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
Published: 2010-05-06T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: At the end of fiscal year 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL) included 1,111 of the most seriously contaminated nonfederal hazardous waste sites. Of these sites, EPA had identified 75 with unacceptable human exposure, 164 with unknown exposure, and 872 with controlled exposure that may need additional cleanup work. EPA may fund remedial actions--long-term cleanup--from its trust fund, and compel responsible parties to perform or reimburse costs of the cleanup. GAO was asked to determine (1) the cleanup and funding status at currently listed nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable or unknown human exposure; (2) what is known about EPA's future cleanup costs at nonfederal NPL sites; (3) EPA's process for allocating remedial program funding; and (4) how many NPL sites some state and EPA officials expect to be added in the next 5 years, and their expected cleanup costs. GAO analyzed Superfund program data, surveyed and interviewed EPA officials, and interviewed state officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: At over 60 percent of the 239 nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable or unknown human exposure, all or more than half of the work remains to complete the remedial construction phase of cleanup, according to EPA regional officials. By the end of fiscal year 2009, EPA had expended $3 billion on the 75 sites with unacceptable human exposure and $1.2 billion on the 164 sites with unknown exposure. Despite the relatively high level of expenditures at sites with unacceptable exposure, EPA officials told GAO that, in managing limited resources, some sites have not received sufficient funding for construction to be conducted in the most time and cost efficient manner. EPA's future costs to conduct remedial construction at nonfederal NPL sites will likely exceed recent funding levels. EPA officials estimate that EPA's costs will be from $335 to $681 million each year for fiscal years 2010 to 2014, which exceed the $220 to $267 million EPA allocated annually for remedial actions from fiscal years 2000 to 2009. In addition, these cost estimates are likely understated, since they do not include costs for sites that are early in the cleanup process or for sites where a responsible party is currently funding remedial construction but may be unable to do so in the future. Also, according to EPA officials, EPA's actual costs are often higher than its estimates because contamination is often greater than expected. EPA allocates funds separately for preconstruction activities--such as remedial investigation and remedial design--and remedial actions. EPA headquarters allocates funds for preconstruction activities to the regions for them to distribute among sites. For remedial actions, headquarters works in consultation with the regions to allocate funds to sites. EPA officials told GAO that EPA prioritized sites to receive the $582 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds in a manner similar to the way EPA prioritizes sites for remedial actions. Limited funding has delayed preconstruction activities and remedial actions at some sites, according to EPA officials. EPA regional officials estimated that from 101 to 125 sites--about 20 to 25 sites per year--will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years, which is higher than the average of about 16 sites per year listed for fiscal years 2005 to 2009. Most of the 10 states' officials GAO interviewed also expect an increase in the number of sites listed from their states. However, neither EPA regional officials nor state officials were able to provide cost estimates for cleaning up many of the sites. In addition, the number of sites eligible for listing could increase if EPA decides to assess the relative risk of vapor intrusion--contaminated air that seeps into buildings from underground sources--a pathway of concern among EPA regional officials and state officials interviewed. Although sites with vapor intrusion can pose considerable human health risks, EPA's Hazard Ranking System--the mechanism used to identify sites that qualify for NPL listing--does not recognize these risks; therefore, unless a site with vapor intrusion is listed on some other basis, EPA cannot clean up the site through its remedial program.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: To protect human health and the environment from the effects of  hazardous substances, Congress enacted the Comprehensive  Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in  1980, which established the Superfund program. The Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA), the principal agency responsible for  administering the Superfund program, has since identified more than  47,000 hazardous waste sites potentially requiring cleanup. As of the end  of fiscal year 2009, 1,269 of the most seriously contaminated sites were  included on EPA’s National Priorities List (NPL):  1,111 nonfederal sites  and 158 federal facilities. At the time of listing, EPA had determined that  these sites posed relatively high risks to human health or the environment  from releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, such as lead  and polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). These substances can cause a variety  of health issues—such as birth defects, cancer, and developmental  disorders—in people exposed to them. Of the nonfederal sites listed on  the NPL at the end of fiscal year 2009, EPA identified 75 that have  “unacceptable human exposure”—actual or reasonably expected  exposures of an individual to hazardous substances, pollutants, or  contaminants at levels that present an unacceptable risk—to contaminants  for people living, recreating, and/or working in the surrounding areas. In  addition, another 164 of the sites listed on the NPL at the end of fiscal year  2009 may potentially pose serious risks since EPA does not yet know if  there is unacceptable human exposure at these sites. At the remaining 872  sites, EPA has determined that human exposure has been controlled, but  additional work to clean up the sites may still be needed.
Cleanup efforts at NPL sites are typically expensive and can take many  years. The cleanup process begins with site discovery or notification to  EPA of the possible release of hazardous substances posing a threat to  human health or the environment. Once a site is discovered, EPA,  sometimes in conjunction with the state, conducts initial investigations to  assess the potential threat. EPA then decides if it will list a site on the NPL  based on a number of factors, usually including the site’s score on the  Hazard Ranking System (HRS), which is a tool used to determine a site’s  relative threat to human health and the environment based on potential  pathways of contamination; the availability of alternative state or federal  programs that could clean up the site; and state concurrence with the  listing. Sites listed on the NPL are typically cleaned up through the  Superfund remedial program. As part of this program, EPA conducts or  arranges for a remedial investigation and feasibility study to (1) identify  the nature and extent of contamination, (2) quantify the potential risks to  human health and the environment, and (3) evaluate the potential  remedies to achieve cleanup goals. EPA then selects a remedy and  documents this decision in a record of decision (ROD). EPA then plans the  selected remedy in the remedial design phase and implements it with  construction activities in the remedial action phase. EPA designates a site  as “construction complete” when all physical construction activities at a  site are finished, all immediate threats have been addressed, and all long- term threats are under control. Of the 1,111 nonfederal sites listed on the  NPL as of the end of fiscal year 2009, 695 had reached EPA’s construction  complete milestone, while the remaining 416 had not. However, even after  sites have reached EPA’s construction complete milestone, final cleanup  at a site may not be achieved for many years, because it may take decades  to clean up contamination to the selected standards.
Responsible parties are liable for conducting or paying for site cleanup of  hazardous substances. EPA is responsible for identifying potentially  responsible parties and may take enforcement actions against these  parties to compel them to clean up sites. In some cases, however, parties  cannot be identified or may be unwilling or financially unable to perform  the cleanup. In addition, federal agencies are responsible for funding the  cleanup at the sites that they own. CERCLA also authorizes EPA to pay for  remedial cleanups at sites on the NPL, as well as to seek reimbursement  from the potentially responsible parties. To fund EPA-led cleanups at  nonfederal NPL sites, among other Superfund program activities, CERCLA  established the Hazardous Substance Superfund (trust fund). Historically,  the trust fund was financed primarily by taxes on crude oil and certain  chemicals, as well as an environmental tax on corporations based on their  taxable income; however, the authority for these taxes expired in 1995,  and shortly thereafter the balance in the trust fund started diminishing.  Since 2001, appropriations from general revenues have been the largest  source of funding for the trust fund. Superfund program appropriations  have averaged about $1.2 billion annually since 1981, although the annual  level of these appropriated funds has generally declined in recent years  when adjusted for inflation. By the start of fiscal year 2009, the balance of  the trust fund had decreased in value from its peak of $5.0 billion in 1997  to $137 million. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of  2009 (Recovery Act), EPA’s Superfund remedial program received an  additional $600 million.
In this context, you asked us to determine (1) the cleanup and funding  status at currently listed nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable or  unknown human exposure; (2) what is known about the future costs to  EPA to conduct remedial actions at nonfederal NPL sites that are not  construction complete; (3) the process EPA uses to allocate remedial  program funding; and (4) the number of sites EPA and selected state  officials expect will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years, and what  they expect the costs of cleaning up those sites will be.
