Hazardous Waste Sites: Improved Effectiveness of Controls at Sites Could Better Protect the Public
Published: 2005-01-28T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) programs were established to clean up hazardous waste sites. Because some sites cannot be cleaned up to allow unrestricted use, institutional controls--legal or administrative restrictions on land or resource use to protect against exposure to the residual contamination--are placed on them. GAO was asked to review the extent to which (1) institutional controls are used at Superfund and RCRA sites and (2) EPA ensures that these controls are implemented, monitored, and enforced. GAO also reviewed EPA's challenges in implementing control tracking systems. To address these issues, GAO examined the use, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of controls at a sample of 268 sites.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Institutional controls were applied at most of the Superfund and RCRA sites GAO examined where waste was left in place after cleanup, but documentation of remedy decisions often did not discuss key factors called for in EPA's guidance. For example, while documents usually discussed the controls' objectives, in many cases, they did not adequately address when the controls should be implemented, how long they would be needed, or who would be responsible for monitoring or enforcing them. According to EPA, the documents' incomplete discussion of the key factors suggests that site managers may not have given them adequate consideration. Relying on institutional controls as a major component of a site's remedy without carefully considering all of the key factors--particularly whether they can be implemented in a reliable and enforceable manner--could jeopardize the effectiveness of the remedy. EPA faces challenges in ensuring that institutional controls are adequately implemented, monitored, and enforced. Institutional controls at the Superfund sites GAO reviewed, for example, were often not implemented before the cleanup was completed, as EPA requires. EPA officials indicated that this may have occurred because, over time, site managers may have inadvertently overlooked the need to implement the controls. EPA's monitoring of Superfund sites where cleanup has been completed but residual contamination remains often does not include verification that institutional controls are in place. Moreover, the RCRA corrective action program does not include a requirement to monitor sites after cleanups have been completed. In addition, EPA may have difficulties ensuring that the terms of institutional controls can be enforced at some Superfund and RCRA sites: that is, some controls are informational in nature and do not legally limit or restrict use of the property, and, in some cases, state laws may limit the options available to enforce institutional controls. To improve its ability to ensure the long-term effectiveness of institutional controls, EPA has recently begun implementing institutional control tracking systems for its Superfund and RCRA corrective action programs. The agency, however, faces significant obstacles in implementing such systems. The institutional control tracking systems being implemented track only minimal information on the institutional controls. Moreover, as currently configured, the systems do not include information on long-term monitoring or enforcement of the controls. In addition, the tracking systems include data essentially derived from file reviews, which may or may not reflect institutional controls as actually implemented. While EPA has plans to improve the data quality for the Superfund tracking system--ensuring that the data accurately reflects institutional controls as implemented and adding information on monitoring and enforcement--the first step, data verification, could take 5 years to complete. Regarding the RCRA tracking system, the agency has no current plans to verify the accuracy of the data or expand on the data being tracked.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that one in four  Americans lives within 4 miles of a hazardous waste site. To protect the  public’s health, the Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, which  established the Superfund program to clean up the most seriously  contaminated of these sites. In addition, in 1984, the Congress amended the  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to add a corrective  action program to clean up contamination at facilities that treat, store, and  dispose of hazardous waste. Since the inception of these two programs,  EPA has overseen the cleanup of over 5,000 hazardous waste sites across  the country. At many of these sites, however, EPA has selected cleanup  remedies that leave at least some waste in place because the agency  believes it is impossible, impractical, or too costly to clean up the  contaminated property so that it can be used without restriction. Cleanups  at such sites often rely on institutional controls—legal or administrative  restrictions on the use of land or water at the site—to limit the public’s  exposure to residual contamination. As of December 2004, about 1,600  hazardous waste sites were being cleaned up by the Superfund program  and another 3,800 facilities were being cleaned up by the RCRA corrective  action program.
States play a significant role in the cleanup of hazardous waste sites under  both the Superfund and RCRA programs. Within the Superfund program,  states may enter into agreements with EPA to perform certain program  actions, such as initial site assessments, and EPA also consults with states  throughout the cleanup process. Under the RCRA program, EPA has  authorized 40 states and Guam to implement and enforce their own  hazardous waste regulations in lieu of federal regulations and to carry out  corrective action activities. However, regardless of whether a particular  state is authorized, either the state or EPA may assume the lead on working  with a facility to implement corrective action. In addition, at certain  Superfund and RCRA sites, state and local government entities may be  responsible for monitoring the status of institutional controls and enforcing  their terms.
The cleanup process for the Superfund and RCRA programs is similar in  many ways. For both programs, the process begins with a preliminary  investigation to determine the extent of the contamination at a site. In this  initial phase, under Superfund, EPA places the most seriously  contaminated sites on its National Priorities List (NPL). In both programs,  cleanup officials typically analyze a range of alternatives before selecting a  remedy to address a site’s contamination. In the Superfund program, the  remedy is described in a record of decision (ROD); in the RCRA program, it  is usually described in a “statement of basis.” Once the remedy is selected,  remedy implementation under both programs typically involves a number  of phases, including remedy design, construction, operation and  maintenance, and completion. Under Superfund, when EPA, in  consultation with the relevant state, determines that no further remedial  activities at a site are appropriate, EPA deletes the site from the NPL. When  remedial measures are completed for a RCRA facility, the corrective action  process for that facility is terminated.
Institutional controls can be a critical component of the cleanup process  and may be used to ensure short-term protection of human health and the  environment during the cleanup process itself as well as long-term  protection once the site is deleted from the NPL or corrective action is  terminated. EPA defines institutional controls as “non-engineered  instruments such as administrative and/or legal controls that minimize the  potential for human exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource  use.” In September 2000 and December 2002, EPA issued guidance setting  out, among other things, the key factors to be considered when evaluating  and selecting institutional controls at Superfund and RCRA sites and  responsibilities for implementing, monitoring, and enforcing institutional  controls at these sites. Under this guidance, EPA generally—although not  always—requires that institutional controls be put in place at Superfund  and RCRA sites where total cleanup is not practical or feasible. If deemed  necessary, these controls may be combined with engineering controls— such as capping or fencing—to limit exposure to residual site  contamination. For example, the remedy selected for a hazardous waste  landfill may include engineering controls, such as placing a protective  layer, or “cap” made of clay or synthetic materials, over the contamination.  At such sites, EPA may also add institutional controls to prohibit any  digging that might breach this protective layer and expose site  contaminants.
Concerned that institutional controls may not be effectively protecting  human health and the environment, you asked us to review (1) the extent  to which institutional controls are used at sites addressed by EPA’s  Superfund and RCRA corrective action programs; (2) the extent to which  EPA ensures that institutional controls at these sites are implemented,  monitored, and enforced; and (3) EPA’s challenges in implementing  systems to track these controls. To address these issues, we examined  EPA’s use, implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of institutional  controls at a nonprobability sample of nonfederal sites where (1) the  cleanup process was completed in earlier periods, for historical  perspective; (2) the cleanup process had ended more recently; and (3) the  remedy had only recently been selected, for insight into the likely future  use of these controls. (Results from nonprobability samples cannot be used  to make inferences about a population, because in a nonprobability sample  some elements of the population being studied have no chance or an  unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample.) Our review  focused on institutional controls that remain in place after site deletion or  termination to determine whether these controls are effective in the long  run. Although both the Superfund and RCRA programs address federal and  nonfederal sites, our review did not address federal sites because federal  agencies are generally responsible for cleaning up their own sites and EPA  involvement is limited. We also focused our reviews of RCRA facilities on  those whose cleanup was led by EPA.
To gain a broader view of past use of institutional controls, we reviewed  files for all 20 Superfund sites deleted from the NPL during fiscal years 1991  through 1993; in addition, in the two EPA regions with the most corrective  actions, we reviewed files for all 40 RCRA facilities at which, according to  EPA’s database, a preliminary investigation was conducted and corrective  action was terminated before fiscal year 2001. Regarding sites where the  cleanup was recently completed, we examined documentation related to  institutional controls at all 53 Superfund sites deleted from the NPL during  fiscal years 2001 through 2003 and at all 31 RCRA facilities where  corrective action was terminated during the same period. For those sites  whose documentation indicated the use, or potential use, of institutional  controls, we conducted follow-up interviews with EPA or state officials  knowledgeable about the site to obtain detailed information and additional  documentation and to determine what institutional controls were actually  in place.
