Superfund: Trends in Federal Funding and Cleanup of EPA's Nonfederal National Priorities List Sites
Published: 2015-09-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Under the Superfund program, EPA places some of the most seriously contaminated sites on the NPL. At the end of fiscal year 2013, nonfederal sites made up about 90 percent of these sites. At these sites, EPA undertakes remedial action projects to permanently and significantly reduce contamination. Remedial action projects can take a considerable amount of time and money, depending on the nature of the contamination and other site-specific factors. In GAO's 2010 report on cleanup at nonfederal NPL sites, GAO found that EPA's Superfund program appropriations were generally declining, and limited funding had delayed remedial cleanup activities at some of these sites.
GAO was asked to review the status of the cleanup of nonfederal NPL sites. This report examines, for fiscal years 1999 through 2013, the trends in (1) the annual federal appropriations to the Superfund program and EPA expenditures for remedial cleanup activities at nonfederal sites on the NPL; and (2) the number of nonfederal sites on the NPL, the number of remedial action project completions, and the number of construction completions at nonfederal NPL sites. GAO analyzed Superfund program and expenditure data from fiscal years 1999 through 2013 (most recent year with complete data available), reviewed EPA documents, and interviewed EPA officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Annual federal appropriations to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund program generally declined from about $2 billion to about $1.1 billion in constant 2013 dollars from fiscal years 1999 through 2013. EPA expenditures—from these federal appropriations—of site-specific cleanup funds on remedial cleanup activities at nonfederal National Priorities List (NPL) sites declined from about $0.7 billion to about $0.4 billion during the same time period. Remedial cleanup activities include remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and remedial action projects (actions taken to clean up a site). EPA spent the largest amount of cleanup funds in Region 2, which accounted for about 32 percent of cleanup funds spent at nonfederal NPL sites during this 15-year period. The majority of cleanup funds was spent in seven states, with the most funds spent in New Jersey—over $2.0 billion in constant 2013 dollars, or more than 25 percent of cleanup funds.
From fiscal years 1999 through 2013, the total number of nonfederal sites on the NPL annually remained relatively constant, while the number of remedial action project completions and construction completions generally declined. Remedial action project completions generally occur when the physical work is finished and the cleanup objectives of the remedial action project are achieved. Construction completion occurs when all physical construction at a site is complete, all immediate threats have been addressed, and all long-term threats are under control. Multiple remedial action projects may need to be completed before a site reaches construction completion. The total number of nonfederal sites on the NPL increased from 1,054 in fiscal year 1999 to 1,158 in fiscal year 2013, and averaged about 1,100 annually. The number of remedial action project completions at nonfederal NPL sites generally declined by about 37 percent during the 15-year period. Similarly, the number of construction completions at nonfederal NPL sites generally declined by about 84 percent during the same period. The figure below shows the number of completions during this period.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. EPA agreed with GAO's findings.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and  Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 established the Superfund program to  protect human health and the environment from the effects of hazardous  substances. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the principal  agency responsible for administering the Superfund program. According  to EPA officials and agency documents, Superfund protects the American  public by cleaning up hazardous waste, contaminated sites, or releases  that pose an imminent or long-term risk of exposure and harm to human  health and the environment. EPA places some of the most seriously  contaminated sites on the National Priorities List (NPL), and cleanups of  these sites are often expensive and lengthy. At the end of fiscal year  2013, there were 1,315 sites on the NPL—1,158 nonfederal sites (about  90 percent) and 157 federal facilities. Over a 15-year period from fiscal  years 1999 through 2013, the Superfund program received almost $23  billion in federal appropriations in constant 2013 dollars, according to our  analysis of federal appropriations data.
Some of the contaminants present at NPL sites have included  polychlorinated biphenyls, lead, and arsenic. According to EPA  documents, the precise human health effect of many chemical mixtures at  NPL sites is uncertain. However, hazardous substances found at  Superfund sites have been linked to a variety of human health problems,  such as birth defects, cancer, changes in neurobehavioral functions, and  infertility.
Two basic types of cleanups are conducted under the Superfund  program: (1) remedial actions and (2) removal actions. Remedial actions  are generally long-term cleanups—consisting of one or more remedial  action projects—that aim to permanently and significantly reduce  contamination and which can take a considerable amount of time and  money, depending on the nature of the contamination and other site- specific factors. A remedial action project is generally the physical work  undertaken to address contamination at a site (e.g., sediment dredging or  construction of a landfill cap). Remedial action project completions  generally occur when the physical work is finished and the cleanup  objectives of the remedial action project are achieved. Multiple remedial  action projects may need to be completed before a site reaches  construction completion (i.e., when all physical construction at a site is  complete, all immediate threats have been addressed, and all long-term  threats are under control). Removal actions are usually short-term  cleanups for sites that pose immediate threats to human health or the  environment. Examples of removal actions include removing and properly  disposing of contaminated soil or other sources of hazardous materials  (e.g., drum barrels) to prevent the release of hazardous substances,  pollutants, or contaminants into the environment.
In prior reports, we have provided information on the status of the  nonfederal sites on the NPL. For example, based on our review of EPA  data for our 2009 report, we determined that the number of nonfederal  sites added to the NPL each year had on average declined from fiscal  years 1983 to 2007. In addition, the types of nonfederal sites added to the  NPL had also changed, as mining sites—among the most expensive sites  to clean up—were added to the NPL in greater numbers during this  period. We also determined that nonfederal NPL sites that had not yet  reached construction completion may be more complex and costly to  address. In our 2010 report, we found that federal appropriations to the  Superfund program were generally declining, and limited funding had  delayed remedial cleanup activities—which include remedial  investigations, feasibility studies, and remedial action projects—at some  nonfederal NPL sites.
You asked us to look at the current status of the cleanup of nonfederal  NPL sites. This report examines, for fiscal years 1999 through 2013, the  trends in (1) the annual federal appropriations to the Superfund program  and EPA expenditures on remedial cleanup activities at nonfederal sites  on the NPL and (2) the number of nonfederal sites on the NPL, the  number of remedial action project completions, and the number of  construction completions at nonfederal NPL sites.