To determine the status of cleanup and funding at nonfederal NPL sites  with unacceptable or unknown human exposure and what is known about  future EPA costs to conduct remedial construction at nonfederal sites, we  conducted an electronic survey of branch chiefs from the 10 EPA regions  to collect information about NPL sites relevant to these two objectives. We  also interviewed these officials to obtain clarification and additional  information regarding their responses, and we analyzed data on cleanup  status and expenditures at these sites from EPA’s Comprehensive  Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System  and Integrated Financial Management System. To describe EPA’s process  for allocating remedial program funding, we analyzed EPA guidance and  planning documents and interviewed EPA headquarters and regional  officials. To determine the number of sites that EPA and selected state  officials expect will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years, and what  they expect the costs of cleaning up those sites will be, we interviewed  officials from EPA’s 10 regions, 10 selected states—chosen to include one  from each of EPA’s regions and varying numbers of sites listed over the  past 10 years; as well as officials from the Association of State and  Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. In addition, we discussed  all of these issues with officials from EPA headquarters. To assess the  reliability of the data from EPA’s databases used in this report, we  analyzed related documentation, examined the data to identify obvious  errors or inconsistencies, and worked with agency officials to identify data  problems. We determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report. A detailed description of our objectives, scope,  and methodology is presented in appendix I. The questions from our  electronic survey of branch chiefs from the 10 EPA regions are listed in  appendix II.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2009 to May 2010, 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: CERCLA was passed in late 1980, in the wake of the discovery of toxic  waste sites such as Love Canal, and it created a mechanism for  responding to existing contamination. CERCLA established a trust fund  from which EPA receives annual appropriations for Superfund program  activities. The Superfund trust fund has received revenue from four major  sources: taxes on crude oil and certain chemicals, as well as an  environmental tax assessed on corporations based on the taxable income;  appropriations from the general fund; fines, penalties, and recoveries from  responsible parties; and interest accrued on the balance of the fund. In the  program’s early years, dedicated taxes provided the majority of revenue to  the Superfund trust fund. However, in 1995, the authority for these taxes  expired and has not been reinstated. Since 2001, appropriations from the  general fund have constituted the largest source of revenue for the trust  fund. After the expiration of the tax authority, at the start of fiscal year  1997, the trust fund balance reached its peak of $5.0 billion; in 1998, the  trust fund balance began decreasing. Figure 1 shows changes in the  balance of the Superfund trust fund from fiscal years 1981 through 2009.  At the start of fiscal year 2009, the trust fund had a balance of $137 million.
EPA’s Superfund program receives annual appropriations from the trust  fund, which is in turn supported by payments from the general fund. Since  fiscal year 1981, the annual appropriation to EPA’s Superfund program has  averaged approximately $1.2 billion in noninflation adjusted (nominal)  dollars. Since fiscal year 1998, however, congressional appropriations have  generally declined when adjusted for inflation. Figure 2 shows  appropriation levels in nominal and constant 2009 dollars since fiscal year  1981.
The Superfund cleanup process begins with the discovery of a potentially  hazardous site or the notification to EPA of possible releases of hazardous  substances that may threaten human health or the environment. Citizens,  state agencies, EPA regional officials, and others may alert EPA to such  threats. EPA regional offices use a screening system, called the HRS, to  numerically assess the potential of sites to pose a threat to human health  and the environment. The HRS scores sites on four possible pathways of  exposure: groundwater, surface water, soil, and air. Those sites with  sufficiently high scores are eligible for proposal to the NPL. EPA regions  submit sites to EPA headquarters for possible listing on the NPL on the  basis of a variety of factors, including the availability of alternative state or  federal programs that may be used to clean up the site. EPA has  considered the NPL the “tool of last resort”; thus, EPA has looked to  alternative EPA and individual state programs for hazardous waste  cleanup before listing a site on the NPL. However, according to EPA  headquarters officials, EPA’s use of the NPL as a tool of last resort has  recently changed, and EPA now views the NPL as one of a number of  cleanup options and uses whichever option is most appropriate for site  cleanup. In addition, EPA officials noted that, as a matter of policy, EPA  seeks concurrence from the Governor of the state or environmental  agency head in which the site is located before listing the site. Sites that  EPA decides that it would like to list on the NPL are proposed for listing in  the Federal Register. After a period of public comment, EPA reviews the  comments and decides whether to formally list the sites as “final” on the  NPL.
Once EPA lists a site, it initiates a process to investigate the extent of the  contamination, decide on the actions that will be taken to address  contamination, and implement those actions. This process can take many  years—or even decades. Figure 3 outlines the process EPA typically  follows, from listing a site on the NPL through deleting it from the NPL.
Specifically, after a site is listed, EPA or a responsible party will begin the  remedial process by conducting a two-part study of the site: (1) a remedial  investigation to characterize site conditions and assess the risks to human  health and the environment, among other actions, and (2) a feasibility  study to evaluate various options to address the problems identified  through the remedial investigation. The culmination of these studies is a  ROD, which identifies EPA’s selected remedy for addressing the site’s  contamination. Cleanup at a site is often divided into smaller units  (operable units) by geography, pathways of contamination, or type of  remedy. A ROD typically lays out the remedy for one operable unit at a  site, and it contains the cost estimate for implementing the remedy.  According to EPA guidance, EPA develops the cost estimate in the ROD to  be within an accuracy range of minus 30 to plus 50 percent of the actual  costs. EPA may develop earlier estimates of construction costs, but as  the site moves from the study phase into the remedial action phase, the  level of project definition increases, thus allowing for a more accurate cost  estimate. EPA may develop more refined cost estimates after the ROD.  Because more information is available during remedial design and  remedial action, the accuracy of these estimates is expected to be greater  than the accuracy of the ROD estimates. According to GAO’s cost  estimating and assessment guide, every cost estimate is uncertain because  of assumptions that must be made about future projections, and cost  estimates tend to become more certain as actual costs begin to replace  earlier estimates.
The selected remedy is then designed during remedial design and  implemented with remedial actions, when actual cleanup of the site  begins. When all physical construction at a site is complete, all immediate  threats have been addressed, and all long-term threats are under control,  EPA generally considers the site to be construction complete. Most sites  then enter into the operation and maintenance phase when the responsible  party or the state maintains the remedy, and EPA ensures that the remedy  continues to protect human health and the environment. However, for  certain remedial actions, additional work at a site may be required after  construction is completed, such as continuing groundwater restoration  efforts or monitoring the site to ensure that the remedy remains  protective. For EPA-lead remedial actions that have a groundwater or  surface water restoration component, EPA funds the necessary  activities—known as long-term response actions—for up to 10 years  before turning over these responsibilities to the state. Eventually, when  EPA and the state determine that no further site response is needed, EPA  may delete the site from the NPL. Although most sites progress through  the cleanup process in roughly the same way, EPA may take different  approaches based on site-specific conditions.
In fiscal year 2009, EPA received about $1.29 billion for the Superfund  program, of which $605 million was for the remedial program. Of this  amount, EPA allocated $125 million for preconstruction activities— remedial investigation, feasibility study, and remedial design activities—as  well as other nonconstruction activities, including conducting prelisting  activities through cooperative agreements with states, oversight of all  responsible party-lead activities, and providing general support and  management. In addition, EPA allocated $267 million for remedial actions.  EPA allocated the remaining $213 million for headquarters and regional  personnel to implement and oversee the overall program; for site  management; and for providing technical and analytical support for all  non-NPL sites as well as proposed, final, and deleted NPL sites.
In addition to remedial actions, the Superfund program conducts removal  actions at both NPL and non-NPL sites that are usually short-term  cleanups for sites that pose immediate threats to human health or the  environment. Examples of removal actions include excavating  contaminated soil, erecting a security fence, or taking abandoned drums to  a proper disposal facility to prevent the release of hazardous substances  into the environment. CERCLA limits EPA removal actions paid for with  trust fund money to actions lasting 12 months or less and costing $2  million or less, although these limits can be exceeded if EPA determines  that conditions for such an exemption are met.
To document and communicate environmental progress toward cleaning  up Superfund sites, EPA adopted a human exposure indicator in fiscal  year 2002. The indicator was applied to Superfund to communicate  progress made in protecting human health through site cleanup activities.  In addition, EPA uses the indicator in its annual Government Performance  and Results Act reporting. Specifically, on an annual basis, EPA reports  the number of Superfund sites at which human exposure was controlled  during the most recent fiscal year. EPA identifies a site as having  unacceptable human exposure when data indicate that the level of  contamination and the frequency or duration of human exposure  associated with certain pathways—or routes of exposure—at the site  present unacceptable risks to humans. EPA assesses human exposure on a  site-wide basis; therefore, if any part of a Superfund site has unacceptable  human exposure, EPA classifies the whole site as such. If sufficient and  reliable information is not yet available to determine whether a site has  unacceptable human exposure, the site is classified as having insufficient  data to determine whether there is unacceptable human exposure, or  “unknown.”