To gain a sense of the projected use of institutional controls in the future,  we examined all 112 Superfund RODs finalized during fiscal years 2001  through 2003, and statements of basis for all 23 RCRA corrective action  facilities that reached the remedy decision stage during that period. For our  review, we examined only the principal remedy decision documents for the  sites in our universe, rather than all remedy decision documents. We also  interviewed RCRA program managers from a sample of 6 states to  understand the extent to which those states implement, monitor, and  enforce institutional controls. In addition, we visited 5 Superfund sites with  residual contamination and institutional controls remaining in place after  the site was deleted from the NPL. To identify the challenges of  implementing a system to track institutional controls, we interviewed EPA  and state officials. A more detailed description of our scope and  methodology is presented in appendix I. We conducted our work from  October 2003 to January 2005 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards, including an assessment of data reliability  and internal controls.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Land use and institutional controls are usually linked, and should be  considered together during the investigation phase of cleanup, according to  EPA guidance. As a site moves through the early stages of the cleanup  process, site managers should develop assumptions about reasonably  anticipated future land uses and consider whether institutional controls  will be needed to maintain these uses over time. EPA guidance states that,  if remediation leaves waste in place that would not permit “unrestricted  use” of the site and “unlimited exposure” to residual contamination, use of  institutional controls should be considered to ensure protection against  unacceptable exposure to the contamination left in place. Even sites that  are appropriate for residential use after the cleanup process is complete  may require institutional controls if they do not allow for unlimited use and  unrestricted exposure. For example, residential properties may be located  over a contaminated groundwater plume where the properties are not the  source of contamination. In such a situation, well drilling restrictions put in  place to limit the use of groundwater may serve as appropriate institutional  controls.
EPA recognizes four types of institutional controls—governmental  controls, proprietary controls, enforcement and permit tools with  institutional control components, and informational devices:   Governmental controls use the regulatory authority of a government  entity to impose restrictions. Generally, EPA must depend on state or  local governments to establish these controls. Examples of  governmental controls include zoning restrictions, local ordinances, and  groundwater use restrictions.
Proprietary controls involve legal instruments placed in the chain of title  of the site or property, such as easements and covenants.
Enforcement and permit tools with institutional control components are  issued or negotiated to compel the site owner to limit certain site  activities. These controls, which can be enforced by EPA under  Superfund and RCRA legislation, include administrative orders and  consent decrees.
Informational devices warn the public of risks associated with using  contaminated property. Examples of informational devices are deed  notices, state registries of hazardous waste sites, and health advisories.
Approximately 3,800 RCRA facilities have corrective action under way or  will require corrective action. EPA refers to these facilities as its  “corrective action workload.” Under the Government Performance and  Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), which requires agencies to assess progress  toward achieving the results expected from their major functions, EPA  developed short-term goals for 1,714 of these facilities, referred to as the  “GPRA baseline.” According to EPA’s GPRA goals, by 2005, EPA and the  states will verify and document that 95 percent of the baseline facilities  have “current human exposures under control” and 70 percent have  “migration of contaminated groundwater under control.”
According to EPA, over the last 10 years, the agency has focused increased  attention on understanding and overcoming the complexities and  challenges associated with using institutional controls. In recent years, this  experience has led EPA to improve its approach to these controls. For  example, the agency has hosted numerous meetings and workshops to  identify institutional control issues and develop solutions; developed and  administered national training programs for federal, state, tribal, and local  agencies; developed a national strategy to help ensure that controls are  successfully implemented; and established a national management  advisory group to work on high-priority policy issues. Furthermore, in  addition to issuing guidance in 2000 on evaluating and selecting  institutional controls, the agency is currently developing four additional  guidance documents covering specific implementation, monitoring, and  enforcement issues. These improvements have been targeted at the full life- cycle of institutional controls from identification, evaluation, and selection  to implementation, monitoring, and enforcement.
section_title: EPA Relied on Controls at Most Sites with Residual Contamination, but Planning of Controls May Not Ensure Protection of the Public
paragraphs: In reviewing selected Superfund and RCRA sites in three different time  periods or stages of cleanup, we found an apparent increase in the use of  institutional controls over time. Two of the 4 older Superfund sites and 6 of  the 8 older RCRA facilities we reviewed where cleanup was completed but  residual contamination remained had no institutional controls in place. In  contrast, of the 32 Superfund and 4 RCRA sites we reviewed where cleanup  was completed during fiscal years 2001 through 2003 but residual  contamination remained, 28 and 4, respectively, had one or more  institutional controls in place. However, because EPA’s guidance is vague  and does not specify in which cases controls are necessary, it is unclear  whether any of the sites we reviewed were inconsistent with the agency’s  policy. When considering recent remedy decisions in both programs, we  found that, of the 112 Superfund and 23 RCRA remedy decision document  sets we reviewed that were issued during fiscal years 2001 through 2003,  most documents called for some type of institutional control to prevent or  limit exposure to residual contamination. Moreover, although EPA  guidance directs staff to include four specific factors in documenting the  institutional controls to be implemented at a site, the documents we  reviewed frequently included no more than two of these factors, and the  language was often vague.
subsections: section_title: Use of Institutional Controls at Superfund Sites and RCRA Facilities Appears to Be Increasing over Time
paragraphs: In reviewing selected Superfund and RCRA sites in three different time  periods or stages of cleanup, we found an apparent increase in the use of  institutional controls over time. The proportion of Superfund sites with  institutional controls in place increased from 10 percent for those deleted  during fiscal years 1991 through 1993 to 53 percent for those deleted during  fiscal years 2001 through 2003. The proportion of RCRA facilities with  institutional controls in place increased from 5 percent for those sites we  examined where corrective action was terminated prior to fiscal year 2001  to 13 percent for those sites where corrective action was terminated during  fiscal years 2001 through 2003. Moreover, 83 percent of the Superfund and  65 percent of the RCRA remedy decision documents finalized during fiscal  years 2001 through 2003 indicated the need for some sort of institutional  controls, an increase over the proportion of completed sites with controls.  (See tables 1 and 2.)
While EPA recognizes that the use of institutional controls is becoming  increasingly common, the agency points out that this should not be  interpreted to mean that sites are being less thoroughly cleaned up. The  EPA project manager for 1 Superfund site deleted with residual  contamination and no institutional controls told us that if the site were  being remediated today, EPA might consider institutional controls to  restrict groundwater use. In addition, EPA is now considering institutional  controls for a site that was cleaned up to a level allowing for unrestricted  use and unlimited exposure at the time of remediation. The levels of  acceptable lead contamination have decreased since completion of this  remedy, so the levels of contamination at the site may now exceed the new  standards.
subsections: section_title: Earlier Completed Sites
paragraphs: Four of the 12 older Superfund and RCRA sites we reviewed where residual  contamination remained had institutional controls in place. Waste was left  in place after cleanup at 4 of the 20 Superfund sites that were deleted  during fiscal years 1991 through 1993; as figure 1 shows, one-half of these  sites had institutional controls in place.
Similarly, of the 40 RCRA facilities we reviewed where corrective action  was terminated before fiscal year 2001, 8 had residual waste after cleanup;  institutional controls appeared to be in place at 2 of these facilities (see fig.  2).
The most common type of institutional control in place at these older  Superfund and RCRA sites was a covenant; there was also a consent order  and a conservation easement, as shown in figure 3. A covenant, as used in  the institutional controls context, is a promise by a landowner to use or  refrain from using the property in a certain manner. A consent order  contains elements of both an administrative order (an order issued and  enforced by EPA or states directly restricting the use of property) and a  consent decree (in this context, a court order that implements the  settlement of an enforcement case, which may restrict the use of the land by the settling party, such as prohibiting well drilling). A conservation  easement, allowed by statutes adopted by some states, is established to  preserve and protect property and natural resources. EPA guidance  encourages the use of multiple controls—referred to as “layering”—stating  that it is more effective than using only one institutional control. Controls  were layered at only 1 of these 4 older sites.