For the first objective, we reviewed and analyzed Superfund program  funding and expenditure data for fiscal years 1999 through 2013. We  obtained expenditure data from EPA’s Integrated Financial Management  System for fiscal years 1999 through 2003, and from its replacement  financial system Compass, for fiscal years 2004 through 2013. For the  second objective, we analyzed EPA data for nonfederal NPL sites for  fiscal years 1999 through 2013. Specifically, we analyzed EPA data from  the agency’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,  and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database to summarize  trends in the number of new nonfederal sites added to the NPL, the  number of nonfederal sites deleted from the NPL, the number of remedial  action project completions, and the number of construction completions.  The scope of our analyses for both objectives varied from year-to-year  because we examined only nonfederal sites that were “active,” i.e., on the  NPL at any given point during the fiscal year. To address the objectives,  we reviewed agency documents, including for example, the Superfund  Program Implementation Manual, and interviewed EPA officials, including  officials from Region 2, which includes the state that had the most  nonfederal NPL sites in 2013. To assess the reliability of the data from  EPA’s databases used in this report, we reviewed relevant documents,  such as the 2013 CERCLIS data entry control plan and regions’  CERCLIS data entry control plans; examined the data to identify obvious  errors or inconsistencies; compared the data that we received to publicly  available data; and interviewed EPA officials. We determined the data to  be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. A more detailed  discussion of our objectives, scope, and methodology is presented in  appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2014 to September  2015 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 we obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Superfund process begins with the discovery of a potentially  hazardous site or notification to EPA of the possible release of hazardous  substances, pollutants, or contaminants that may threaten human health  or the environment. EPA’s regional offices may discover potentially  hazardous waste sites, or such sites may come to EPA’s attention  through reports from state agencies or citizens. As part of the site  assessment process, EPA regional offices use a screening system called  the Hazard Ranking System to guide decision making, and as needed, to  numerically assess the site’s potential to pose a threat to human health or  the environment. Those sites with sufficiently high scores are eligible to  be proposed for listing on the NPL. EPA regions submit sites to EPA  headquarters for possible listing on the NPL based on a variety of factors,  including the availability of alternative state or federal programs that may  be used to clean up the site. In addition, EPA officials have noted that, as  a matter of policy, EPA seeks concurrence from the Governor of the state  or state environmental agency head in which a site is located before  listing the site. Sites that EPA proposes to list on the NPL are published in  the Federal Register. After a period of public comment, EPA reviews the  comments and decides whether to formally list the sites on the NPL.
EPA places sites into the following six broad categories based on the type  of activity at the site that led to the release of hazardous material:
Manufacturing sites include wood preservation and treatment, metal  finishing and coating, electronic equipment, and other types of  manufacturing facilities.
Mining sites include mining operations for metals or other substances.  “Multiple” sites include sites with operations that fall into more than  one of EPA’s categories.  “Other” sites include sites that often have contaminated sediments or  groundwater plumes with no identifiable source.
Recycling sites include recycling operations for batteries, chemicals,  and oil recovery.
Waste management sites include landfills and other types of waste  disposal facilities.
After a site is listed on the NPL, EPA or a potentially responsible party  (PRP) will generally begin the remedial cleanup process (see fig. 1) 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 record of decision  (ROD) that identifies EPA’s selected remedy for addressing the  contamination. A ROD typically lays out the planned cleanup activities for  each operable unit of the site. EPA then plans the selected remedy  during the remedial design phase, which is then followed by the remedial  action phase when one or more remedial action projects are carried out.  The number of operable units and planned remedial action projects at a  site may increase or decrease over time as knowledge of site conditions  changes. 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. After construction completion, most sites then enter into the  post-construction phase, which includes actions such as operation and  maintenance during which the PRP or the state maintains the remedy  such as groundwater restoration or a landfill cover, and EPA ensures that  the remedy continues to protect human health and the environment.  Eventually, when EPA and the state determine that no further site  response is needed, EPA may delete the site from the NPL.
subsections: section_title: Measures to Communicate Physical Cleanup Progress
paragraphs: According to a 2000 Federal Register notice, during the first 10 years of  the Superfund program, the public often measured Superfund’s progress  in cleaning up sites by the number of sites deleted from the NPL as  compared to the number of sites on the NPL. However, according to the  same Federal Register notice, this measure did not recognize the  substantial construction and reduction of risk to human health and the  environment that had occurred at some NPL sites. In response, EPA  established the sitewide construction completion measure to more clearly  communicate to the public progress in cleaning up sites on the NPL.  Similarly, according to EPA documents, in 2010, to augment the sitewide  construction completion measure and reflect the amount of work being  done at Superfund sites, EPA developed and implemented a new  performance measure, remedial action project completions. EPA includes  these two performance measures in its Annual Performance Plan.
section_title: General Funding Methods for Cleanup of Nonfederal NPL Sites
paragraphs: The cleanup of nonfederal NPL sites is generally funded by one or a  combination of the following methods;
Potentially responsible parties are liable for conducting or paying for  site cleanup of hazardous substances.
In some cases, PRPs cannot be identified or may be unwilling or  financially unable to perform the cleanup. CERCLA authorizes EPA to  pay for cleanups at sites on the NPL, including these sites. To fund  EPA-led cleanups at nonfederal NPL sites, among other Superfund  program activities, CERCLA established the Hazardous Substance  Superfund Trust Fund (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. The authority to levy these  taxes expired in 1995. Since fiscal year 2001, appropriations from the  general fund have constituted the largest source of revenue for the  Trust Fund. About 80 percent of the funds EPA spent to clean up  nonfederal NPL sites from 1999 through 2013 came from annual  appropriations. The remaining roughly 20 percent came from special  accounts and state cost share. EPA has limited cost data where a  PRP has conducted the cleanup.