Threats to human health and the environment may be present in the four  pathways scored on the HRS—groundwater, surface water, soil, and  (outdoor) air; however, contaminants may also migrate from groundwater  or soil and seep into the air of homes or commercial buildings. This  movement of contaminants—typically from petroleum or chlorinated  solvents—to indoor air is known as vapor intrusion and has been the  subject of increasing research and scientific discussion since the 1980s.  Intrusion of contaminated gases into indoor air may lead to fire; explosion;  and acute, intermediate, and chronic health effects. Though EPA conducts  investigations of vapor intrusion for some sites on the NPL, the HRS does  not include a separate pathway for scoring vapor intrusion threats.
section_title: Considerable Work Remains at Most Nonfederal NPL Sites with Unacceptable or Unknown Human Exposure, and Some Site Cleanups Have Not Been Funded at the Most Efficient Level
paragraphs: At over 60 percent of the 75 nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable  human exposure, all or more than half of the work remains to complete  remedial construction, as is the case with over 60 percent of the 164  nonfederal NPL sites with unknown human exposure, according to EPA  regional officials’ responses to our survey. Moreover, while EPA has  expended a total of $3 billion on the 75 sites with unacceptable exposure,  EPA headquarters and regional officials told us that some of these sites  have not received sufficient funding for cleanup to proceed in the most  efficient manner.
subsections: section_title: At Most Sites with Unacceptable Human Exposure, Less than Half of the Remedial Construction Work Has Been Completed
paragraphs: At 49 of the 75 nonfederal NPL sites that EPA has identified as having  unacceptable human exposure, all or more than half of the work remains  to complete remedial construction, according to EPA regional officials’  responses to our survey (see fig. 4). At each of the 15 sites where none of  the remedial construction work has been completed, EPA or a responsible  party has conducted at least one interim cleanup action, such as a  removal, and has initiated or completed a remedial investigation; however,  all of the construction work remains, and EPA has determined that human  exposure risks continue at these sites. In addition, at the remaining 60  sites where some construction actions have been taken, EPA has  determined that human exposure risks have not yet been controlled. For  example, at the Lava Cap Mine site in California, EPA has eliminated the  exposure to mine tailings—finely ground waste created in the ore  extraction process—in the mine area by capping it; however, recreational  users of the area downstream of the mine can be exposed to mine tailings  in that area, potentially leading to incidental ingestion of arsenic in soil,  inhalation of contaminated airborne particulates, or skin contact with  contaminated sediments along the shoreline. According to EPA Region 9  officials, EPA is currently investigating methods to stabilize and cover  these mine tailings to eliminate the risk of human exposure.
According to EPA regional officials’ responses to our survey, EPA has  plans to control human exposure at all of the 75 sites with unacceptable  human exposure; however, our survey results also show that EPA regional  officials expect 41 of the sites to continue to have unacceptable exposure  until fiscal year 2015 or later. According to an EPA headquarters official  responsible for overseeing the human exposure indicator, some sites will  continue to pose unacceptable human exposure for a long time because of  the type of contamination and cleanup required. For example, it may take  several years for the risk of human exposure to be eliminated at the  Sheboygan Harbor & River site in Wisconsin—which was listed on the  NPL in fiscal year 1986—because of high PCB levels in fish. The site  currently poses a risk of human ingestion of PCB and heavy metals,  including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc, in contaminated fish,  which can cause health problems including cancer, liver disease, and  problems with the immune and endocrine systems. There is a fish advisory  in place, signs are posted in the area warning against fish consumption,  and, for the last several years, there has been ongoing removal of sediment  and soil contaminated with PCB and heavy metals. However, according to  EPA, exposure to PCB may continue even after a significant amount of  PCB is removed from the river, because it takes several years for PCB  levels in fish to decline, and people continue to consume fish from the  area. According to EPA headquarters officials, approximately one-third of  the sites with unacceptable human exposure have been identified as such  because of ongoing consumption of contaminated fish despite actions  having been taken to prevent exposure. Appendix III contains a detailed  description of the risks present at the 75 sites.
section_title: Most Sites with Unknown Risks of Human Exposure Require Considerable Work to Complete Remedial Construction
paragraphs: Like the sites with unacceptable human exposure, over 60 percent, or 105,  of the 164 sites with unknown human exposure have all or most of the  work to complete remedial construction remaining, according to EPA  regional officials’ responses to our survey (see fig. 5). The majority of the  83 sites with unknown human exposure that have all of the work  remaining to complete construction are in the remedial investigation  phase, which is when EPA usually determines a site’s human exposure  status, according to EPA guidance. EPA may also designate a site as  having unknown human exposure during the construction phase of work,  or after a site has met the construction complete milestone, if new  information suggests that there may be risk at the site, or if an  investigation is under way to assess a potential exposure pathway not  previously analyzed, such as vapor intrusion. For example, the Waite Park  Wells site in Minnesota reached construction complete status in 1999 but,  during a review of the continuing effectiveness of the remedy performed in  2005, EPA found potential exposure from vapor intrusion to businesses  from trichloroethylene (TCE) in groundwater. EPA Region 5 officials told  us that EPA designated this site as having an unknown risk of human  exposure until it evaluates a vapor intrusion assessment conducted by  responsible parties. EPA expects to determine whether there is  unacceptable human exposure at most of the 164 sites by fiscal year 2012. 12.
According to EPA regional officials’ responses to our survey, human  exposure risks at the 164 sites may be posed by a variety of contaminants  in various media, including soil, sediment, and fish. Beginning around  2003, EPA regions began performing investigations for vapor intrusion,  which they saw as an emerging problem, according to EPA officials.  Currently, according to EPA regional officials’ responses to our survey, 60  of the 164 sites may pose risks because of vapor intrusion. At the Lusher  Street Groundwater Contamination site in Indiana, for example, EPA has  not yet evaluated the vapor intrusion pathway, but officials said that they  know the site could pose a vapor intrusion risk to human health because a  contaminated groundwater plume is present in a mixed residential and  industrial area.
section_title: Some Sites Have Not Been Funded at the Most Time and Cost Efficient Levels, According to EPA Officials
paragraphs: From the inception of the Superfund program through the end of fiscal  year 2009, EPA expended a total of $3 billion in constant 2009 dollars on  the 75 sites with unacceptable exposure; however, in managing limited  resources, EPA regional officials noted that some of these sites did not  receive funding to clean up the sites in the most time and cost efficient  manner. According to EPA regional officials’ responses to our survey, the  estimated cost of completing construction at 36 of the 75 sites with  unacceptable exposure at which EPA is funding remedial actions will be  about $3.9 billion. EPA regional officials said that they could not provide  cost estimates for an additional 7 sites because the sites are too early in  the cleanup phase. For the remaining 32 sites, these officials do not expect  EPA to incur remedial construction costs because they expect responsible  parties to fully fund the remedial actions at 26 sites, have identified 4 sites  as construction complete, and EPA has already fully funded the remedial  actions with Recovery Act funds at 2 sites. In addition, EPA expended $1.2  billion in constant 2009 dollars on the 164 sites where exposure is  unknown. At 48 of the 164 sites with unknown human exposure, EPA  regional officials estimated that the cost to complete construction will be  about $601 million. These officials were not able to provide cost estimates  for an additional 32 sites because the sites are too early in the cleanup  phase. For the remaining 84 sites, these officials do not expect EPA to  incur remedial construction costs because they expect responsible parties  to fully fund the remedial actions at 52 sites and have identified 32 sites as  construction complete.
Even though EPA officials noted that EPA does not use the human  exposure indicator to determine risk or to prioritize sites for cleanup,  average annual per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable exposure  have been considerably higher than for sites with unknown exposure or  for sites where EPA has determined that human exposure is under control.  For example, in fiscal year 2009, the average per-site expenditure for sites  with unacceptable human exposure was $3.0 million, compared with $0.5  million for sites with unknown exposure and $0.2 million for sites where  EPA has determined that human exposure is under control. Furthermore,  this difference has been increasing over time, as shown in figure 6. One  reason that average per-site expenditures are higher for sites with  unacceptable human exposure than for other sites is that a larger  percentage of these sites are megasites—sites with actual or expected  total cleanup costs, including removal and remedial action costs, that are  expected to amount to $50 million or more. While 47 percent of the sites  with unacceptable human exposure are megasites, 13 percent of sites with  unknown human exposure are megasites, and 8 percent of sites where  human exposure is controlled are megasites.
