7 68 1 2 7 0 0 0 7 8 1 94

8 53 1 1 7 1 6 0 11 1 1 82

9 113 3 1 222 37 1 1 40 0 0 418

10 75 2 11 106 5 1 0 1 7 0 208

Total 1,313 67 38 1,585 103 77 1 193 21 4 3,402

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

Notes: Sites listed above only include sites that are currently active in CERCLIS and do not include 

sites that have been archived by EPA or sites where no further site response is required, such as 

sites deleted from the NPL.

Appendix II: Long-Term Cleanup Approaches 

by EPA Region
Appendix II: Long-Term Cleanup Approaches 

by EPA Region

Page 46 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Table 2: Percentage of Sites by Region and Long-Term Cleanup Approach, as of December 2012

Region NPL SA 

Other sites 

under 

Superfund 

program

OCA 

deferral 

to states

OCA 

deferral to 

federal 

agencies 

OCA 

deferral 

to private 

parties

OCA 

deferral 

to tribes

Deferral 

to EPA’s 

RCRA 

program

Formal 

state 

deferrals

Deferral 

to the 

NRC Total

1 8% 0% 0% 30% 4% 1% 0% 1% 0% 0% 17%

2 16% 0% 21% 16% 5% 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 14%

3 13% 3% 3% 8% 21% 6% 0% 12% 0% 50% 10%

4 14% 34% 29% 18% 7% 71% 0% 37% 24% 0% 19%

5 19% 51% 8% 7% 21% 6% 0% 7% 0% 0% 13%

6 7% 1% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 10% 0% 0% 4%

7 5% 1% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 38% 25% 3%

8 4% 1% 3% 0% 1% 8% 0% 6% 5% 25% 2%

9 9% 4% 3% 14% 36% 1% 100% 21% 0% 0% 12%

10 6% 3% 29% 7% 5% 1% 0% 1% 33% 0% 6%

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

Notes: Percentages may not add up to 100 because of rounding. Sites listed above only include sites 

that are currently active in CERCLIS and do not include sites that have been archived by EPA or sites 

where no further site response is required, such as sites deleted from the NPL.
Appendix III: Data Analysis of SA Agreement 

Sites and Similar NPL Sites

Page 47 GAO-13-252 Superfund

In this appendix, we discuss the results of our analysis of the median 

length of negotiations and the median length of cleanup activities at SA 

agreement sites and similar NPL sites, which consisted of NPL sites with 

agreements similar to SA agreements. Appendix I includes more 

information on our methodology.

As shown in table 3, for agreements with PRPs finalized from June 2002 

through December 2012, SA agreement sites and similar NPL sites in our 

analysis showed mixed results in the length of time to complete 

negotiations, with SA agreement sites taking about as long as similar NPL 

sites for remedial investigation and feasibility study negotiations and less 

time for remedial design and remedial action negotiations.

Table 3: Median Length of Negotiations in Months for Agreements between EPA and PRPs at 66 SA Agreement Sites and 74 

Similar NPL Sites for Agreements Finalized from June 2002 through December 2012

Median length of negotiations in 

months

Number of negotiations for 

agreements between EPA and PRPsa

Cleanup activities involved in negotiationsb SA NPL SAc NPL

Remedial investigation and feasibility study 7d 8 29 13

Remedial design and remedial action 9 14 21 47

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

Note: Our analysis included 66 SA agreement sites that had relevant cleanup actions. Some other SA 

agreement sites were excluded from the analysis because of having agreements that were not 

relevant to our work.

a

Sites can have more than one of each type of negotiation so the numbers of negotiations in the table 

do not always reflect the number of sites.

b

EPA tracks negotiations for combined remedial investigation and feasibility study, as well as 

combined remedial design and remedial action in its CERCLIS database as they are defined in the 

Superfund Program Implementation Manual. 

c

In some cases at SA agreement sites, EPA did not record negotiations in CERCLIS, such as when a 

PRP approached EPA to begin negotiations. This occurred with two different negotiations in the SA 

group: one negotiation for a multisite agreement covering 11 sites and another negotiation for a 

multisite agreement covering 2 sites.

d

At six SA agreement sites, EPA and the PRP negotiated a single multisite agreement that took about 

3 months. However, EPA recorded a 3-month negotiation at each of the six sites in CERCLIS, which 

may overstate the median for the SA agreement sites in our analysis. These six sites are the only 

case of bundled negotiations with recorded negotiations in CERCLIS for the sites in our analysis.