Under CERCLA, EPA is authorized to enter into settlement  agreements with PRPs to pay for cleanups, and EPA may retain and  use these funds for cleanups. Funds from these settlements may be  deposited into site-specific subaccounts in the Trust Fund, which are  referred to as “special accounts” and are generally used for future  cleanup actions at the sites associated with a specific settlement, or to  reimburse funds that EPA had previously used for response activities  at these sites. According to EPA documents, in fiscal year 2013, there  were a total of 993 open special accounts with an end of year balance  of about $1.7 billion. Most of these funds could be used for a limited  number of sites—for example, 3 percent of the open accounts  representing 33 sites had about 56 percent of the total special  account resources available.
States are required to pay 10 percent of Trust Fund-financed remedial  action cleanup costs and at least 50 percent of cleanup costs for  facilities that were operated by the state or any political subdivision of  the state at the time of any hazardous substances disposal at the  facility. States may pay their share of response costs using cash,  services, credit, or any combination thereof. Under CERCLA, states  are also required to assure provision of all future maintenance of a  Trust Fund-financed remedial action.
section_title: EPA’s New Information Management System
paragraphs: In fiscal year 2014, EPA updated its information system for the Superfund  program from CERCLIS to the Superfund Enterprise Management  System (SEMS). According to EPA officials and documents, SEMS  consolidated five stand-alone information systems and reporting tools into  one system. These systems include CERCLIS, the Superfund Document  Management System (SDMS), the Institutional Controls Tracking System  (ICTS), the eFacts reporting tool, and ReportLink. CERCLIS contained  information on, among other things, the contaminated sites’ cleanup  status and cleanup milestones reached. The SDMS was a national  electronic records collection system mostly with site cleanup records;  ICTS was a database with legal data related to controlling access to sites;  eFacts was a visual reporting tool that generated charts and graphs; and  ReportLink was a traditional reporting tool that allowed regions and  headquarters to share reports. According to EPA officials, SEMS should  be more user-friendly and provide more mobility, thus allowing EPA  regional staff to access the system in the field through various devices.  Currently, regions are in the process of entering data for each site into  SEMS. The process of converting entirely to SEMS has taken additional  time because, according to EPA officials, the complexity of the new  software and its difference from CERCLIS has created a more significant  obstacle than anticipated. In addition, EPA officials stated that the agency  will not be in a position to release data comparable to the data previously  shared from CERCLIS until EPA officials are confident that all regions  have mastered the software to update site schedules. According to EPA  officials, SEMS should be fully operable in fiscal year 2016.
section_title: Estimated U.S. Population Living within 3 Miles of a Nonfederal NPL Site
paragraphs: According to our analysis of EPA and Census data, as of fiscal year  2013, an estimated 39 million people—about 13 percent of the U.S.  population—lived within 3 miles of a nonfederal NPL site. Many of these  people—an estimated 14 million—were either under the age of 18 or 65  years and older, which EPA describes as sensitive subpopulations. EPA  Region 2 had the largest number of people living within 3 miles of a  nonfederal NPL site—an estimated 10 million or about one-third of the  region’s total population. Figure 2 provides information on the number of  nonfederal NPL sites in each region and the estimated number of people  that lived within 3 miles of those sites as of fiscal year 2013. The state of  New York had the largest number of people living within 3 miles of  nonfederal NPL sites—an estimated 6 million or about 29 percent of the  state’s population. The state of New Jersey had the largest percentage of  its estimated population living within 3 miles of a nonfederal NPL site— about 50 percent. Appendix II provides information on the estimated  population that lived within 3 miles of a nonfederal NPL site, by state, as  of fiscal year 2013.
section_title: Annual Federal Superfund Appropriations Decreased, and EPA Expenditures on Remedial Cleanup Activities Declined
paragraphs: Annual federal appropriations (appropriations) to EPA’s Superfund  program generally declined from about $2 billion to about $1.1 billion from  fiscal years 1999 through 2013. EPA expenditures—from these federal  appropriations—of site-specific cleanup funds (funds spent on remedial  cleanup activities at nonfederal NPL sites) declined from about $0.7  billion to about $0.4 billion during the same time period. Because EPA  prioritizes funding work that is ongoing, the decline in funding led EPA to  delay the start of about one-third of the new remedial action projects that  were ready to begin in a given fiscal year at nonfederal NPL sites from  fiscal years 1999 through 2013, according to EPA officials. EPA spent the  largest amount of cleanup funds in Region 2, which accounted for about  32 percent of cleanup funds spent at nonfederal NPL sites from fiscal  years 1999 through 2013. During the same time period, EPA spent the  majority of cleanup funds in seven states, with the most in New Jersey— over $2.0 billion or more than 25 percent of cleanup funds. According to  our analysis of EPA data, the median per-site annual expenditures for  cleanup at nonfederal NPL sites declined by about 48 percent from fiscal  years 1999 through 2013, and EPA spent the majority of cleanup funds  on an average of about 18 sites annually. Unless otherwise indicated, all  dollars and percentage calculations are in constant 2013 dollars.
subsections: section_title: Annual Federal Appropriations for the Superfund Program and EPA Expenditures of Site- Specific Cleanup Funds on Remedial Cleanup Activities Decreased
paragraphs: From fiscal years 1999 through 2013, the annual appropriations to EPA’s  Superfund program generally declined. Annual appropriations declined  from about $2 billion to about $1.1 billion—about 45 percent—from fiscal  years 1999 through 2013. Under the American Recovery and  Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), EPA’s Superfund program  received an additional $639 million in fiscal year 2009. Figure 3 shows  the annual federal appropriations from fiscal years 1999 through 2013.