Despite the relatively high level of expenditures at sites with unacceptable  human exposure, EPA regional and headquarters officials told us that  construction has not been conducted in the most time and cost efficient  manner at some of these sites because EPA had to balance annual  resources among various program activities. For example, EPA officials  told us that at the Bunker Hill Mining site in Idaho—where people can be  exposed to metals in soil and sediments and where children’s blood lead  levels have been found to be above Centers for Disease Control and  Prevention levels of concern—the pace of the cleanup had to be slowed  down because of preconstruction and remedial action funding limitations.  The site received between $13 million and $19 million per year from fiscal  years 2003 to 2009, when, according to an EPA regional official, it could  have used $30 million per year to clean up the site and control human  exposure in the most efficient manner. Similarly, at the Eureka Mills site in  Utah, people who are in contact with soil and dust contaminated with lead  from mining activities face human health risks. From 2003 to 2008, the site  received $6.6 million to $10 million a year for construction, even though  regional officials said that an additional $3 to $5 million per year would  have allowed them to complete construction at the site 3 to 4 years earlier  at a reduced overall cost. However, with the addition of $26.5 million for  the Eureka Mills site in fiscal year 2009 from Recovery Act funding,  officials said that they will be able to complete construction at least 1 year  earlier than planned and control human exposure at the site. In response  to our survey, EPA regional officials noted that they are using Recovery  Act funding to partially or completely control the unacceptable human  exposure at 20 NPL sites. However, despite EPA’s use of Recovery Act  funds to control human exposure at these sites, EPA officials noted that  EPA’s constrained funding had delayed the control of human exposure at  some sites.
section_title: EPA’s Costs for Conducting Remedial Construction at Nonfederal NPL Sites Will Likely Exceed Recent Funding Levels for These Activities
paragraphs: EPA’s annual costs for conducting remedial construction at nonfederal  NPL sites that are not yet construction complete from fiscal years 2010  through 2014—as estimated by EPA regional officials—exceed recent  annual funding allocations for these activities. In addition, these estimates  do not include costs for all remedial actions at all sites or costs for sites  that have a responsible party who is currently funding remedial actions  but may be unable to do so in the future. Furthermore, according to EPA  officials, experience has shown that EPA’s actual costs are almost always  higher than its cost estimates.
subsections: section_title: Estimated Costs for Conducting Future Remedial Actions Exceed Past Funding Levels
paragraphs: EPA’s annual costs to conduct remedial construction in the most efficient  manner at nonfederal NPL sites for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 may  range from $335 million to $681 million, according to EPA regional  officials’ estimates (see table 1). These estimates include EPA’s costs to  conduct remedial actions at 142 of the 416 nonfederal sites that are not  construction complete. Of the remaining 274 sites, EPA regional officials  were unable to provide cost estimates for 57 sites, expect responsible  parties to fully fund remedial actions at 206 sites, and do not expect to  incur additional costs to complete construction at 11 sites because these  sites are already fully funded.
These annual cost estimates for remedial construction at these sites  exceed past annual funding allocations for such actions. For example,  EPA regional officials’ cost estimates for remedial construction for the  next 2 years—fiscal years 2011 to 2012—are $253 million to $414 million  greater than the $267 million in annual funding that EPA allocated for  remedial actions in fiscal year 2009. From fiscal years 2000 to 2009, EPA  allocated $220 million to $267 million in annual funding for remedial  actions. According to EPA headquarters officials, however, funds from  additional sources—such as prior year funds, settlements with responsible  parties, and state cost share agreements—may also be available to fund  remedial construction from year to year. While the amount of funding  available through these sources may vary substantially from year to year,  according to EPA headquarters officials, approximately $123 to $199  million was available from additional sources for remedial actions in fiscal  years 2007 to 2009. Our analysis indicates that, even if this level of funding  was available in future years, it would not supplement EPA’s annual  funding allocation enough to cover the estimated costs for conducting  remedial construction in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Therefore, despite  funding from additional sources, EPA’s estimated costs to conduct  remedial construction will exceed available funds if funding for remedial  construction remains constant.
section_title: Cost Estimates Are Likely Understated
paragraphs: EPA regional officials’ cost estimates are likely understated. These  officials were not able to provide annual construction cost estimates for 57  of the 416 nonfederal sites that are not yet construction complete because  they are in the early stages of the remedial process, and EPA does not yet  know the extent of the contamination and/or has not chosen a cleanup  remedy for them. For example, EPA Region 9 officials said that, as of  October 2009, the feasibility study for the Alark Hard Chrome site in  California was just beginning and that no cost estimates were available for  possible remedies. For some additional sites, EPA regional officials were  unable to provide cost estimates for construction at some of the operable  units at the site. For example, EPA Region 3 officials were able to provide  a partial cost estimate for the Crossley Farm site in Pennsylvania and  noted that this estimate did not include additional remedial construction  funding that will be necessary for operable units that have construction  work remaining. Finally, EPA regional officials’ estimates did not include  costs for conducting long-term response actions—such as operating  groundwater treatment facilities—that are considered part of the remedial  action or for performing 5-year site reviews, both of which EPA funds  from its remedial action allocation and which would, therefore, increase  the cost estimate for remedial actions.
EPA’s estimates also do not include construction costs for sites that  currently have a potentially responsible party that may be unable to fund  the cleanup. EPA officials told us that EPA has identified one or more  potentially responsible parties at 206 of the 416 nonfederal NPL sites that  are not yet construction complete. However, officials also said that they  were slightly or not at all confident that a responsible party would fund  future remedial actions at 27 of these sites. For example, EPA officials  explained that the responsible parties at one site in EPA Region 4 entered  into bankruptcy and that EPA is not at all confident that the responsible  parties will be able to fund future remedial actions. While in some cases  funds from a settlement agreement may be available for site cleanup, in  several instances, EPA officials reported that responsible parties may be  financially unable to perform the remedy or fund future cleanup. Without  responsible parties to fund remediation costs at these sites, EPA is likely  to bear the costs of future remedial actions.
EPA headquarters and regional officials also told us that EPA’s actual  costs for construction are typically higher than its cost estimates because  of a number of uncertainties they may encounter. Most importantly,  according to EPA officials, the extent of contamination at a site may be  greater than EPA expected when it developed the cost estimate, which can  expand the scope of work and remedies needed and increase overall  construction costs. For example, we recently reported that at the Federal  Creosote Superfund site in New Jersey, the greater-than-expected  quantities of contaminated material contributed to a $111 million increase  in construction costs over EPA’s estimates. According to EPA officials, it  is common for EPA to remove more soil than originally estimated at  Superfund sites because of the uncertainty inherent in using soil samples  to estimate the extent of underground contamination. Another factor that  can increase construction costs is change in acceptable contaminant  levels. For example, at the Arsenic Trioxide site in North Dakota,  additional cleanup was necessary after the site had already been deleted  from the NPL because EPA subsequently reduced the maximum  contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water, which had the effect of  changing the level at which the cleanup was considered protective of  public health. In addition, according to an EPA official, the actual costs of  goods and services—such as energy, construction materials, and labor— may increase above estimated prices, causing an increase in the actual  construction cost. At the Escambia Woods site in Florida, for example,  inclement weather, identification of additional contamination, and other  unforeseen occurrences all contributed to increased cleanup costs of  about $2.2 million. EPA officials noted that there may be some instances  when construction costs are overestimated because, for example, there is  less contamination at a site than previously thought or the prices of goods  and services decrease; however, the officials commented that this is rare.
Because of the many uncertainties in cost estimating, EPA officials told us  that actual construction costs never equal the cost estimated in the ROD.  According to EPA guidance, because of the inherent uncertainty in  estimating the extent of site contamination from early investigation data,  cost estimates prepared during the remedial investigation/feasibility phase  are based on a conceptual rather than detailed idea of the remedial action  under consideration. The guidance states that these estimates are,  therefore, intended to provide sufficient information for EPA to compare  alternatives on an “order of magnitude” basis, rather than an exact  estimate of a particular remedy’s costs. According to EPA headquarters  officials, these estimates could vary by 100 percent from the actual costs  of implementing a remedy. As EPA’s estimates become more refined  during the remedial design phase, estimates that vary from actual costs by  100 percent are not common; however, variation by 20 to 40 percent is  common, according to EPA headquarters officials. The frequent  occurrence of additional unexpected costs further enhances the likelihood  that EPA’s costs for remedial actions over the next several years will  exceed recent funding levels for these activities, and EPA may be forced to  choose between funding construction at some sites in the most efficient  manner or funding construction at more sites less efficiently.
section_title: EPA Allocates Remedial Program Funding Separately for Preconstruction Activities and Remedial Actions, and Limited Funding Has Caused Delays at Some Sites
paragraphs: EPA headquarters allocates funds to the regions for preconstruction  activities—remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and remedial design  activities—which the regions then distribute among sites. For remedial  action funding, headquarters works with the regions to allocate funds to  sites. According to EPA headquarters and regional officials, the funds for  both types of activities have not been sufficient to clean up some sites in  the most time and cost efficient manner.
subsections: section_title: EPA Headquarters Allocates Funding to the Regions for Preconstruction Activities for Distribution Among Sites and, in Consultation with the Regions, Allocates Remedial Action Funding on a Site-by-Site Basis
paragraphs: EPA headquarters determines the amount of resources that the Superfund  program will allocate to the regions for preconstruction activities by using  a model that distributes available funding based on a combination of  historical allocations and a work-based scoring system that scores each  region based on projects planned for the upcoming year. Regions then  prioritize sites to receive funding for preconstruction activities primarily  by considering the human exposure risks present at sites while, at the  same time, attempting to provide some funding for all their sites to keep  them progressing toward the construction phase, according to EPA  regional officials. According to EPA’s Superfund Program  Implementation Manual, at the initiation of the planning process,  headquarters provides general projections of funding for preconstruction  activities that will be available to the regions. On the basis of these  projections, each region then develops a plan for allocating these funds to  sites. Before finalizing this plan, each region holds planning discussions  with headquarters to discuss actions that can be accomplished during the  year and alters its plans, as needed, based on refined projections of  available funding from headquarters.