Conservation easement (1)
Covenant (3)
section_title: Recently Completed Sites
paragraphs: In contrast to sites where cleanup was completed in earlier years, 32 of the  36 Superfund and RCRA sites we reviewed where residual contamination  remained after cleanup had one or more institutional controls in place. At  most of the 53 Superfund sites deleted from the NPL during fiscal years  2001 through 2003, institutional controls were implemented if waste was  left in place (see fig. 4). Furthermore, future controls were being  considered at 2 of the sites where institutional controls were not originally  planned.
Of the 31 RCRA facilities we reviewed where corrective action was  terminated during fiscal years 2001 through 2003, most corrective actions  did not result in waste being left in place and, therefore, the facilities likely  did not require institutional controls. As figure 5 shows, only 4 facilities had  waste remaining, and all of these had institutional controls in place.
The most common types of institutional controls in place at these  Superfund and RCRA sites were covenants and consent decrees, followed  by deed notices and easements (see fig. 6). Deed notices are informational  documents filed in public land records, and these notices alert anyone  searching the records to important information about the property.  Easements are property rights conveyed by landowners to other parties,  giving them rights with regard to the owner’s land. Of the 28 Superfund  sites with institutional controls, 17 included multiple controls, or layering,  as encouraged by EPA guidance. One of the 4 RCRA facilities had multiple  institutional controls. In total, there were 66 controls in place at the 32  sites.
Deed notice (8)
Consent decree (12)
Covenant (19)
For both recently completed and older sites we reviewed, 6 of 36  Superfund sites and 6 of 12 RCRA sites with waste remaining did not have  institutional controls in place. EPA site managers told us that the  potentially responsible parties or property owners of several sites we  reviewed had agreed to file a proprietary or informational control, such as  a covenant or deed notice, to limit the use of the contaminated land or  water. However, following our request for documents, EPA staff  discovered that the controls had not been implemented. EPA is now  working to implement institutional controls for some of these sites to  ensure the protection of human health and the environment. Finally, at  several sites we reviewed where contamination was left in place, the  remedy decision documents did not call for institutional controls. Some of  these sites were delegated to states for monitoring and possible future  action. For example, in one case, groundwater contamination was  contained as long as wells at a nearby plant continued to operate—the  wells, which pump approximately 10 million gallons a day, provide  protection by capturing contaminants from a former landfill on site before  they migrate into the off-site groundwater. EPA asked the state to assume  responsibility for monitoring the continued operation of the wells and to  conduct an examination of groundwater contamination if well operation  ceased.
Finally, deleting Superfund sites and terminating corrective action at RCRA  facilities where waste remains without implementing institutional controls  may be contrary to EPA guidance. Guidance issued in 2000 states that an  institutional control is generally required if the site cannot accommodate  unrestricted use and unlimited exposure. However, the guidance does not  specify under what circumstances controls are necessary. Instead, it uses  language like “generally required” and “likely appropriate.” Four of the sites  deleted during fiscal years 2001 to 2003, after the guidance was issued, had  residual contamination but no institutional controls in place. However,  because EPA’s guidance is vague and does not specify in which cases  controls are necessary, it is unclear whether any of the sites we reviewed  were inconsistent with the agency’s policy. EPA’s institutional controls  project manager believed that some of these deviations from EPA’s  guidance may have occurred because, during the period between the  completion of the cleanup and site deletion, site managers may have  inadvertently overlooked the need to implement the institutional controls.
section_title: Recent Remedy Decisions
paragraphs: In reviewing files for 135 Superfund and RCRA remedy decisions that were  issued during fiscal years 2001 through 2003, we found that most of the  documents we reviewed called for some type of institutional control to  prevent or limit exposure to residual contamination. As previously  mentioned, we reviewed the principal remedy decision documents issued  during this time period; however, other remedy decision documents may  also include information about institutional controls. Of the 112 Superfund  remedy decisions, 85 called for institutional controls. In 8 additional cases,  remedy decision documents called for institutional controls under certain  circumstances but not others. For example, one Superfund remedy  decision document outlined the need for institutional controls if excavated  contaminated soil were to be disposed of on-site, rather than at another  facility. Finally, some of the Superfund documents we examined were  interim remedy decision documents; while some of those documents did  not call for institutional controls, future documents may include provisions  for such controls if waste is left on-site after remedy construction is  completed. Of the 23 RCRA remedy decisions issued between fiscal years  2001 and 2003, 15 called for institutional controls.
Many remedy decision documents did not identify the specific institutional  control mechanism, or type of control, to be used. Of the 93 sets of  Superfund remedy decision documents we examined that called for  institutional controls under all or certain circumstances, 81 discussed the  mechanism to some degree. Almost all of the 15 sets of RCRA remedy  decision documents we examined that called for institutional controls  discussed the mechanism to a certain extent. However, in both sets of  documents, these discussions were often vague, gave a list of options, or  discussed mechanisms for one planned control but not another (e.g., a  document only specified an institutional control mechanism for restricting  the use of groundwater and did not specify a control for contaminated  soil). For those documents that discussed specific institutional controls— including those that listed options rather than a selected control or  controls—deed notices and groundwater use restrictions, followed by  covenants and zoning, were most commonly mentioned, as shown in figure  7. Twelve of the documents were vague in describing a mechanism, and, in  13 cases, the documents did not mention a mechanism at all.
Covenant (25)
Deed notice (29)
Groundwater use restriction (32)
Other types of institutional controls (55)
section_title: Remedy Decision Documents Often Do Not Demonstrate Sufficient Planning of Controls to Determine the Adequacy of Public and Environmental Protection
paragraphs: Thorough planning is critical to ensuring that institutional controls are  implemented, monitored, and enforced properly. EPA guidance specifies  that staff should evaluate institutional controls in the same level of detail as  other remedy components. Furthermore, it advises staff to make several  determinations regarding a number of key factors (see table 3) and to  describe them in the remedy decision documents.
As EPA’s draft guidance on institutional controls points out, without  specific information on the institutional controls—such as their objectives;  the mechanisms (or kinds of controls) envisioned; the timing of their  implementation and duration; and who will be responsible for  implementing, monitoring, and enforcing them—the site manager and site  attorney may be unable to interpret the intent of the remedy selection  document. For example, managers currently responsible for some sites we  reviewed were not involved with the remedial investigation or preparation  of the ROD for the sites and, therefore, may not fully understand what  types of controls were envisioned when the document was written. In  addition, without specific information on the proposed institutional  controls for a site, the public may not fully understand the restrictions on  site use necessary to prevent exposure to residual contamination. Vague  language may also result in creating unintended rights and/or obligations.
As shown in figures 8 and 9, the remedy decision documents we examined  generally discussed the objective of the institutional controls.
Eighty-six of the 93 sets of Superfund documents we reviewed that  addressed institutional controls (whether under all or certain conditions),  and all of the document sets for the 15 RCRA sites, discussed the objective,  at least in general terms. For both programs, however, the level of detail in  the discussion of the objective varied greatly. For example, one Superfund  ROD called for “the use of institutional controls to help prevent human  exposure to any residual contaminants at the site following the completion  of remedy construction,” which is a general purpose of institutional  controls rather than a specific objective. Other decision documents  included more detailed discussions of objectives; for example, one  document discusses institutional controls “for future development that  would prevent inappropriate disturbance of remediated mine sites and  potential remobilization of contaminants” and “to prevent the use of new  drinking water wells where contaminated aquifers exist.”