EPA allocates annual appropriations to the Superfund program among  the remedial program and other Superfund program areas, such as  enforcement (see fig. 4). The remedial program generally funds cleanups  of contaminated nonfederal NPL sites. EPA headquarters allocates funds  for the remedial program to various categories: payroll and other  administrative activities; preconstruction and other activities (such as  remedial investigations and feasibility studies); and construction (such as  remedial action projects) and post-construction activities. EPA allocates  funds for preconstruction and other activities to its regional offices using a  model based on a combination of historical allocations and a scoring  system based on regions’ projects planned for the upcoming year. Each  region decides how it will spend funds allocated by headquarters for its  preconstruction and other remedial activities. EPA headquarters, in  consultation with the regions, allocates site-specific cleanup funds for  construction and post-construction activities between ongoing work and  new remedial action projects.
From fiscal years 1999 through 2013, the decline in appropriations to the  Superfund program led EPA to decrease expenditures of site-specific  cleanup funds on remedial cleanup activities from about $0.7 billion to  about $0.4 billion. We define site-specific cleanup funds as those funds  spent on preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction, which  comprise remedial cleanup activities. Expenditures of Recovery Act funds  account for the increase in cleanup funds expenditures from fiscal years  2009 through 2011. Figure 5 shows EPA’s expenditures of cleanup  funds at nonfederal NPL sites for fiscal years 1999 through 2013.
section_title: EPA’s Prioritization of Ongoing Work in the Context of Decreased Funding Delayed the Start of Some New Remedial Action Projects
paragraphs: EPA policy prioritizes funding ongoing work over starting new remedial  action projects. EPA officials explained that funding ongoing work is  prioritized for a variety of reasons, such as the risk of recontamination  and the additional cost of demobilizing and remobilizing equipment and  infrastructure at a site. To establish funding priorities for new remedial  action projects, EPA’s National Risk-Based Priority Panel (Panel)— comprised of EPA regional and headquarters program experts—ranks  new remedial action projects based on their relative risk to human health  and the environment. The Panel uses five criteria to evaluate proposed  new remedial action projects: (1) risks to human population exposed  (e.g., population size and proximity to contaminants), (2) contaminant  stability (e.g., use and effectiveness of institutional controls like warning  signs), (3) contaminant characteristics (e.g. concentration and toxicity),  (4) threat to a significant environmental concern (e.g., endangered  species or their critical habitat), and (5) program management  considerations (e.g., high-profile projects). Each criterion is ranked on a  weighted scale of one to five with the highest score for any criterion being  five. According to EPA documents, the priority ranking process ensures  that funding decisions for new remedial action projects are based on  common evaluation criteria that emphasize risk to human health and the  environment. The Panel then recommends the new projects to fund to the  Assistant Administrator of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency  Response who makes the final funding decisions.
A decline in funding delayed the start of some new remedial action  projects, according to EPA officials. Over the 15-year time period from  fiscal years 1999 through 2013, EPA generally did not fund all of the new  remedial action projects that were ready to begin in a given fiscal year,  according to our analysis of EPA data, (see table 1). During this time,  EPA did not fund about one-third of the new remedial action projects in  the year in which they were ready to start. According to EPA officials in  headquarters and Region 2, delays in starting new remedial action  projects can potentially lead to elevated costs. For example, site  conditions can change, such as contaminants migrating at a groundwater  site, which will require recharacterization of the location. Also the extent  of the contamination may change or adjustments may be necessary to  the remedy designs which could take additional time and money. In  addition, there may be unmeasured economic costs to the community by  delaying the productive reuse of a site, according to EPA officials. Due to  an increase in funding from the Recovery Act, EPA started all new  remedial action projects ready to start in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and  most new remedial action projects in fiscal year 2011, according to our  analysis of EPA data. However, in fiscal year 2012, EPA did not fund and  start any of the 21 new remedial action projects through the Panel  process that were ready to begin that year. The 21 unfunded projects  were estimated to have cost over $117 million in 2012, according to  EPA officials. In fiscal year 2013, EPA did not fund 22 out of 30 projects  due to priorities for declining funds as well. According to EPA officials, in  that year, these unfunded projects were estimated to have cost  approximately $101 million. EPA officials stated that they expect the trend  of being unable to fund all new remedial action projects to continue.  According to EPA officials, prior to funding new remedial action projects,  EPA considers both the funds needed in the current fiscal year to begin  the project and ongoing funds that will be required in subsequent fiscal  years to complete the project.
According to EPA officials, as annual appropriations have declined, EPA  has generally relied on funds available from prior year Superfund  appropriations to fund new remedial action projects and some other work.  According to EPA officials, funds from prior year appropriations generally  become available for use through deobligations and special account  reclassifications. Typically, deobligations occur when EPA determines  that some or all of the funds the agency originally obligated for a contract  to conduct an activity are no longer needed (e.g., EPA will deobligate  funds that it had previously obligated to construct a landfill cover because  the final costs were less than originally anticipated). According to EPA  officials, reclassifications occur when EPA uses special account funds to  reimburse itself for its past expenditures of annually appropriated funds,  which then makes the funds originally used for these activities available  for the agency to use. Starting in fiscal year 2003, EPA began distributing  deobligated funds in a 75/25 percent split so that headquarters kept 75  percent of the deobligated funds for national remedial program priorities,  which have been, in large part, used to begin new remedial action  projects, and returned 25 percent to the region that provided the  deobligated funds. On average, EPA annually provided about $58 million  in deobligated funds for construction and post-construction activities  during fiscal years 2003 through 2013, according to our analysis of EPA  data. According to EPA officials, deobligations are an unpredictable  funding stream, and our analysis of EPA data indicates that the amount of  deobligations and reclassifications provided for cleanup fluctuated during  the fiscal years 2003 through 2013 time period, from a high in fiscal year  2003 of about $102 million to a low in fiscal year 2009 of about $32  million.
section_title: EPA Spent the Most Cleanup Funds in One Region, and Primarily in Seven States
paragraphs: EPA spent the most cleanup funds from annual appropriations on  nonfederal NPL sites in Region 2 from fiscal years 1999 through 2013,  according to our analysis of EPA data. EPA spent almost $2.5 billion in  this region—which is about 32 percent of the total cleanup funds on  nonfederal NPL sites during that time frame and over three times the  cleanup funds spent on any other region. According to EPA officials,  Region 2 has a significant number of large, EPA-funded sites that have  required considerable expenditures to clean up over a long period of time.  The agency does not expect this trend to continue, but anticipates that  more cleanup funds will be devoted to the cleanup of large mining and  sediment sites in the West. Region 8 received the second most in  cleanup funds with about $0.7 billion over the same time period. Figure 6  shows EPA’s expenditure of cleanup funds at nonfederal NPL sites in  each region from fiscal years 1999 through 2013.