To allocate funding for remedial actions, EPA headquarters, in  consultation with the regions, determines funding priorities on a site-by- site basis. EPA’s Superfund Program Implementation Manual states that  sites with ongoing construction receive priority for funding over new  construction work. Headquarters develops the initial plan for ongoing  construction based on regional funding requests, projections of available  funding, and discussions with regional officials. As part of these  discussions, EPA headquarters and regional officials determine whether  and how to incrementally fund remedial actions, according to EPA  headquarters officials. According to an EPA headquarters official,  headquarters’ goal in allocating funds is to ensure that all sites with  ongoing construction continue to progress toward construction  completion while also funding some new construction projects. EPA  officials explained that demobilizing and remobilizing equipment and  infrastructure at a site once construction has begun is costly and an  inefficient use of resources. Therefore, if EPA cannot fully fund ongoing  construction at a site, the agency attempts to fund the site at a level that  maintains at least a minimal level of construction to avoid demobilizing  equipment and infrastructure. In addition, EPA headquarters works with  the regions to adjust the amount of funding provided to sites throughout  the year as cleanup circumstances change.
For new construction, EPA’s National Risk-Based Priority Panel— comprising EPA regional and headquarters program experts—evaluates  the risk with respect to human health and the environment to establish  funding priorities for all new construction projects in the remedial  program. To evaluate sites, the panel uses five criteria and associated  weighting factors to compare projects. These criteria are the extent of  risks to the exposed human population; contaminant stability;  contaminant characteristics; threat to a significant environment; and  program management considerations, such as state involvement and high- profile projects. Using the priority ranking process ensures that funding  decisions for new projects are based on the use of common evaluation  criteria that emphasize risk to human health and the environment.
In addition to annual funding, EPA’s Superfund program received $600  million in Recovery Act funds in fiscal year 2009 and allocated $582 million  for remedial cleanup activities. EPA officials explained that EPA  prioritized these Recovery Act funds in a manner similar to that for annual  remedial action funding, with funds targeted first toward sites with  ongoing construction and then toward new projects that were  construction-ready. According to EPA officials, when identifying sites to  receive Recovery Act funding, EPA also considered additional factors,  such as the jobs that could be created. However, EPA officials noted that  identifying the number of jobs created was difficult and that the criteria in  the Office of Management and Budget’s initial guidance for disbursing  Recovery Act funds were not clear on how to calculate the number of jobs  created. Therefore, EPA officials said that they used the ability to spend  funds quickly as a surrogate for creating and retaining jobs when  prioritizing sites to receive Recovery Act funds. Furthermore, EPA  officials noted that it is difficult to quantify the number of jobs created  because, while contractors involved in site remediation reported data on  jobs created, subcontractors did not.
EPA ultimately chose 51 sites to receive Recovery Act funding. According  to EPA, 25 of these sites received funding for ongoing construction, 24  received funding for new construction, and 2 received funding for both  ongoing and new construction. EPA officials reported that the use of  Recovery Act funding will decrease the overall cleanup costs at some sites  and accelerate the pace of cleanup at a majority of the sites receiving this  funding. At the Gilt Edge Mine site in South Dakota, for example, EPA  officials noted that construction for a portion of the cleanup project  should be completed 1 year ahead of schedule because EPA allocated $3.5  million in Recovery Act funds to the site. Appendix IV provides additional  details about sites that received Recovery Act funding.
section_title: Limited Funding Has Delayed Preconstruction Activities and Remedial Actions at Some Sites and Can Impact State Cleanup Programs
paragraphs: EPA officials from several regions told us that their regions currently  receive about half or less than half of the funding they could use for  preconstruction activities. For example, Region 2 officials said that their  region currently receives about half the preconstruction funding it could  use and that officials try to be flexible and creative in using the funding the  region does receive to conduct work in the most efficient manner possible.  Several EPA officials noted that limited funding available for  preconstruction activities not only extends the length of time it takes to  prepare a site for construction, but it can ultimately increase the overall  costs for cleaning up the site as well. According to our survey, which  collected data on fiscal years 2000 through 2009, most regions have sites  that have experienced delays in the preconstruction phase because of  insufficient funding. For example, officials in Region 3 noted that the  Jackson Ceramics site located in Pennsylvania was delayed in fiscal year  2005 because, when prioritizing sites to receive funding for  preconstruction activities, the Jackson Ceramics site was considered  lower risk compared with other sites in the region and, therefore, received  no funds. Instead, Region 3 funded other sites that posed a higher risk or  were farther along in the preconstruction phase. In addition, Region 10 did  not fully fund preconstruction activities at the Bunker Hill Mining site in  Idaho from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2009—which extended work  schedules and stopped some design work—because of a lack of funding  for preconstruction activities. Region 10 officials explained that the region  reduced funding for preconstruction activities at this site so that the  region could allocate funding across more sites in the region.
As previously discussed for sites with unacceptable human exposure, sites  with ongoing construction have experienced delays caused by limited  funding, according to EPA officials. Since fiscal year 2000, most regions  have experienced delays because of insufficient funding at one or more  sites with ongoing construction, according to responses to our survey. For  example, the Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt site in Missouri received $10  million a year in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 instead of the $15 million that  regional officials said they could have used to clean up the site in the most  efficient manner. These officials reported that the limited funding has  delayed the completion of the remedial action and resulted in significant  cost increases. In addition, the New Bedford Harbor site in Massachusetts  has received $15 million per year instead of the $50 to $80 million per year  that a regional official said the region could use to complete construction  in the most efficient manner. According to several EPA regional officials,  delays in funding for sites with ongoing construction increase the length of  time it takes to clean up a site; the total cost of cleanup; and, in some  cases, the length of time populations are exposed to contaminants.
In addition, funding limitations have caused delays at sites that were ready  to begin new construction. According to EPA Superfund Accomplishment  Reports, between fiscal years 2004 and 2008, 54 sites, or over one-third of  all sites ready for new construction funding, were not funded in the year  that they were ready to begin construction, and some sites were not  funded for several years after they were construction-ready. For example,  in Region 4, funding limitations caused a 2-year delay at the Sigmon’s  Septic Tank Service site in North Carolina—a site with potential exposure  risks to residents and trespassers from contaminated soil—even though it  was ready to begin construction in October 2007. EPA allocated Recovery  Act funding to this site in September 2009, which allowed EPA to remove  the contaminated soil, eliminating the threat of direct contact to nearby  residents and trespassers at the site. According to EPA headquarters  officials, 25 sites needing new construction funding in fiscal year 2009  would most likely not have received funding had Recovery Act funding not  been available. A representative from the Association of State and  Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials pointed to the Superfund  program’s ability to quickly absorb about $582 million in Recovery Act  funds as evidence of limited funding for construction activities.
Limited funding can also impact state cleanup programs, which sometimes  take the lead in cleaning up seriously contaminated sites that are not listed  on the NPL, according to EPA and state officials. A study conducted by the  Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials  found that funding for prelisting activities offers benefits beyond the  Superfund program by providing valuable data, such as the data obtained  during prelisting site assessments and investigations, which help state  cleanup programs remediate sites that are not listed on the NPL. Several  state officials said that, because their states have received less funding  from EPA for these investigations than in the past, the number of  assessments they have been able to perform has been limited.
section_title: Most EPA Regional and Selected State Officials Expect an Increase in the Number of Sites Added to the NPL over the Next 5 Years but Cannot Estimate the Cleanup Costs
paragraphs: Most of the EPA regional officials and state officials we interviewed told  us they expect the number of sites listed on the NPL over the next 5 years  will be greater than the number listed in the past 5 years. However, neither  EPA regional officials nor state officials were able to provide cost  estimates for many of the sites they expect will be added to the NPL.
subsections: section_title: EPA and State Officials Expect an Increase in the Number of Sites Listed over the Next 5 Years
paragraphs: EPA regional officials estimate that from 101 to 125 sites—an average of  20 to 25 sites per year—will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years.  This is higher than the 79 sites—an average of about 16 sites per year— added from fiscal years 2005 to 2009. Overall, our analysis of these  estimates shows that listings could increase by 28 to 58 percent. As table 2  shows, all EPA regions expect that the number of sites added to the NPL  over the next 5 years from their region could increase. According to EPA  headquarters officials, the number of sites proposed for listing over time  has decreased as a result of the expanded use of other cleanup programs,  including state programs. Most of the officials who expect an increase in  listings noted that current economic conditions—which can limit states’  abilities to clean up sites under their own programs and responsible  parties’ abilities to pay for cleanup—are a contributing factor to the  expected increase in listed sites.