Of the 93 sets of Superfund documents and 15 sets of RCRA documents we  examined, 81 and 14, respectively, discussed the mechanism to be used, at  least generally. However, the specific mechanism for each institutional  control was identified in only 35 of the sets of Superfund documents and in  5 of the sets of RCRA documents. Most discussions were vague, gave a list  of options, or discussed mechanisms for one planned control but not  another. For example, 24 documents mentioned “deed restrictions” without  detailing how the deed would be restricted. EPA guidance points out that  the term “deed restriction” is not a traditional property law term, but rather  a shorthand way of referring to types of institutional controls.  Furthermore, it states that site managers should avoid the generality of  “deed restriction” and instead be specific about the types of controls under  consideration. Other remedy decision documents were incomplete,  suggesting mechanisms for one medium, such as soil, but not another, such  as groundwater. In 30 of the Superfund cases and 4 of the RCRA cases, the  remedy decision documents gave several options for control mechanisms  rather than identifying those that were most appropriate. In contrast, some  documents do include a detailed discussion of the institutional control  mechanism. For example, one document suggested implementing and  monitoring deed notices to ensure that land use is consistent with the  cleanup levels selected for the site. If the land is used for residential  purposes, additional institutional controls, such as a restrictive covenant,  may be needed to limit access to soils. Because some institutional  controls—such as informational devices—cannot be enforced, or may not  transfer if the property is sold, careful consideration of the institutional  control mechanism is generally necessary.
EPA guidance points out that since parties other than EPA often implement  institutional controls, site managers should consider the time required to  put a control in place. However, as shown in figures 8 and 9, less than one- third of the Superfund remedy decision documents and only 1 of the RCRA  documents we examined specified the timing of institutional control  implementation. Twenty-five Superfund documents and 1 RCRA document  specified when the institutional controls should be implemented—for  example, “before the RA  is final”—although some of the  documents were vague or only indicated timing for one out of several  controls. Moreover, for 14 of the Superfund sites, the institutional controls  referred to in remedy decision documents had already been implemented.  Documents for 45 Superfund and 4 RCRA sites specified how long the  institutional controls should remain in place—which was, in most cases,  until the contamination was no longer present or cleanup levels were  achieved. However, some of the documents indicated the duration of only  one of several planned controls.
In the remedy decision documents we examined, many of the Superfund  and RCRA documents did not discuss any of the parties responsible for  implementing, monitoring, and enforcing institutional controls. To the  extent that responsibility was addressed, most of the discussion centered  only on the implementing party, rather than those responsible for  monitoring and enforcing institutional controls. Only 11 Superfund and 3  RCRA document sets discussed parties responsible for monitoring  institutional controls, and only 13 Superfund and 4 RCRA document sets  discussed parties responsible for enforcing institutional controls (see figs.  8 and 9). According to the EPA draft guidance issued in December 2002,  early cooperation and coordination between federal, state, and local  governments in the selection, implementation, and monitoring of  institutional controls is critical to their implementation, long-term  reliability, durability, and effectiveness. Where EPA is implementing a  remedy, states often play a major role in implementing and enforcing  institutional controls. In addition, under the RCRA program, the state  typically imposes and oversees the remedial action. Some governmental  controls may be established under state jurisdiction. Furthermore, a local  government may be the only entity that has the legal authority to  implement, monitor, and enforce certain types of institutional controls,  such as zoning changes. EPA guidance states that while EPA and the states  take the lead on response activities, local governments have an important  role to play in the implementation, long-term monitoring, and enforcement  of institutional controls. Without the cooperation of these other parties, the  successful implementation of institutional controls may not be ensured.
In many cases, remedy documents we examined contained no evidence  that planning of institutional controls included consideration of all aspects  of the four key elements in the remedy selection process. In total, 34 of the  93 sets of Superfund and 5 of the 15 sets of RCRA remedy decision  documents discussed all four elements, at least in part. For example, the  documents may have discussed the duration of the institutional controls  but not when they will be implemented, or the documents may have  discussed who will implement only one of the controls required. EPA’s  institutional controls project manager stated that discussion in the ROD  may be intentionally vague because key decisions on such issues as who  may implement the remedy and institutional controls have not yet been  made. He also speculated that site managers may not have given adequate  consideration to all relevant aspects of institutional controls at the remedy  decision stage. Without careful consideration of all four factors, an  institutional control put in place at a site may not provide long-term  protection of human health and the environment. Furthermore, EPA’s 2002  draft guidance recommends planning of the full institutional control life  cycle early in the remedy stage—including implementation, monitoring,  reporting, enforcement, modification, and termination—to ensure the long- term durability, reliability, and effectiveness of institutional controls. The  guidance states that, critically evaluating and thoroughly planning for the  entire life cycle early in the remedy selection process could have  eliminated many of the problems identified to date. In addition, according  to the EPA guidance, calculating the full life-cycle cost is an essential part  of the institutional control planning process. This estimate is important to  compare the cost-effectiveness of institutional controls with that of other  remedy elements and to ensure that parties responsible for implementing,  monitoring, and enforcing institutional controls understand their financial  liability for these activities. Relying on institutional controls as a major  component of a selected remedy without carefully considering all of the  applicable factors—including whether they can be implemented in a  reliable and enforceable manner—could jeopardize the effectiveness of the  entire site remedy.
section_title: EPA Faces Challenges in Implementing, Monitoring, and Enforcing Institutional Controls
paragraphs: At the Superfund sites we reviewed, institutional controls often were not  implemented before site deletion, as EPA requires. Moreover, efforts to  monitor institutional controls after they are implemented may also be  insufficient. Finally, EPA may have difficulties ensuring that the terms of  certain types of institutional controls in place at some Superfund and  RCRA sites can be enforced, and state laws may limit EPA’s ability to  implement and enforce needed controls.
subsections: section_title: Institutional Controls Were Often Not Implemented before the End of the Cleanup Process
paragraphs: Institutional controls were often not implemented before site deletion, as  required, at the Superfund sites we reviewed. Under EPA guidance, a site  may not generally be deleted from the NPL until all appropriate response  actions, including institutional controls, have been implemented. Timely  implementation of institutional controls is important because, until the  controls are in place at a site, there is a greater potential for the public to  become exposed to any residual contamination. At 32 of the 53 Superfund  sites deleted during fiscal years 2001 through 2003, institutional controls  were likely appropriate, according to EPA guidance, because waste  remained in place at these sites above levels that allowed for unrestricted  use and unlimited exposure. Our discussions with cleanup officials and our  review of supporting documentation, however, indicate that all institutional  controls were implemented before site deletion at only 24 of these 32 sites.  In the case of 4 of the remaining 8 sites, even though EPA site managers  believed certain of the institutional controls had been implemented at the  site, our subsequent requests for documentation revealed that these  controls had not been implemented. At 2 of these sites, there were no  institutional controls in place at all. In another 2 cases, institutional  controls were implemented, but only after deletion of the site. In 2 other  cases, remedy decision documents did not call for institutional controls,  but because EPA guidance does not specify in which cases controls are  necessary, it is unclear whether these 2 sites were inconsistent with this  guidance. Furthermore, institutional controls were implemented before  site deletion at only 2 of the 4 Superfund sites deleted during fiscal years  1991 through 1993 that had residual contamination above levels that would  allow for unrestricted use of the site. The 2 other sites were deleted  without institutional controls, even though the site manager for 1 of these  sites believed there were institutional controls in place. EPA’s institutional  controls project manager believed that sites with residual contamination  may have been deleted without institutional controls at least in part  because site managers lost track of the need to implement the institutional  controls between the time that active remediation of the site ended and the  site’s deletion.