According to our analysis of EPA data, EPA spent the majority of  nonfederal NPL cleanup funds in seven states—New Jersey, California,  New York, Massachusetts, Idaho, Pennsylvania, and Florida—during the  15-year period from fiscal years 1999 through 2013. New Jersey sites  received the most cleanup funds with over $2.0 billion (or more than 25  percent of cleanup funds over this period). The agency also spent the  largest portion of Recovery Act funds in New Jersey. According to EPA  officials, New Jersey has a large number of sites that do not have PRPs  to perform the cleanup and needs federal appropriations to cleanup these  sites. In addition, sites in areas of highly dense population like many in  New Jersey cost more to cleanup, according to EPA officials. Agency  officials expect the current level of expenditures in New Jersey to decline  in the future because the cleanup at some of the sites will be completed.  Figure 7 shows EPA’s expenditure of cleanup funds in the seven states  from fiscal years 1999 through 2013.
section_title: Median Annual Expenditures per Site Declined and on Average, EPA Spent the Majority of Cleanup Funds at 18 Sites Annually
paragraphs: According to our analysis of EPA data, the median per-site annual  expenditures on remedial cleanup activities at nonfederal NPL sites  generally declined from fiscal years 1999 through 2013. The median  per-site annual expenditures declined by about 48 percent from about  $36,600 to about $19,100 from fiscal years 1999 through 2013. The  decline was more pronounced in recent years, decreasing by about 35  percent from fiscal years 2009 through 2013, compared to about a 12  percent decline from fiscal years 1999 through 2003. Figure 8 shows the  median per-site annual expenditures of cleanup funds from annual  appropriations at nonfederal NPL sites from fiscal years 1999 through  2013. According to EPA officials, these declines mirror, with some lag  time, declines in appropriations, the most significant of which occurred  starting in fiscal year 2000 and then again starting in fiscal year 2011. In  addition, the agency expects to see further declines in annual cleanup  funds expenditures following the same pattern in the near future,  according to EPA officials. Specifically, given recent declines in  appropriations, EPA expects to see declines in expenditures after a short  lag time, while outyear trends would depend on future appropriations.
EPA spent the majority of cleanup funds on a few sites—on average  about 18 sites—each year from fiscal years 1999 through 2013,  according to our analysis of EPA data. The specific sites where EPA  spent the majority of cleanup funds varied from year to year, but 6 sites  were part of the 18 in more than half the years of the 15-year period— Vineland Chemical Company, Inc. (New Jersey), Bunker Hill Mining and  Metallurgical Complex (Idaho), Welsbach and General Gas Mantle- Camden Radiation (New Jersey), Tar Creek-Ottawa County (Oklahoma),  New Bedford (Massachusetts), and Federal Creosote (New Jersey). EPA  spent at least $175 million from annual appropriations at each of these 6  sites over the 15 years.
EPA’s costs to clean up sites differed depending on the type of site.  According to our analysis of EPA data on expenditures of cleanup funds  from annual appropriations, mining sites were the most expensive to  clean up. From fiscal year 1999 through 2013, EPA spent, on average,  from about 7 to about 52 times the annual amount per site at mining sites  than at the other types of sites. For example, the average median per-site  annual expenditure of cleanup funds was about $750,000 for mining sites  compared to about $104,000 for “other” sites and to about $14,000 for  waste management sites. According to EPA officials, mining sites are  costly to clean up because, among other characteristics, they typically  cover a large area and have many sources of contamination. One  example of a mining site is the Bunker Hill Mining and Metallurgical  Complex in Idaho where EPA spent almost $330 million to clean up part  of the site from fiscal years 1999 through 2013. Figure 9 shows the  average median per-site annual expenditure of cleanup funds from  annual appropriations at nonfederal NPL sites by type of site from fiscal  years 1999 through 2013.
section_title: The Number of Nonfederal Sites on the NPL Remained Relatively Constant, while the Number of Remedial Action Project Completions and Construction Completions Generally Declined
paragraphs: According to our analysis of EPA data, the total number of nonfederal  sites on the NPL annually remained relatively constant, while remedial  action project completions and construction completions generally  declined during fiscal years 1999 through 2013. The total number of  nonfederal sites on the NPL increased from 1,054 in fiscal year 1999 to  1,158 in fiscal year 2013 and averaged about 1,100 annually. According  to our analysis of EPA data, the number of remedial action project  completions at nonfederal NPL sites generally declined by about 37  percent during the 15-year period. Similarly, from fiscal years 1999  through 2013, the number of construction completions at nonfederal NPL  sites generally declined by about 84 percent.
subsections: section_title: The Total Number of Nonfederal Sites on the NPL Remained Relatively Constant
paragraphs: From fiscal years 1999 through 2013, the number of new nonfederal sites  added to the NPL and the number of nonfederal sites deleted each year  from the NPL generally declined, while the total number of nonfederal  sites on the NPL remained relatively constant, according to our analysis  of EPA data. More specifically, during the fiscal years of our review, there  was a period of decline in the number of sites added to the NPL followed  by a few years where there was a slight increase. For example, the  number of new nonfederal sites added to the NPL each year declined  steadily from 37 sites in fiscal year 1999 to 12 in fiscal year 2007.  According to EPA officials, there are several reasons for the decline in the  number of new nonfederal sites added to the NPL. For example, some  states may have been managing the cleanup of sites with their own state  programs, especially if a PRP was identified to pay for the cleanup.  Additional reasons for the decrease during this time period include:   (1) funding constraints that led EPA to focus primarily on sites with actual  human health threats and no other cleanup options, (2) use of the NPL as  a mechanism of last resort, and (3) referral of sites assessed under  Superfund to state cleanup programs.