Most of the officials we spoke with in the 10 selected states also expect  that the number of sites listed from their states over the next 5 years could  increase above the number of sites listed over the past 5 years, as table 3  shows. For example, officials from the Michigan Department of Natural  Resources and Environment said that they expect EPA to list five sites  from Michigan to the NPL over the next 5 years, even though no sites have  been listed from their state since 1996. These officials noted that the  Superfund program has traditionally been a program of last resort, but  declining resources in their state’s cleanup program have renewed  Michigan’s interest in cleaning sites up through the federal program.  Similarly, while EPA did not list any sites from Maine over the past 5 years,  officials from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection expect  that one to two sites may be added to the NPL over the next 5 years. An  official explained that potential bankruptcies by responsible parties at one  site may require that the state seek assistance in cleaning up the site  through the federal Superfund program.
EPA and state officials noted that the number of sites actually listed over  the next 5 years could vary from their projections because of a number of  uncertainties. For example, all the EPA regional officials we spoke with  told us that economic conditions can affect the number of sites added to  the NPL, and several of these officials told us that the number of sites  listed from their region could increase above their projection if economic  conditions do not improve. Many EPA regional officials noted that sites  currently being cleaned up under state programs and by responsible  parties may require assistance through the federal Superfund program if  these groups face financial hardship, such as bankruptcy. In addition,  some EPA and state officials identified EPA’s policy for obtaining state  concurrence for listing as a factor that could limit the number of sites  added to the NPL if EPA is unable to obtain this concurrence. Officials  from several EPA regions noted that particular states are resistant to  listing because of financial or political concerns, and a few EPA regional  officials and state officials mentioned difficulty in obtaining state  concurrence for some sites.
In addition to the number of sites that could be listed, the number of sites  eligible for the NPL could increase if EPA begins to assess, as a part of its  listing process, the risk of vapor intrusion caused by subsurface hazardous  substances that have migrated via the air into homes and commercial  properties. Although sites with vapor intrusion can pose considerable  human health risks, EPA’s HRS—the mechanism used to identify sites that  qualify for NPL listing—does not currently recognize these risks;  therefore, unless a site with vapor intrusion is listed on some other basis— such as groundwater contamination, EPA cannot clean up the site using  remedial program funding. Many EPA regional officials and state officials  noted that vapor intrusion is a concern, and several of these officials told  us that they believe additional sites would be eligible for listing if  assessments of vapor intrusion are included as part of the listing process.  According to an EPA headquarters official, based on recent discussions  with regional officials, up to 37 sites could be eligible for NPL listing if  EPA includes vapor intrusion assessments as part of the listing process.  However, according to EPA headquarters officials, EPA must first  determine whether or not it can consider the vapor intrusion pathway  under its existing HRS regulations, and it has not yet made such a  determination. While these sites are not currently eligible for NPL listing,  the EPA headquarters official noted that EPA is addressing vapor intrusion  at 13 of these sites through its Superfund removal program; however, this  official also told us that, when conducting removal actions, EPA is limited  in its ability to fully remediate the source of contamination. For example,  according to an official from the Montana Department of Environmental  Quality, preliminary data collected at the Billings PCE site—which the  official noted is not eligible for NPL listing—indicated vapor intrusion in  buildings, and EPA conducted a removal action at this site. However,  according to this official, it is unclear whether the removal action was  effective in mitigating the vapor intrusion contamination, and people may  continue to be exposed. In addition, this official noted that Montana has  many sites with vapor intrusion from contaminants such as chlorinated  solvents, which can cause cancer. If EPA cannot list these sites on the NPL  on another basis, EPA will not be able to fund remedial actions at these  sites, and continued exposure to carcinogens is possible if other cleanup  programs do not remove the risks at these sites.
In November 2002, EPA issued draft guidance on evaluating vapor  intrusion at NPL sites. However, a December 2009 EPA Inspector  General’s report found that EPA had not updated this guidance to reflect  current science and recommended that EPA issue final guidance to  establish current agency policy on the evaluation and mitigation of vapor  intrusion risks. EPA headquarters officials told us that, in response to  this report, EPA is beginning discussions to update the vapor intrus ion  guidance.
section_title: EPA and State Officials Could Not Provide Cost Estimates for Many of the Sites They Expect Will Be Added to the NPL over the Next 5 Years
paragraphs: Neither EPA regional officials nor state officials we contacted were able to  provide cost estimates for many of the sites they expect to be added to the  NPL over the next 5 years. Furthermore, when these officials were able to  provide cost estimates, most of them were imprecise figures based on  limited knowledge and best professional judgment. For example, while  New Jersey officials expect 15 to 25 sites to be added to the NPL from  their state over the next 5 years, these officials noted that most of these  sites are not expected to be megasites and the average cost of cleaning up  most of the sites will probably be around $10 to $25 million. Officials also  explained that they could not provide cost estimates for some of the sites,  because the type and extent of contamination is not yet known. In  addition, some officials based their 5-year projection on past listings and  have not identified the actual sites that may be listed. For example,  officials with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality noted that  one site in Virginia could be listed over the next 5 years, but the officials  could not provide an estimated cost for cleaning up this site because it has  not yet been identified. Therefore, it is impossible to accurately estimate  what the cost may be to clean up these unknown sites. While EPA regional  officials and state officials were not able to provide cost estimates for  many of the sites they expect to be added to the NPL, we reported in July  2009 that the average amount EPA spent to clean up individual sites has  increased in recent years. In that report, we found that individual site  costs may have increased because the sites on the NPL now are more  complex than in the past, construction costs have been rising, and EPA  has not been able to identify as many responsible parties to fund site  cleanups as in the past, leaving a higher share for EPA to fund.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Congress enacted CERCLA to decrease the risk to human health and the  environment posed by hazardous waste sites. However, some sites that  EPA has identified as among the most seriously contaminated have  involved long and costly cleanups, leading to protracted risks of human  exposure to hazardous substances. Not long after the authority for the  taxes that served as its main source of revenue expired in 1995, the  Superfund trust fund started to diminish. Further, appropriated funding for  cleanups has declined over time in real dollars, and the limited funding has  caused delays in cleaning up some sites in recent years. 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.
Compounding these challenges, EPA may not be listing some sites that  pose health risks that are serious enough that the sites should be  considered for inclusion on the NPL. While EPA is assessing vapor  intrusion contamination at listed NPL sites, EPA does not assess the  relative risks posed by vapor intrusion when deciding which sites to  include on the NPL. By not including these risks, states may be left to  remediate those sites without federal assistance, and given states’  constrained budgets, some states may not have the ability to clean up  these sites on their own. Ultimately, assessing the relative risk of vapor  intrusion could lead to an increase in the number of sites listed on the NPL  and thereby place additional demands on already limited funds in the  Superfund program. However, if these sites are not assessed and, if  needed, listed on the NPL, some seriously contaminated hazardous waste  sites with unacceptable human exposure may not otherwise be cleaned  up.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To better identify sites that may be added to the NPL, we recommend that  the Administrator of EPA determine the extent to which EPA will consider  vapor intrusion as part of the NPL listing process and how this will affect  the number of sites listed in the future.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft copy of this report to EPA for review and comment.  We received a written response from the Assistant Administrator for the  Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response that also included  comments from EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance  and Office of the Chief Financial Officer. EPA agreed with our  recommendation and noted that, while the agency currently considers  vapor intrusion impacts in both the remedial and removal programs, EPA  is evaluating whether vapor intrusion needs to be more specifically  addressed in the HRS model. EPA also noted that our report contains  substantial useful information on very important subjects relating to the  Superfund Program.
In its comments, EPA also noted two issues that it believed require  additional clarification. First, regarding its human exposure measure, EPA  stated that it is important to highlight that people are not typically in  danger of immediate harm at sites with unacceptable human exposure.  EPA explained that, when acute health threats are identified, the agency  takes immediate action to address the threats using its removal authority  and, in other situations, works to characterize the risks at these sites. We  agree with EPA and note in our report that EPA conducts removal actions  at sites that pose immediate threats to human health or the environment.  We also note that EPA has plans to control human exposure at all sites  with unacceptable human exposure. EPA also commented that it does not  use the term “unknown” when referring to sites that it has identified as  having “insufficient data to determine human exposure control status.”  EPA noted that this term does not reflect EPA’s efforts in characterizing a  site to determine whether people are exposed at unsafe levels at a site.  While we recognize that EPA may have collected and analyzed some data  regarding a site’s human exposure status, EPA’s determination of  insufficient data to determine human exposure control status shows that it  has not yet made a determination about a site’s status. For this reason— and for ease of reporting—in this report we refer to EPA’s determination  of “insufficient data to determine human exposure control status” as  “unknown” human exposure.