Implementation of institutional controls at the RCRA facilities we  examined generally occurred by the time the corrective action was  terminated. RCRA program guidance does not address the timing of  implementation of institutional controls relative to termination of  corrective actions. Rather, owners and operators of RCRA facilities that  treated, stored, or disposed of hazardous waste must submit  documentation indicating the location and dimensions of a closed  hazardous waste facility before its closure. Facility closure in the RCRA  program occurs after all RCRA-related activities at a site, including  corrective action, end and after the facility undergoes a closure process.  Among the 6 state RCRA corrective action programs we reviewed, state  officials for 3 of the programs stated that if institutional controls are  required, they must be in place before the RCRA corrective action is  terminated. Of the 4 RCRA facilities where corrective action was  terminated during fiscal years 2001 through 2003 that likely required  institutional controls, only 2 had all controls in place by the time the  corrective action was terminated. At 1 of the remaining facilities, the sole  institutional control was implemented about 1 year after the corrective  action was terminated; at the last facility, at least one of several controls  was implemented after the corrective action was terminated.
section_title: Monitoring of Institutional Controls May Be Insufficient to Ensure Their Protectiveness
paragraphs: Monitoring of institutional controls at Superfund sites after they have been  implemented may be inadequate to ensure their continued protectiveness.  At sites where contamination is left in place above levels that allow for  unlimited use of the site and unrestricted exposure to site contaminants,  CERCLA requires reviews once every 5 years of the continued  protectiveness of the remedy, including any institutional controls in place.  According to EPA’s guidance, these 5-year reviews usually consist of  community involvement and notification, document review, data review  and analysis, site inspection, interviews, and a determination of remedy  protectiveness. As a part of these reviews, EPA’s guidance calls for a  determination of whether institutional controls successfully prevent  exposure to site contaminants and a specific check on whether they are  still in place. EPA officials acknowledged, however, that reviews that only  occur every 5 years may be too infrequent to ensure the continued  protectiveness of the institutional controls. At some of the sites we  examined, 5-year reviews uncovered institutional control violations that  could have been discovered and stopped earlier with more frequent  monitoring. For example, an institutional control at 1 Superfund site we  examined prohibited any use of groundwater without prior written  approval from EPA. When EPA conducted its 5-year review in April 2003,  agency officials discovered that over 25 million gallons of groundwater  from the site had been pumped for use as drinking water during 2002.  Moreover, the agency official who conducted the 5-year review did not  know how long groundwater had been pumped without EPA’s approval.  While many Superfund sites are no longer active, sites that are being reused  may be especially vulnerable to activities occurring on-site that may violate  an institutional control during the time period between 5-year reviews. At 1  Superfund site we visited, for example, the institutional control for the site  requires monitoring for worker safety precautions during digging on the  site. At the time of our site visit, however, active digging was occurring at  the site about which the EPA official charged with supervising the site was  not aware (see fig. 10). The EPA official had not visited the site since the  previous 5-year review, which had occurred 4 years earlier.
Five-year reviews, even when they do eventually occur, may not ensure that  institutional controls are in place. EPA’s guidance on conducting 5-year  reviews instructs officials conducting the review to verify that (1)  institutional controls are successful in preventing exposure to site  contaminants and (2) institutional controls are in place. We interviewed  officials at the 32 Superfund sites deleted during fiscal years 2001 through  2003 and the 4 Superfund sites deleted during fiscal years 1991 through  1993 with residual contamination. Most of these officials stated that, during  5-year reviews, they confirmed that the site remedy—including  institutional controls—continued to protect the public from exposure to  site contaminants. However, while they usually confirmed the  protectiveness of the remedy, 8 did not also verify that site institutional  controls were in place. For example, EPA site managers in charge of 3 sites  told us they generally did not check whether institutional controls were in  place during 5-year reviews. Managers of 4 other sites stated that they  generally verified that institutional controls were in place during 5-year  reviews; our subsequent requests for documentation, however, revealed  that the institutional controls these site managers believed to be in place  were never actually implemented. One additional site manager was unsure  whether the 5-year review process even included a check on the continued  presence of institutional controls. A determination that institutional  controls successfully prevent exposure to contaminants at a site is  meaningless if the controls that are supposed to be at the site are, in fact,  not in place, or their presence is unknown. Unless EPA verifies that  institutional controls remain in place during its 5-year reviews, the agency  cannot ensure the continued protectiveness of site remedies.
Monitoring of Superfund sites by parties other than EPA may occur more  often than every 5 years, but this monitoring may not significantly  contribute to ensuring the protectiveness of institutional controls at sites.  Thirty-two Superfund sites were deleted during fiscal years 2001 through  2003 with contamination left in place. At 26 of these sites, parties  responsible for contamination, site owners, or state or local government  entities were responsible for conducting some form of site monitoring in  addition to the 5-year reviews. In principle, this additional monitoring could  help to ensure that site institutional controls remain protective. Often,  however, this monitoring is unrelated to the institutional controls on the  site. At fewer than half of these 26 sites, for example, do the additional  monitoring activities specifically include a review of the sites’ compliance  with institutional controls; at the other sites, monitoring either focused on  analyzing site groundwater or on other activities. Moreover, at none of the  26 sites did monitoring include a specific check on whether site  institutional controls were in place, as 5-year reviews do. In fact, at 4 of  these sites, monitoring that checked whether institutional controls were in  place would have found that controls that had supposedly been  implemented were not. In addition, some parties responsible for site  monitoring sometimes do not meet their monitoring requirements. In 4  cases, site managers indicated that monitoring parties had either not  performed the required monitoring or they were unable to provide  documentation of this monitoring. In 1 case, for example, an official in a  town with a Superfund site refused to perform monitoring of the site, even  though there was significant evidence of trespassing at the site, according  to the responsible EPA site manager.
In contrast with the Superfund program, the RCRA corrective action  program does not include any national requirement to review facilities with  residual contamination that have been closed. As a result, EPA has no way  of knowing whether institutional controls implemented at such facilities  remain in place, or whether they remain protective of human health and the  environment. At least some states, however, conduct their own monitoring  of closed RCRA corrective action facilities, including determining whether  institutional controls remain in place and have not been violated. This  practice may be in recognition of the necessity to track the status of RCRA  facilities that have waste in place after the corrective action process is  terminated and they are closed. Officials that we interviewed in 4 of 6  states reported some form of postclosure monitoring of RCRA corrective  action facilities in their states; an official in 1 additional state stated that  her agency is working to implement such monitoring. Two of these states  specifically require that facility owners self-certify the continued presence  of institutional controls. One state program, for example, requires facility  owners to submit a form every 2 years certifying that facility institutional  controls are still in place. In addition, this state’s officials conduct  inspections of the closed sites every 5 years, during which they verify the  self-certifications and ensure that institutional controls remain in place. As  of 2001, according to a 50-state survey that an independent research group  prepared using funding from EPA, 17 states had established schedules for  auditing sites where institutional controls have been implemented,  including 7 states that review such sites at least annually.
section_title: Ability to Enforce Institutional Controls Depends on the Nature of the Control Selected and State Laws
paragraphs: In addition to potentially inadequate monitoring, EPA may have difficulties  enforcing the terms of certain institutional controls currently in place, or  planned, for some Superfund and RCRA sites. Some institutional controls  selected for sites are purely informational and do not limit or restrict use of  the property. Informational institutional controls, according to EPA’s  guidance, include deed notices, state hazardous waste registries, and  advisories to the public. For example, while a deed notice—which is  required by the RCRA corrective action program for certain closed  facilities—alerts anyone searching land records to the continuing presence  of contamination at the site, such a notice does not provide a legal basis for  regulators to prevent a property owner from disturbing or exposing that  contamination. Seven of the 32 Superfund sites deleted during fiscal years  2001 through 2003 with waste remaining had some form of informational  institutional control in place. Furthermore, EPA recognizes that another  mechanism used often at sites to impose institutional controls, a consent  decree, is not by itself binding on subsequent property owners or  occupants. We found consent decrees in place at 12 of the 32 Superfund  sites with residual contamination deleted during fiscal years 2001 through  2003. The use of multiple institutional controls at the same site could  alleviate concerns about the use of nonenforceable mechanisms, as long as  one of the additional controls is enforceable. In some cases, however,  informational, nonenforceable institutional controls were the only controls  in place at sites. This was the case at 1 of the Superfund and 2 of the RCRA  corrective action sites that we examined that had reached the end of the  cleanup process. Moreover, among the sets of remedy decision documents  finalized during fiscal years 2001 through 2003 that we examined, 56 of 112  Superfund and 6 of 23 RCRA corrective action sets of documents specified  at least one institutional control mechanism; among these, 6 of the  Superfund and 3 of the RCRA sets of documents specified only an  informational device as the sites’ institutional control.