In contrast, from fiscal years 2008 through 2012, there was a general  increase in the number of new nonfederal sites added to the NPL  annually, according to our analysis of EPA data. In fiscal year 2008, EPA  added 18 sites and by 2012, the number of sites added annually had  increased to 24. According to EPA officials, the numbers may have  increased from fiscal years 2008 through 2012, because the agency  expanded its focus to consider NPL listing for sites with potential human  health and environmental threats, and it shifted its policy to use the NPL  when it was deemed the best approach for achieving site cleanup rather  than using the NPL as a mechanism of last resort. Also, states’ funding  for cleanup programs declined, and states agreed to add sites to the NPL  where they encountered difficulty in getting a PRP to cooperate or where  the PRP went bankrupt, according to EPA officials. Furthermore, these  same officials stated that the increase in the number of new sites added  to the NPL could be due to referrals from the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act program because of business bankruptcies, especially in  the most recent years. In fiscal year 2013, however, the number of new  nonfederal sites added to the NPL declined to 8, the lowest number since  fiscal year 1999. In total, EPA added 304 nonfederal sites to the NPL—an  average of about 20 sites annually—from fiscal years 1999 through  2013. Figure 10 summarizes the number of new nonfederal sites added  to the NPL each year from fiscal years 1999 through 2013.
In terms of the types of sites added to the NPL from fiscal years 1999  through 2013, the largest number of sites added to the list were  manufacturing sites (120 sites or about 40 percent) followed by “other”  sites (90 sites or about 30 percent). In addition, EPA added 35 mining  sites (about 12 percent), 32 waste management sites (about 11 percent),  21 recycling sites (about 7 percent), and 6 “multiple” sites (about 2  percent)—sites that fell into more than one of these categories— according to our analysis of EPA data. During this time frame, the amount  of time between when a site was proposed to be added to the NPL and  when it was added to the NPL ranged from 2 months to over 18 years,  with a median amount of time of about 6 months. According to EPA  officials, there are a variety of reasons to explain why some sites take  longer to add to the NPL. For example, EPA could propose a site to be  added to the NPL and, in response to the Federal Register notice  announcing the proposal, EPA could receive numerous, complex  comments that required considerable time and EPA resources to  address. In addition, a proposal to add a site to the NPL could act as an  incentive for PRPs to resume negotiations with EPA or the state to clean  up the site. Moreover, large PRPs with greater financial assets may  request additional time to pursue other cleanup options; hire law firms  and technical contractors to submit challenging comments to EPA on the  proposal to add the site to the NPL; and support outreach efforts that  generate state and local opposition to the proposal. EPA officials also  noted that certain sites, such as recycling and dry cleaning, are  generally added quickly to the NPL because other alternatives may not be  available.
From fiscal years 1999 through 2013, the number of nonfederal sites  deleted from the NPL generally declined, according to our analysis of  EPA data. EPA deleted 22 nonfederal sites in fiscal year 1999 and, in  fiscal year 2013, EPA deleted only 6 nonfederal sites. In total, EPA  deleted 185 nonfederal sites from the NPL during these years.  According to EPA officials, the decline in the number of nonfederal sites  deleted from the NPL is due to the decline in annual appropriations and  the fact that the sites remaining on the NPL are more complex, and they  take more time and money to clean up. The median number of years from  the time a nonfederal site was added to the NPL to the time EPA deleted  it from the NPL ranged from about 13 years for those sites deleted in  fiscal year 1999, to about 25 years for those sites deleted in fiscal year  2013, with an average median of about 19 years. Region 2 had the  largest number of nonfederal sites—41—deleted from the NPL, followed  by Regions 6, 3, 4, and 5, which deleted 29, 25, 23, and 23 nonfederal  sites, respectively. Figure 11 shows the number of nonfederal sites EPA  deleted from the NPL each year from fiscal years 1999 through 2013.
From fiscal years 1999 through 2013, according to our analysis of EPA  data, the total number of nonfederal sites on the NPL remained relatively  constant, and averaged about 1,100 sites annually. From fiscal years  1999 through 2013, the total number of nonfederal sites on the NPL  increased less than 10 percent—from 1,054 sites to 1,158 sites as of the  end of these fiscal years. In addition, the type of nonfederal sites on the  NPL changed during this same time period. For example, in fiscal year  1999, there were 10 mining sites on the NPL or about 1 percent of all  nonfederal NPL sites. By fiscal year 2013, there were 44 mining sites on  the NPL, which was about 4 percent of all nonfederal NPL sites. Appendix  III provides more detailed information from fiscal years 1999 through 2013  on the number of nonfederal sites on the NPL at the end of each fiscal  year, following any additions and deletions; as well as the number of  nonfederal sites on the NPL each fiscal year by type.
section_title: Remedial Action Project Completions and Construction Completions Generally Declined
paragraphs: According to our analysis of EPA data, from fiscal years 1999 through  2013, the number of remedial action project completions at nonfederal  NPL sites declined by about 37 percent, and the length of time to  complete the projects increased slightly. The number of remedial action  project completions in each year gradually declined by about 59 percent  from 116 projects (fiscal year 1999) to 47 projects (fiscal year 2010). For  fiscal years 2011 through 2012, the number of remedial action project  completions increased to 75 and 87, respectively. According to EPA  officials, these increases were due to the increase of funds from the  Recovery Act. In fiscal year 2013, the number of remedial action project  completions dropped to 73. In total, 1,181 remedial action projects were  completed from fiscal years 1999 through 2013. In general, according to  EPA officials, the decline in remedial action project completions is due to  the decline in appropriations and the complexity of current projects, which  take longer to complete. These officials also stated that the decline in  staffing, especially in the last few years, and particularly in the regions,  had a negative impact on the Superfund remedial program and made it  difficult to complete work. Figure 12 provides information on the number  of remedial action project completions at nonfederal NPL sites from fiscal  years 1999 through 2013.