Second, EPA recognized our report’s finding that regional cost estimates  are likely understated, since the estimates do not include funding for sites  where a responsible party is currently funding remedial construction but  may be unable to do so in the future. While EPA does not dispute that the  regional cost estimates are likely understated, EPA believes that we  should recognize that, in cases where responsible parties are conducting  remedial construction under existing settlement agreements, those  agreements require those parties to maintain financial assurance  mechanisms to ensure that response actions are completed. In addition,  EPA noted that it has made considerable efforts to ensure that these  mechanisms are in place for existing and new response settlements, and  these financial assurances would provide funding for cleanup under  existing settlements. EPA also acknowledged, however, that for sites  where potentially responsible parties are experiencing financial difficulty  and have not yet reached a settlement with EPA, the parties may be unable  to complete cleanups in the future, which would increase the burden on  EPA’s Superfund trust fund. We agree with EPA’s assessment; however, in  response to our survey, EPA regional officials told us that they were  slightly or not at all confident that a responsible party would fund future  remedial actions at 27 sites. We also state in our report that funds from a  settlement agreement may be available for site cleanup at some sites, but  regional officials told us that responsible parties may be financially unable  to perform the remedy or fund future cleanup at other sites and, in those  situations, EPA’s trust fund may have to fund future cleanup. EPA’s  comments are presented in appendix V of this report. 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 appropriate  congressional committees, Administrator of EPA, Director of the Office of  Management and Budget, and other interested parties. The report also will  be available at no charge on the GAO Web site 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 stephensonj@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 VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the scope of work and the  methodology used to determine (1) the cleanup and funding status at  currently listed nonfederal National Priorities List (NPL) sites with  unacceptable or unknown human exposure; (2) what is known about the  future costs to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to complete  remedial actions at nonfederal NPL sites that are not construction  complete; (3) the process EPA uses to allocate remedial program funding;  and (4) how many sites EPA and selected state officials expect will be  added to the NPL over the next 5 years, and what they expect the future  costs of cleaning up those sites will be.
To determine the cleanup and funding status at the 75 sites with  unacceptable human exposure and the 164 sites with unknown human  exposure, we surveyed branch chiefs from each of the 10 EPA regions and  received responses from October 2009 through November 2009. Through  our survey, we obtained and analyzed information from each of the  regions on the cleanup work that remains, human exposure risks, short- term planned actions to reduce exposure, long-term actions needed to  eliminate exposure, expected time until human exposure risks will be  under control or known, future estimated costs of remedial actions,  whether American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act)  funding will be used to control human exposure, delays due to constrained  funding, and the impact of any limited funding at these sites. In addition,  we obtained some limited documentation to support regional officials’  cost estimates provided in the survey. We also analyzed data from EPA’s  Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability  Information System (CERCLIS) to determine when sites were listed, what  cleanup actions have been taken at sites, which sites are construction  complete, and which sites are megasites. We analyzed expenditure  (outlay) data from EPA’s Integrated Financial Management System for all  final and deleted nonfederal NPL sites to determine how much EPA has  spent on these sites. Moreover, to obtain additional information on human  exposure risks, we searched EPA’s Superfund Site Information System.  We analyzed data on exposure risks from our survey and the Superfund  Site Information System to determine the types of contaminants present,  the types of contaminated media present, and the exposed populations at  the sites. We also discussed the human exposure indicator with EPA  headquarters and regional officials and reviewed EPA guidance on this  indicator.
To determine what is known about future costs to EPA to complete  remedial actions at nonfederal NPL sites, we collected data through our  survey of all EPA regions to obtain information about the 416 nonfederal  sites that are not construction complete. Through our survey, we obtained  and analyzed data on annual and total estimated costs to EPA to conduct  remedial actions in the most efficient manner, the entity responsible for  funding cleanup, and EPA’s confidence in responsible parties’ ability to  fund future remedial actions. In addition, we obtained information on total  funding amounts that EPA provided for remedial actions for fiscal years  2000 to 2009 from EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Environmental  Response. Finally, we discussed the cost estimating process with EPA  headquarters and regional officials and reviewed EPA’s guidance on cost  estimating.
To determine how EPA allocates remedial program funding, we  interviewed EPA headquarters officials and regional officials from each of  the 10 EPA regions about the process they use to prioritize sites to receive  funding. We also discussed the process EPA used to allocate Recovery Act  funding for the Superfund program with headquarters officials.  Additionally, we reviewed EPA guidance and planning documents to  identify the process for assigning annual and Recovery Act funding. In  addition, through our survey, we obtained and analyzed information from  each of the 10 EPA regions on the 51 sites receiving Recovery Act funding  to determine how much funding each site received and whether the use of  the funding is decreasing costs of cleanup and/or accelerating cleanup. We  also obtained data through our survey on delays at sites with ongoing  construction. Moreover, to identify sites that were delayed when ready to  begin construction, we reviewed Superfund Accomplishment Reports  from 2004 through 2008. In addition, we spoke with representatives from  the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials  to obtain their perspectives on delays in cleanup.
To determine how many sites EPA officials expect will be added to the  NPL over the next 5 years and what they expect the cost of cleaning up  those sites to be, we conducted semistructured telephone interviews of  NPL coordinators in each EPA region. In addition, through these  interviews, we obtained information about factors that have affected the  number of listings in the past and factors that may affect the number of  listings in the future. We also interviewed EPA headquarters officials to  obtain their perspectives on future listings and factors—including vapor  intrusion—that may affect listings. Finally, to compare the projected  numbers of future listings with past listings, we analyzed data from EPA’s  CERCLIS database on sites that have been listed to the NPL from each  region.
To determine how many sites selected state officials expect will be added  to the NPL over the next 5 years and what they expect the cost of cleaning  up those sites to be, we interviewed state hazardous waste agency officials  from 10 states: California, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan,  Montana, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington. We selected these states  using a nonprobability sample, consisting of one state from each of EPA’s  10 regions and selected to ensure that we would obtain information from  states that vary in the total number of sites listed over the past 10 years.  We conducted telephone interviews with officials from each of these  states to obtain information about potential site listings from their state,  the costs to clean up those sites, and factors that may affect the number of  sites actually listed over the next 5 years. We also discussed the site  assessment process, listing process, and potential future listings with an  official from the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste  Management Officials. Finally, we compared the projected numbers of  future listings with past listings by analyzing data from EPA’s CERCLIS  database on sites that have been listed to the NPL from each of the 10  states.
To assess the reliability of the data from EPA’s databases used in this  report, we analyzed related documentation, examined the data to identify  obvious errors or inconsistencies, and worked with agency officials to  identify data problems. To ensure the reliability of the data collected  through our survey of the 10 EPA regions, we took a number of steps to  reduce measurement error, nonresponse error, and respondent bias. These  steps included conducting three pretests prior to distributing the survey to  ensure that our questions were clear, precise, and consistently interpreted;  reviewing responses to identify obvious errors or inconsistencies; and  conducting follow-up interviews with officials to review and clarify  responses. We determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the  purposes of this report.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2009 to May 2010, 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.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Survey of Superfund Sites
paragraphs: We surveyed regional officials from EPA’s 10 regions using all of the  questions below as stated here. We provided these questions to the regions  in an Excel spreadsheet that identified the sites pertaining to each  question. We have grouped the questions below to list all questions that  pertain to a particular universe of sites.
A. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites that  were not construction complete, as of September 30, 2009.  1.  Who is currently leading remedial actions at this site? If the site has  not yet had a remedial action, who is anticipated to lead remedial  actions at this site?  a.  Potentially Responsible Party(s)  b.  EPA (Fund-lead)  c.  State  d.  Federal Facility  e.  Mixed (Potentially Responsible Party & Fund-lead)  f.  Mixed (Potentially Responsible Party & State)  g.  Mixed (Potentially Responsible Party & Federal) 2.  How confident are you that a viable Potentially Responsible Party(s)  will fund future remedial actions at this site?  a.  Very confident  b.  Moderately confident  c.  Slightly confident  d.  Not at all confident/No viable Potentially Responsible Party(s)  e.  Don’t know  3.  What is the projected fiscal year the site will be construction  complete?  a.  FY 2009  b.  FY 2010  c.  FY 2011  d.  FY 2012  e.  FY 2013  f.  FY 2014  g.  FY 2015  h.  FY 2016  i.  FY 2017  j.  FY 2018  k.  FY 2019  l.  FY 2020  m.  FY 2021  n.  FY 2022  o.  FY 2023  p.  After FY 2023  4.  Given what is currently known about contamination at this site,  how much work remains to complete construction? a.  No work remains  b.  Less than half the work remains  c.  About half the work remains  d.  More than half the work remains  e.  All work remains  f.  Unknown  5.  Given what is currently known about contamination at this site,  what is the approximate projected cost to EPA to complete  construction in the most efficient manner? (in millions of dollars)  If there is no cost to EPA because a Potentially Responsible Party  is funding ALL remedial actions at a site, please check the box  for No Cost to EPA.