Given the relatively limited number of negotiations for both NPL and SA 

agreement sites in our analysis and the effect of unique sites, the 

differences in the median length of negotiations cannot be attributed 

entirely to the type of approach used at each site. Unique conditions at 

each site have the potential to affect negotiations between EPA and the 

PRP beyond the cleanup approach selected.

Appendix III: Data Analysis of SA Agreement 

Sites and Similar NPL Sites

Median Length of 

Negotiations at SA 

Agreement Sites and 

Similar NPL Sites
Appendix III: Data Analysis of SA Agreement 

Sites and Similar NPL Sites

Page 48 GAO-13-252 Superfund

As shown in table 4, the SA agreement sites and similar NPL sites in our 

analysis showed mixed results in the length of time it took to complete 

specific cleanup activities,1

Table 4: Median Length of Cleanup Activities for 66 SA Agreement Sites and 74 Similar NPL Sites Completed from June 2002 

through December 2012

with SA agreement sites taking longer for 

remedial investigations and feasibility studies on average and about the 

same time for remedial designs and remedial actions on average.

Median number of months to complete a 

cleanup activity Number of cleanup activities

Cleanup activitiesa SA NPL SA NPL

Remedial investigation and feasibility 

study

69 50 14 5 

Remedial design 20 22 9 20

Remedial action 31 30 6 35

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

Note: Our analysis included 66 SA agreement sites that had relevant cleanup actions. Some other SA 

agreement sites were excluded from the analysis because of having agreements that were not 

relevant to our work.

a

Sites can experience more than one cleanup activity in a given phase, so the number of activities 

listed under each approach in the table does not always reflect the number of sites in our analysis.

Twelve of the 14 remedial investigations and feasibility studies at SA sites 

took longer than 50 months to complete, which is greater than the median 

for NPL sites in our analysis, as well as the median of 51 estimated by 

EPA for PRP-led remedial investigation and feasibility studies that began 

after June 2002. However, given the relatively small number of cleanup 

activities for both NPL and SA agreement sites in our analysis and 

differences at the site level, the differences in the median length of 

cleanup activities cannot be attributed entirely to the type of approach 

used at each site. For example, several remedial investigations and 

feasibility studies at SA sites took a long time to complete due to 

individual circumstances at the site, such as dealing with a proposal to 

sell on-site materials to a manufacturing company, late participation from 

PRPs in the process, or coordination with other cleanup efforts. SA 

agreement sites and NPL sites in our analysis took slightly less than 2 

 

1

Multiple cleanup activities can occur within a given phase at the same or different 

operable units at one site. Completion of a cleanup activity, such as a remedial action, 

does not necessarily mean the site has completed the entire phase.

Median Length of Cleanup 

Activities at SA Agreement 

Sites and Similar NPL Sites
Appendix III: Data Analysis of SA Agreement 

Sites and Similar NPL Sites

Page 49 GAO-13-252 Superfund

years on average to complete remedial designs and slightly less than 3 

years on average to complete remedial actions.
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 50 GAO-13-252 Superfund

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 51 GAO-13-252 Superfund
Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Environmental Protection Agency

Page 52 GAO-13-252 Superfund
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 53 GAO-13-252 Superfund

David C. Trimble, (202) 512-3841, trimbled@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Vincent P. Price, Assistant 

Director; Elizabeth Beardsley; Eric Charles; Pamela Davidson; Armetha 

Liles; Cynthia Norris; and Nico Sloss made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361354)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.