State property laws, which traditionally disfavor restrictions attached to  deeds and other land use restraints in order to encourage the free  transferability of property, can hinder EPA’s ability to implement and  enforce institutional controls. EPA’s guidance warns that state property  laws should be researched to ensure that certain types of institutional  control mechanisms can be enforced. For example, one state only allows  use restrictions attached to a deed to be enforced for 21 years from the  recording of the deed. As an EPA official charged with managing a site with  such restrictions in this state recognized, the issue of following up on this  site after 21 years presents a planning problem for EPA. In several cases,  EPA or state officials stated that property owners had to agree before  certain proprietary controls, including covenants, could be put in place.  Therefore, EPA officials are forced to negotiate aspects of the institutional  control with the property owner. This process has the potential to  compromise or dilute the enforceability of the proprietary control that is  ultimately negotiated. Because RCRA generally does not authorize EPA to  acquire any interests in property, many proprietary controls require that  third parties such as states be willing to be involved. RCRA officials must  thus rely on states, localities, or sometimes even adjacent property owners  to hold an easement over a facility property. At least one EPA regional  official we interviewed was aware of a state that refuses to serve as a third  party in such cases, limiting EPA’s ability to put in place such institutional  controls.
States have legislative options available to help ensure that institutional  controls can be enforced. Certain states have enacted statutes that provide  the state with the legal authority to restrict land use at contaminated  properties. Colorado, for example, passed legislation in 2001 that allows  the state’s Department of Public Health and Environment to hold and  enforce environmental covenants. Colorado’s agreements are binding upon  current and future owners of the property, thus allowing the state to  enforce these agreements should they be violated. These covenants had  been used at 11 state sites, including 1 RCRA corrective action facility, as of  August 2004. In addition, several states have adopted statutes providing for  conservation easements, which override certain common law barriers to  enforcement. A recent effort by the National Conference of Commissioners  on Uniform State Laws sought a way to allow states to implement  enforceable institutional controls. In 2003, this group finalized a Uniform  Environmental Covenants Act that is available for state legislative  adoption. According to the group, this legislation provides clear rules for  state agencies to create, enforce, and modify a valid real estate document— an environmental covenant—to restrict the use of contaminated real  estate. The act creates this new type of institutional control and, according  to the group, ensures that it can be enforced. Several states have shown  interest in adopting the legislation, according to the chairman of the group  that drafted it.
Institutional controls help to ensure the protectiveness of remedies at  Superfund and RCRA sites where waste remains in place after cleanup. If  institutional controls are not properly functioning or cease to apply to the  site, the administrative and legal barriers between the residual  contamination and potential human exposure to site contaminants  disappear. Because of the potential danger of losing these barriers, EPA has  recognized the importance of monitoring whether institutional controls are  still in place and whether they continue to prevent exposure to residual  contamination during its 5-year reviews. Current efforts to monitor  institutional controls, however, may not occur with sufficient frequency to  identify problems in a timely manner and may not always include checks  on controls.
section_title: EPA Faces Significant Obstacles in Implementing Systems to Better Track Institutional Controls
paragraphs: Institutional controls are often key components of selected cleanup  remedies and, as such, need to be monitored, enforced, and kept in place as  long as the danger of exposure to residual contamination remains. Residual  contamination can remain at a site long after EPA’s involvement is  completed, and an entity other than EPA may assume responsibility for  long-term monitoring and enforcement of the controls. However,  historically, EPA had no system in place to readily identify which sites had  institutional controls in place or whether the controls were being  monitored and enforced. To improve its ability to ensure the long-term  effectiveness of these controls, EPA has recently begun implementing  tracking systems for its Superfund and RCRA corrective action programs.  These systems currently track only minimal information on the  institutional controls—as currently configured, they do not include  information on long-term monitoring or enforcement of the controls. In  addition, initial reports of tracking system data show that there are  potential problems in implementing the systems.
subsections: section_title: Tracking Systems Can Help Ensure the Long-term Effectiveness of Institutional Controls
paragraphs: Regulators must track institutional controls at hazardous waste sites in  order to ensure that they remain effective over the long term. Such controls  are often intended to remain in place long after cleanup work has been  completed to ensure that a site’s future use is compatible with the level of  cleanup at the site and to limit exposure to residual contamination. EPA  maintains that an institutional control tracking system should include  information about the selection and implementation of the controls as well  as their monitoring, reporting, enforcement, modification, and termination.
According to EPA, several unique characteristics of institutional controls  make tracking them particularly challenging. First, the life-span of  institutional controls may begin as early as site discovery and can continue  for as long as residual contamination remains above levels that would  allow for unrestricted use or unlimited exposure. Therefore, institutional  controls may remain necessary at a site indefinitely. Second, the long-term  effectiveness of institutional controls depends on diligent monitoring,  reporting, and enforcement. Third, institutional controls are often  implemented, monitored, and enforced by an entity other than the one  responsible for designing, performing, and/or approving the remedy. As a  result, an entity other than EPA may be responsible for ensuring that one of  the remedy’s critical components—the institutional control—is both  effective and reliable in the long term.
Historically, EPA has had no way to (1) readily identify which hazardous  waste sites relied on institutional controls to protect the public from  residual contamination or (2) monitor how the controls were working over  the long term. According to EPA’s institutional controls project manager,  the need for institutional control tracking systems has been discussed since  at least the early 1990s, and environmental groups have long advocated the  development of such systems. While several existing EPA information  systems track basic information on hazardous waste sites, such as cleanup  status and selected remedies, these systems were not designed to capture  information on institutional controls at the level of detail necessary to  allow for effective tracking and monitoring of the use of these controls. As  previously discussed, our analysis of EPA’s use of institutional controls at  Superfund and RCRA sites showed that the agency has generally not  ensured that institutional controls are adequately implemented, monitored,  and enforced. In some cases, for example, we found that controls had not  been implemented on a timely basis, and, in at least 4 cases, controls that  agency staff thought were in place had never been implemented. An  effective institutional control tracking system may alert EPA management  to such situations.
section_title: EPA Is Making Progress in Developing Tracking Systems
paragraphs: EPA has recently begun implementing institutional control tracking  systems for the Superfund and RCRA corrective action programs. The  Institutional Controls Tracking System (ICTS) was designed with the  capability to track controls used in a variety of hazardous waste cleanup  programs. However, at least initially, ICTS will only include data for  Superfund “construction complete” sites. For RCRA corrective action  sites, EPA is utilizing its existing RCRA information database to identify  sites where institutional controls have been established. In both instances,  the EPA tracking systems include only limited, basic information. EPA has  not yet decided the extent to which ICTS may be expanded in the future to  include more detailed information. The RCRA program currently has no  plans to track more detailed information regarding institutional controls at  its facilities.
EPA began developing ICTS in 2001. According to EPA, ICTS is a state-of- the-art tracking system that is Web-based, is scalable, and will serve as the  cornerstone for future programmatic and trend evaluations. The system is  built around a cross-program, cross-agency, consensus-based institutional  control data registry developed by the agency.
The ICTS draft project management plan notes that EPA envisioned an  integrated tracking system that would be developed collaboratively using a  work group approach that relied on existing data sources for its  information. The primary sources of the data to be entered in ICTS include  RODs and any amendments; explanations of significant differences; notices  of intent to delete; and actual institutional control instruments, such as  consent decrees, easements, ordinances, and advisories. The objectives of  ICTS are to   make institutional controls more effective by creating links across all  levels of government through a tracking network;   improve EPA program management responsibilities;   establish relationships with coregulators (other federal agencies, along  with state and local regulatory agencies);   improve information exchange with individuals interested in the  productive use of a site after cleanup; and  improve existing processes allowing for notification to excavators of  areas that are restricted or need protection prior to digging.
EPA designed ICTS to be implemented in three separate phases, or “tiers,”  of data collection activities. The initial data gathering effort was focused on  collecting Tier 1 data for all sites on the Superfund construction complete  list, which includes all deleted sites. Data collected during Tier 1 can be  used by EPA management to generate reports with basic status information  about institutional controls at sites. Tier 1 data consist of information on  whether site decision documents report the presence of residual  contamination at the site above a level that prohibits unlimited use and  unrestricted exposure, and if present, whether the documents call for  controls;  the objectives of the institutional control;  the specific control instruments, including the administrative or legal  mechanism that establishes a specific set of use restrictions;   any person and/or organization that may be directly or indirectly  involved with institutional controls at the site; and   the source of the information that is entered into the data entry form.