FY 2015  and  beyond  $  6.  What information are you using to make these cost projections?  7.  If you cannot provide cost projections for one or more years,  please explain why they are not available.  8.  Is a Long Term Remedial Action planned at this site? If yes, please  provide the estimated total cost to EPA of the LTRA (in millions).
B. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites with  unacceptable human exposure, as of September 30, 2009.  1.  In what fiscal year did EPA determine that there was an unacceptable  risk of human exposure at this site?  a.  Prior to FY 1999  b.  FY 1999  c.  FY 2000  d.  FY 2001  e.  FY 2002  f.  FY 2003  g.  FY 2004  h.  FY 2005  i.  FY 2006  j.  FY 2007  k.  FY 2008  l.  FY 2009  m.  Unknown 2.  In what fiscal year do you expect human exposure to be controlled at  this site?  a.  FY 2009  b.  FY 2010  c.  FY 2011  d.  FY 2012  e.  FY 2013  f.  FY 2014  g.  FY 2015  h.  After FY 2015  i.  Unknown 3.  Please provide a description of the actual or potential for human  exposure. For each site, please describe the actual or potential for  current human exposure, including the physical setting, populations  affected, exposure pathways, contaminants, and health risks, if  known.  4.  What are EPA or other parties doing in the short-term to contain the  risk of exposure or the actual human exposure?  5.  What will EPA or other parties do in the long-term to eliminate the risk  of exposure or the actual human exposure?
C. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites with  unknown human exposure, as of September 30, 2009.  1.  In what fiscal year did EPA determine that there was insufficient data  to assess if there was an unacceptable risk of human exposure at this  site?  a.  Prior to FY 1999  b.  FY 1999  c.  FY 2000  d.  FY 2001  e.  FY 2002  f.  FY 2003  g.  FY 2004  h.  FY 2005  i.  FY 2006  j.  FY 2007  k.  FY 2008  l.  FY 2009  m.  Unknown 2.  In what fiscal year do you expect to know whether human exposure is  under control at this site?  b.  FY 2010  c.  FY 2011  d.  FY 2012  e.  FY 2013  g.  FY 2015  h.  After FY 2015  i.  Unknown  3.  Why is there insufficient data to determine whether human exposure is  under control?  4.  Please describe the potential for human exposure at this site.
D. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites (1)  with unacceptable human exposure, (2) with unknown human  exposure, and/or (3) that were not construction complete, as of  September 30, 2009.  1.  From FY 2000 to FY 2009, for which years, if any, were pipeline  activities delayed at this site due to constrained funding?  2.  Did this site receive funding to begin construction in the fiscal year  when it was ready? If not, for how many years did the site not receive  construction funding?  a)  Yes - site received funding when construction ready  b)  No - construction delayed 1 year  c)  No - construction delayed 2 years  d)  No - construction delayed 3 years  e)  No - construction delayed 4 years  f)  No - construction delayed 5 years  g)  No - construction delayed more than 5 years  h)  N/A - Site has not reached construction phase  i)  N/A - Construction funded by Potentially Responsible Party(s)
If cleanup was not funded when the site was construction-ready, please  describe the impacts, if any, of the delay.  3.  From FY 2000 to FY 2009, for which years, if any, were ongoing  remedial actions delayed at the site due to constrained funding?  a.  For years in which ongoing remedial actions were delayed, how  much funding was needed to clean up the site in the most efficient  manner? (in millions)  b.  For years in which ongoing remedial actions were delayed, how  much funding was received? (in millions)  c.  Please explain the source of the funding numbers in your  responses for parts (a) and (b).  d.  What was the impact, if any, of the delay in cleanup?  e.  Have delays increased the total cost of construction at this site?
Please briefly explain your response.
E. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites which  EPA designated to receive Recovery Act funds.  1.  How much Recovery Act, or stimulus funding, has or will this site  receive? Please respond in millions of dollars.  2.  Will stimulus funds be used at this site for (1) beginning new  construction at a site with no previous remedial actions, (2) beginning  new construction at an operable unit at a site with previous remedial  actions, and/or (3) supporting ongoing remedial actions?  3.  Would construction have been delayed in the absence of this stimulus  funding? Please choose an option below and briefly explain your  response.  a.  Yes  b.  No  c.  Unknown  4.  Will stimulus funds accelerate the pace of construction? Please choose  an option below and briefly explain your response. a.  Yes  b.  No  c.  Unknown  5.  Will the stimulus funds decrease the total cost of construction at this  site? Please choose an option below and briefly explain your response.  a.  Yes  b.  No  c.  Unknown 6.  Will the use of stimulus funding control human exposure at this site?
Please choose an option below and briefly explain your response.  a.  Yes, completely  b.  Yes, partially  c.  No  d.  Not applicable  e.  Unknown  7.  Please describe your region’s involvement, if any, in identifying sites to  receive stimulus funding.
section_title: Appendix III: Sites with Unacceptable Human Exposure
paragraphs: As of the end of fiscal year 2009, EPA identified 75 nonfederal sites on the  NPL as having unacceptable human exposure. The human exposure at  these 75 sites is due to a variety of contaminants that may be present in  soil, groundwater, sediments, or other media at the site and may impact  areas where people live, work, and recreate. As figure 7 shows, the most  common medium of concern at sites with unacceptable human exposure  is soil, with 42 sites containing this medium of concern. The next most  common media are fish or shellfish, sediment, and groundwater. Many  sites had more than one medium of concern. For example, the Caldwell  Trucking Co. site in New Jersey has four media of concern: soil,  groundwater, surface water, and indoor air. At this site, groundwater  contaminated with solvents is seeping onto surface soils and discharging  into surface-water streams in a residential area, and the solvents may have  potentially migrated from groundwater to indoor air, posing a risk of vapor  intrusion.
The contaminants that most commonly cause unacceptable human  exposure are lead, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), arsenic, and metals  other than lead. Some sites contained several contaminants, present in  different media. For example, the Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. site in  Virginia contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),  pentachlorophenol (PCP), dioxins, and heavy metals present in soil and  shellfish, as well as creosote present in sediments. As a result of the  variety of contaminants and contaminated media, there are multiple risks  at the site, including risks to (1) recreational users of the river who could  come into direct contact with sediments contaminated with creosote, (2)  consumers of large quantities of shellfish exposed to unacceptably high  levels of contaminants, and (3) workers at the Atlantic Wood Industries  concrete manufacturing business who are exposed to surface soils at the  site.
Residents of contaminated areas are the population most commonly  exposed to unacceptable exposures at the 75 sites, with over half of the  sites posing a contaminant risk to residents on or nearby the site,  according to the data collected through our survey. In addition,  contaminated waterways, including rivers, lakes, and harbors, pose  unacceptable risks to those who consume contaminated fish caught from  these areas. Risks to workers and other commercial tenants and those  who recreate at contaminated sites are present at fewer sites. The exposed  populations face different health risks based on the contaminants present  at the site. For example, consuming PCB in fish may cause liver disease,  problems with the immune and endocrine system, developmental  problems, and cancer, while human health threats from arsenic include  irritation of the stomach and intestines, blood vessel damage, reduced  nerve function, and increased mortality rates in young adults.
According to an EPA headquarters official responsible for overseeing the  human exposure indicator, the indicator demonstrates a high potential for  human exposure, but it does not always indicate that documented human  exposure is occurring at a site. The official explained that it can be  difficult to obtain evidence of actual human exposure; however, EPA has  been able to document exposure at some sites. For example, the Big River  Mine Tailings site contains lead-contaminated soils on residential  properties, and blood tests have shown elevated lead levels in children.  For some risks, however, such as consumption of contaminated fish, EPA  may not have evidence of actual ingestion of contaminated fish but does  have information suggesting that people are fishing in the area of concern.
Table 4 provides a description of the human exposure risks at the 75 sites,  as well as the fiscal year that EPA estimates human exposure will be under  control at those sites.
section_title: Appendix IV: Sites Receiving Recovery Act Funding
paragraphs: EPA identified 51 sites to receive Recovery Act funding. Table 5 provides  the amount of Recovery Act funds EPA allocated to each site and the  planned use of these funds.
section_title: Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Vincent Price, Assistant  Director; Deanna Laufer; Barbara Patterson; Kyerion Printup; and Beth  Reed Fritts made key contributions to this report. Elizabeth Beardsley,  Nancy Crothers, Pamela Davidson, Michele Fejfar, Carol Henn, and  Mehrzad Nadji also made important contributions.