According to our analysis of EPA data, Region 2 had the highest number  of remedial action project completions (242 projects or about 20 percent  of the total project completions), followed by Regions 3, 5, and 4 at 171  projects (or about 14 percent), 140 projects (or about 12 percent), and  128 projects (or about 11 percent), respectively. New Jersey,  Pennsylvania, and New York completed the most remedial action  projects—over 100 projects in each state—during the 15-year time frame.
In addition to fewer remedial action project completions, our analysis of  EPA data also shows that the length of time to complete these projects  increased slightly from one year to the next. From fiscal years 1999  through 2013, the average median length of time to complete these  projects was about 3 years. In fiscal year 1999, the median amount of  time to complete projects was about 2.6 years. Over time, the median  amount of time gradually increased to almost 4 years in fiscal year 2013.  Regions 6 and 3 had the lowest average median times of about 2 years to  complete projects. In contrast, Region 10 had the highest average  median time of over 5 years to complete projects. According to EPA  officials, remedial action project completions are taking longer to  complete because they are getting more complex. In addition, these  officials stated that, as noted above, shortages in EPA regional staffing  levels and a decline in state environmental agency personnel are causing  delays throughout the Superfund program from site assessments to  completion of remedial action projects.
Similar to the decline in the number of remedial action project  completions, from fiscal years 1999 through 2013, the number of  construction completions at nonfederal NPL sites generally declined by  about 84 percent, according to our analysis of EPA data. Specifically,  fiscal years 1999 and 2000 had the largest number of construction  completions at nonfederal NPL sites—80 sites each fiscal year. In  contrast, in fiscal year 2013, the number of construction completions at  nonfederal NPL sites declined to 13. During the 15-year time frame, 516  nonfederal NPL sites reached construction completion. According to  EPA officials, the decline in the number of construction completions at  nonfederal NPL sites is because, as noted above, the sites are getting  more complex and difficult to clean up, funds available to perform the  cleanup are declining, the number of sites available for construction  completion have declined from fiscal years 1999 through 2013, and  regional staff is declining. In addition, adverse weather conditions, such  as excessive rain, and the discovery of new contaminants can delay  progress at some sites, according to these same officials. Figure 13  shows the trend in the number of construction completions at nonfederal  NPL sites from fiscal years 1999 through 2013. In fiscal year 1999, the  median number of years to reach construction completion was about 12  years, and in fiscal year 2013, it was about 16 years. During the 15-year  period, Region 2 had the largest number of construction completions at  nonfederal NPL sites, 104, followed by Region 5 with 95 sites.
According to EPA officials, one of the reasons for the decrease in the  number of construction completions was the decline from fiscal years  1999 through 2013 in the total number of nonfederal sites that were  available for construction completion. Our analysis of EPA data indicates  that, while the number of sites available for construction completion has  declined, so too has the number of construction completions compared to  those sites available for construction completion as shown in figure 14.  For example, in fiscal year 1999, there were 80 construction completions  at nonfederal NPL sites out of 630 available for construction completion  (or about 13 percent). However, in fiscal year 2013, there were 13  construction completions out of 428 (or about 3 percent).
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this product from EPA. EPA did not  provide written comments. In an e-mail received on September 11, 2015,  the Audit Liaison stated that EPA agreed with our report’s findings and  provided technical comments. We incorporated these technical  comments, 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, the Administrator of EPA, and other interested  parties. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@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 contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This appendix provides information on the objectives, scope of work, and  the methodology used to determine, for fiscal years 1999 through 2013,  the trends in (1) the annual federal appropriations to the Superfund  program and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) expenditures for  remedial cleanup activities at nonfederal sites on the National Priorities  List (NPL) and (2) the number of nonfederal sites on the NPL, the number  of remedial action project completions, and the number of construction  completions at nonfederal NPL sites.
To determine the trend in the annual federal appropriations to the  Superfund program and EPA expenditures for remedial cleanup activities  at nonfederal sites on the NPL from fiscal years 1999 through 2013, we  reviewed and analyzed Superfund program funding data. In addition, we  analyzed expenditure data from EPA’s Integrated Financial Management  System for fiscal years 1999 through 2003, and from its replacement  financial system Compass, for fiscal years 2004 through 2013. These  data included Superfund agency expenditures from annual  appropriations, including American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of  2009 funds, but they excluded expenditures of Homeland Security  Supplemental appropriation, special accounts, and state cost share  funds, as well as funds received from other agencies (i.e., funds-in  interagency agreements and intergovernmental personnel agreements)  and expenditures in support of Brownfields program activities. EPA  provided agencywide data for site and nonsite expenditures segregated  by expenditure category and source of funding. EPA provided the  financial data in nominal values, which we converted to constant 2013  dollars. We analyzed these data to identify the trend in total expenditures  of annual federal appropriations for, among other things, the remedial  action cleanup process and the median expenditure by site and type of  site (e.g., mining and manufacturing). The scope of our analyses for both  objectives varied from year-to-year because we examined only  nonfederal sites that were “active,” i.e., on the NPL at any given point  during the fiscal year. We also obtained and analyzed information on the  nonfederal NPL sites that, according to EPA, had remedial action projects  that were ready to begin but were not funded because of resource  constraints.