The initial version of ICTS was designed to provide some baseline  information on institutional controls and a step toward a more  comprehensive system. EPA envisions that Tier 2 would (1) identify which  institutional controls are in place to prevent use of which media (e.g., soil  or groundwater); (2) identify parties responsible for implementing,  monitoring, and enforcing the controls; and (3) provide for attaching the  latest inspection report. Tier 3 information would include detailed site  location information, such as the actual boundaries of the institutional  controls. According to the draft ICTS quality assurance project plan, EPA  plans to make information from ICTS accessible to EPA and other federal  agencies, state and local governments, tribes, and industry groups. Some  information may also be made available to the public via the Internet about  site-specific institutional controls near and within local communities.  Initially, only data for those Superfund sites where construction of  remedies has been completed will be entered into ICTS. Although no  decision has been made to date, future data collection efforts may include  additional sites in EPA’s other cleanup programs (RCRA and Underground  Storage Tanks). According to ICTS plans, the tracking system also has the  flexibility to include data for sites in other programs, such as Brownfields  and State Voluntary Cleanup Programs.
Between April and July 2004, EPA regions entered data into ICTS for most  of the 899 Superfund construction complete sites, including data on about  280 sites that had been deleted from the NPL. Reports on these data  indicate that 154 of the deleted sites had residual contamination;  institutional controls were reported for 106 of these sites. Site decision  documents did not report institutional controls for the other 48 sites, or  about one-third of the deleted sites with residual contamination. EPA’s  institutional controls project manager cautioned, however, that the data  reported may be inaccurate and need to be verified. The official was  concerned, for example, that (1) the standard for what constitutes residual  contamination was not consistently applied across all regions, (2) some  data may have come from interim decision documents rather than final  documents, and (3) some staff entering data into ICTS may have confused  whether institutional controls were implemented or only planned. In  addition, the EPA official stated that the EPA regions were asked to enter  the data into ICTS in 8 weeks, using the best available information and/or  their best professional judgment. Because of the expedited data entry,  additional research into the status of institutional controls at the site- specific level and significant data quality assurance efforts are necessary to  ensure the accuracy of the data.
Upon completing the ICTS Tier 1 data entry, EPA plans to assess the data to  evaluate the current status of institutional controls at all construction  complete sites for data gaps and site-specific control issues. According to  the ICTS strategy, once the agency has determined where data gaps and  site-specific institutional control problems may exist, the agency will  prioritize the work to address these issues on the basis of a variety of  factors, including resources and the number of sites with potential issues.  EPA’s goal is to identify and review institutional control problems at all  construction complete sites over approximately the next 5 years, relying on  a combination of special evaluations and scheduled 5-year reviews,  focusing on deleted sites as the highest priority. The sites identified as  priorities will likely be addressed through a special evaluation, unless a  routine 5-year review is scheduled within 12 months of problem  identification. Priority evaluations will focus on whether institutional  controls were required and properly implemented for all media not cleaned  up to levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. EPA  does not yet know the scope of these priority evaluations, but expects that  these evaluations will be conducted over the next 2 years, resources  permitting. After 2 years, the remaining sites will be evaluated in  conjunction with or as a component of the normal 5-year review process.
To track institutional controls at RCRA corrective action sites, EPA  modified RCRAInfo—the agency’s database of information on individual  RCRA sites—to identify sites where institutional controls have been  established as part of, or to augment, an interim or final corrective action.
Details to be entered into RCRAInfo for pertinent sites include the type of  institutional controls (governmental control, proprietary control,  enforcement or permit tool, or informational device); the scheduled and  actual dates that the controls were fully implemented and effective; and the  responsible agency (state or EPA). While EPA currently has no plans to  track more detailed information regarding institutional controls at its  facilities, the RCRA database requires identifying a location where  additional information concerning the specific control can be accessed  (e.g., responsible agency contact information). In April 2004, EPA officials  asked the regions and/or states to enter the requested information into  RCRAInfo by September 30, 2004, for the 1,714 GPRA baseline facilities,  and by the end of fiscal year 2005 for the remainder of the 3,800 RCRA  facilities in the corrective action workload universe.
Analysis of the RCRA institutional control tracking system information  showed that, by November 22, 2004, only 4 EPA regions, and 7 states in  those regions, had identified a total of 87 facilities where institutional  controls had been established. Moreover, according to the head of EPA’s  RCRA corrective action program, because the agency asked the regions  and states to identify and report on only those facilities with institutional  controls, rather than asking for reports on all sites indicating whether or  not controls were established, the agency does not know the extent to  which the data reported by this minority of regions and states are  complete. Additionally, the official stated that the agency does not know  whether the institutional controls that were reported were actually verified  to be in place and operating as intended. In December 2004, the RCRA  corrective action program official reminded officials in all 10 EPA regions  of the importance of entering these data. Unlike the Superfund ICTS, the  agency has no plans to verify that the institutional control information  reported for RCRA corrective action facilities accurately reflects actual  conditions.
section_title: EPA Systems Used to Track Institutional Controls May Not Include Important Information
paragraphs: Information on institutional controls in the new Superfund and RCRA  tracking systems was primarily derived from reviews of decision  documents contained in the individual site files. As such, these data reflect  the planned use of institutional controls, which may or may not reflect the  controls as actually implemented. As previously noted, our review of the  use of institutional controls at Superfund sites disclosed four cases where  the planned controls had never been implemented. These cases illustrate  the need for EPA to determine not only whether institutional controls were  required at a site but also whether they were implemented. While EPA  currently plans to review the actual use of controls at all Superfund sites  with residual waste, such reviews may take up to 5 years to complete. The  RCRA program, on the other hand, has no current plans to determine  whether (1) institutional controls have been required in all appropriate  situations or (2) all required controls were actually implemented.
Information necessary to determine whether institutional controls are  being monitored and enforced is not currently included in either the  Superfund or RCRA tracking systems. As previously noted, monitoring of  institutional controls at Superfund sites after they have been implemented  may be inadequate to ensure their continued protectiveness. Failure to  monitor or enforce institutional controls can lead to compromising the  protectiveness of remedies put into place and, consequently, potential  exposure of the public to residual hazardous waste. While EPA plans to  include information on monitoring and enforcing institutional controls at  Superfund sites in the Tier 2 data for ICTS, EPA’s institutional controls  project manager stated that it is uncertain whether ICTS will ever be  expanded to include Tiers 2 or 3 data. Further, there is no plan to include  such information in the RCRA tracking system, since EPA regulations do  not require any review of terminated RCRA corrective action sites.  Currently both tracking systems only identify where an interested party  may go to obtain more information on a particular site.
As previously noted, the objectives of ICTS include improving information  exchange with individuals interested in the productive use of a site after  cleanup, and the existing processes allowing for notification to excavators  of areas that are restricted or need protection prior to digging. EPA  acknowledges that there is an immediate need for disseminating readily  available information about institutional controls at contaminated sites.  This need will only increase in the future as sites’ remediation advances  and as more contaminated land and water resources are identified for  potential reuse. Without knowledge of the controls at a site, excavators  might unknowingly contact or otherwise disturb residual contaminated  media. At this time, to obtain information about possible institutional  controls at the site of interest, excavators would need to search many  different databases and sources of information before operations could  begin. While information on institutional controls at RCRA corrective  action sites is planned to be available to the public by April 2005 and this  capability is planned for ICTS in the future, EPA has not yet determined  what information on institutional controls at Superfund sites will be made  available to the public. Additionally, EPA currently has no assurance that  the institutional control information on RCRA sites that will be made  available to the public accurately reflects actual conditions.