To determine the trend in the number of nonfederal sites on the NPL, the  number of remedial action project completions, and the number of  construction completions at nonfederal NPL sites from fiscal years 1999  through 2013, we analyzed EPA’s program data from fiscal years 1999  through 2013. At the time of our analysis, EPA officials stated that 2013  would be the most recent year with complete and stable data, and these  data were available in the agency’s Comprehensive Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)  database. As of June 2015, EPA officials stated that the agency was not  in a position to release data for fiscal year 2014 that would be comparable  to the fiscal years 1999 through 2013 data until fiscal year 2016.  However, in July 2015, EPA officials were able to provide fiscal year 2014  data on the number of new nonfederal sites added to the NPL, nonfederal  sites deleted from the NPL, remedial action project completions, and  construction completions because the agency gathers these data through  manual data requests for which each EPA regional office certifies the  data that it provides to EPA Headquarters. We obtained data from EPA  for all of the nonfederal sites that were or had been on the NPL, as of the  end of fiscal year 2013. One site, the Ringwood Mines/Landfill site, had  two final dates—the date a site is formally added to the NPL via a Federal  Register notice—because the site was restored to the NPL after it had  been deleted. We used the latest final date that was provided by EPA in  our analysis. The Ringwood Mine/Landfill site was included in the results  of our analysis of new nonfederal sites added to the NPL and number of  nonfederal sites on the NPL, but we excluded it from our analysis of the  median amount of time between when a site is proposed and when it is  added to the NPL. Our analysis included nonfederal sites that were on the  NPL, including sites that had been deleted, through fiscal year 2013. We  analyzed site-level data for nonfederal NPL sites to summarize trends in  the number of new nonfederal sites added to the NPL and the number of  nonfederal sites that reached construction completion and deletion. We  also analyzed the number of remedial action project completions in each  of the 15 years in our analysis. Our analysis did not include (1) four sites  that started off on the NPL but were deferred to another authority and  deleted from the NPL and (2) five sites that were proposed but never  became final on the NPL.
To address both objectives, we reviewed agency documents including, for  example, the Superfund Program Implementation Manual, and we  interviewed EPA officials in headquarters and Region 2 to discuss the  trends we identified in our analyses and potential reasons for these  trends. We spoke with EPA staff in Region 2 because Region 2 sites  received the most site-specific cleanup funds for remedial cleanup  activities, Region 2 had the state—New York—with the largest population  living within a 3-mile buffer of its nonfederal NPL sites, as of fiscal year  2013, and included the state—New Jersey—that had the largest number  of nonfederal NPL sites in fiscal year 2013. We also interviewed  knowledgeable stakeholders from the Association of State and Territorial  Solid Waste Management Officials and the National Academy of  Sciences. Additionally, we reviewed prior GAO reports on EPA’s  Superfund program. A list of related GAO products is included at the end  of this report.
To assess the reliability of the data from the EPA databases used in this  report, we reviewed relevant documents, such as the 2013 CERCLIS  data entry control plan guidance and regions’ CERCLIS data entry control  plans; examined the data to identify obvious errors or inconsistencies;  compared the data that we received to publicly available data; and  interviewed EPA officials. We determined the data to be sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of this report.
In addition, to determine the estimated population that lived within 3 miles  of nonfederal sites on the NPL, we generally relied on EPA’s Office of  Solid Waste and Emergency Response methodology and analyzed data  from (1) CERCLIS on the 1,158 nonfederal sites on the NPL in the 50  states and U.S. territories (Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands), as  of the end of fiscal year 2013, and (2) Census from the 2009 through  2013 American Community Survey 5-year estimate for the 1,141  nonfederal sites in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. A circular  site boundary, equal to the site acreage, was modeled around the  latitude/longitude for each site and then a 3-mile buffer ring was placed  around the site boundary. For the 138 sites in 34 states that EPA did not  have acreage information, a circular site boundary was modeled around  the latitude/longitude point, and then a 3-mile buffer ring was placed  around the point. American Community Survey data was then collected  for each block group with a centroid that fell within the 3-mile area and  rounded. Percentage numbers were rounded to the nearest whole  percent.
We conducted this performance audit from October 2014 to September  2015 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  based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Estimated Population, by State, That Lived within 3 Miles of a Nonfederal Site on the National Priorities List as of Fiscal Year 2013
subsections: section_title: Number of nonfederal NPL sites 83
section_title: Number of nonfederal NPL sites 16
paragraphs: Estimated state  population 65  years and older  that lived within   3 miles of a  nonfederal NPL  site (thousands)  29  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
section_title: Appendix III: Nonfederal Sites on the National Priorities List, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2013
paragraphs: Appendix III provides information from fiscal years 1999 through 2013 on  the number of nonfederal sites on the National Priorities List (NPL) at the  beginning and end of the fiscal year after accounting for new sites added  to and existing sites deleted from the NPL during the fiscal year (table 2);  and the number of nonfederal sites on the NPL by site type for each fiscal  year (table 3).
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Vincent Price and Diane  Raynes (Assistant Directors), Antoinette Capaccio, Katherine Carter,  John Delicath, Michele Fejfar, Diana C. Goody, Catherine Hurley, John  Mingus, David Moreno, and Dan Royer made key contributions to this  report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Hazardous Waste Cleanup: Observations on States’ Role, Liabilities at  DOD and Hardrock Mining Sites, and Litigation Issues. GAO-13-633T.  Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2013.
Superfund: EPA Should Take Steps to Improve Its Management of  Alternatives to Placing Sites on the National Priorities List. GAO-13-252.  Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2013.
Superfund: Status of EPA’s Efforts to Improve Its Management and  Oversight of Special Accounts. GAO-12-109. Washington, D.C.: January  18, 2012.
Superfund: Information on the Nature and Costs of Cleanup Activities at  Three Landfills in the Gulf Coast Region. GAO-11-287R. Washington,  D.C.: February 18, 2011.
Superfund: EPA’s Costs to Remediate Existing and Future Sites Will  Likely Exceed Current Funding Levels. GAO-10-857T. Washington, D.C.:  June 22, 2010.
Superfund: EPA’s Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed  Current Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the  National Priorities List. GAO-10-380. Washington, D.C.: May 6, 2010.
Superfund: Litigation Has Decreased and EPA Needs Better Information  on Site Cleanup and Cost Issues to Estimate Future Program Funding  Requirements. GAO-09-656. Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2009.