The Superfund ICTS and RCRA tracking systems, together, currently cover  a universe of more than 2,600 hazardous waste sites. Expanding the  existing tracking system information to reflect the institutional controls as  actually implemented and to include long-term monitoring and  enforcement information will likely be a resource-intensive task.  Nevertheless, without such additional data, EPA has no assurance that the  institutional controls actually implemented are continuing to provide the  level of protectiveness intended. In this regard, EPA currently has  established a task force that will decide what will be done with regard to  any expansion of the institutional control tracking systems.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Many of the sites that have been cleaned up under EPA’s Superfund and  RCRA corrective action programs rely on institutional controls to ensure  that the public is not exposed to sites’ residual contamination, and it is  likely that a growing number of sites remediated in the future will rely on  such controls. However, the long-term effectiveness of these institutional  controls depends on EPA resolving several issues. First, EPA’s guidance  does not specify under what circumstances a site with residual  contamination should have institutional controls. Rather, the guidance  states that an institutional control is “generally required,” or “likely  appropriate,” if the site cannot accommodate unrestricted use and  unlimited exposure. In addition, EPA has identified four factors in its  guidance that should be considered during the remedy decision stage—the  objective of the institutional control; the mechanism, or type of control,  used to achieve that objective; the timing of the implementation of the  control and its duration; and the party who will bear the responsibility for  implementing, monitoring, and enforcing the institutional controls.  Adequately addressing these factors is intended to help ensure that the  control will effectively protect human health. But without documentation  that these four factors are considered at the remedy decision stage, there is  no assurance that sufficient thought has gone into designing the  institutional controls and ensuring that they can be successfully  implemented, monitored, and enforced. Once the controls are  implemented, monitoring is necessary to determine their continued  effectiveness and to check that they remain in place. Current efforts to  monitor institutional controls, however, may not occur with sufficient  frequency to identify problems in a timely manner and may not always  include checks on controls. Finally, EPA’s current efforts to begin tracking  institutional controls could be a positive step toward achieving successful  implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of institutional controls at  Superfund and RCRA sites. As presently configured, however, these  tracking systems may not significantly contribute to improving the long- term effectiveness of institutional controls. Although EPA has recognized  many of these problems and is developing draft guidance documents that  may address many of them, until these documents are finalized, the extent  to which they will resolve the problems we have identified is unclear.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to ensure the long-term effectiveness of institutional controls, we  recommend that the Administrator, EPA:  clarify agency guidance on institutional controls to help EPA site  managers and other decision makers understand in what cases  institutional controls are or are not necessary at sites where  contamination remains in place after cleanup;  ensure that, in selecting institutional controls, adequate consideration is  given to their objectives; the specific control mechanisms to be used;  the timing of implementation and duration; and the parties responsible  for implementing, monitoring, and enforcing them;  ensure that the frequency and scope of monitoring at deleted Superfund  sites and closed RCRA facilities where contamination has been left in  place are sufficient to maintain the protectiveness of any institutional  controls at these sites; and   ensure that the information on institutional controls reported in the  Superfund and RCRA corrective action tracking systems accurately  reflects actual conditions and not just what is called for in site decision  documents.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided EPA with a draft of this report for its review and comment.   EPA agreed with the findings and recommendations in the report and  provided information on the agency’s plans and activities to address them.  Regarding our recommendation that EPA clarify in its guidance when  controls are needed, EPA stated that the agency will continue to develop  cross-program guidance to clarify the role of institutional controls in  cleanups and has a number of such guidance documents in draft form,  under development, or planned. Regarding our recommendation that EPA  demonstrate sufficient consideration of all key factors in selecting  controls, EPA stated that the agency agrees that sufficient consideration of  all key factors should be completed at remedy selection, but does not agree  that this information should be included in the remedy decision document.  However, our report does not suggest that the information should be  included in the remedy decision document, but should be included in some  cleanup-related documentation. Regarding our recommendation that EPA  ensure that the frequency and scope of monitoring efforts are sufficient to  maintain the effectiveness of the controls, EPA noted that it is revising  guidance to address this issue. For example, according to EPA, the agency’s  draft implementation, monitoring, and enforcement guidance will require  periodic evaluation and certification from a responsible entity at the site  stating that the controls both are in place and remain effective, and the  draft implementation and assurance plan guidance will include specific  roles and responsibilities for monitoring efforts. Finally, regarding our  recommendation that EPA ensure that the information on controls  reported in new tracking systems accurately reflects actual conditions,  EPA stated that, among other actions, regions are currently undertaking a  quality assurance effort to ensure that the information in the system  reflects actual conditions. EPA’s completion of its ongoing and planned  activities should, if implemented successfully, effectively address the  concerns we raised in this report.
In addition to comments directly relating to our recommendations, EPA  also offered a number of general comments on the draft report.  EPA  pointed out that a “missing institutional control” does not, by itself,  necessarily represent an unacceptable human exposure or environmental  risk or suggest a breach of remedy. We agree that the mere presence of  residual contamination at a site does not necessarily indicate the need for  institutional controls, and we acknowledge that EPA generally—although  not always—requires that institutional controls be put in place at sites  where total cleanup is not practical or feasible. We believe, however, that in  cases where EPA’s selected remedy for a particular site includes  institutional controls as an integral component of the remedy, the agency  has determined that such controls are necessary and, as such, the controls  should be effectively implemented, monitored, and enforced.  In addition,  EPA noted that an evaluation of a small universe of sites may overestimate  the number of sites with potential institutional control problems. However,  we are not making any population estimates, but are describing only the  results for those specific cases we reviewed. This report specifically  acknowledges that the results from the nonprobability samples for our  analysis cannot be used to make inferences about a population because  some elements of the populations being studied have no chance or an  unknown chance of being selected as part of the sample(s). Finally, EPA  commented that an increased use of institutional controls does not mean  that the agency advocates less treatment; we do not believe that this report  implies that this is the case.  The full text of EPA’s comments is included in  appendix II.
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  date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator, EPA; and other  interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512-3841.  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The primary objective of this review was to examine the long-term  effectiveness of institutional controls at nonfederal sites in the  Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) hazardous waste cleanup  programs. Specifically, we reviewed (1) the extent to which institutional  controls are used at sites addressed by EPA’s Superfund and Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action programs; (2)  the extent to which EPA ensures that institutional controls at these sites  are implemented, monitored, and enforced; and (3) EPA’s challenges in  implementing systems to track these controls. Although both the  Superfund and RCRA programs address federal and nonfederal sites, our  review did not address federal sites because federal agencies are generally  responsible for cleaning up their own sites and EPA involvement is limited.  Furthermore, our review focused on institutional controls that remain in  place after site deletion or termination to determine whether these controls  are effective in the long run. We also focused our review of RCRA facilities  on those whose cleanup was led by EPA.
To examine the extent of the planned use of institutional controls, we  examined all 112 Superfund records of decision (ROD)—involving 101  Superfund sites—finalized during fiscal years 2001 through 2003, and  statements of basis or other final decision documents for all 23 RCRA  corrective action facilities that reached the remedy decision stage during  that period. In this regard, we examined only the principal remedy decision  documents for the sites in our universe, rather than all remedy decision  documents. Institutional controls may be called for in a number of EPA  documents. In the Superfund program, at least two types of documents, in  addition to RODs, may sometimes include information about institutional  controls at the site—ROD amendments and explanations of significant  differences. In the RCRA program, a variety of documents may include  information about institutional controls, including permits, permit  modifications, statements of basis, and other documents. Because of the  number of potential sources of information regarding the planned use of  institutional controls, we asked regional officials responsible for the sites  to provide us with documentation relevant to the remedy decision at the  site. In most cases, regional officials provided us with either a statement of  basis, a final decision document, or both. Because we did not look at all  remedy decision documents for these sites, we may not have captured all  institutional controls at the sites we examined.
To address the extent of institutional control use at Superfund sites and  RCRA corrective action facilities, we examined EPA’s use of institutional  controls at a nonprobability sample of nonfederal sites and facilities where  (1) the cleanup process was completed in earlier periods, for historical  perspective; (2) cleanup had recently ended; and (3) the remedy had only  recently been selected, for insight into the future use of these controls. To  gain a broader view of past use of institutional controls, we reviewed files  for all 20 Superfund sites deleted from the National Priorities List (NPL)  during fiscal years 1991 through 1993; in addition, in the two EPA regions  with the most such facilities—Region III in Philadelphia and Region V in  Chicago—we reviewed files for all 40 RCRA facilities at which, according  to EPA’s database, a preliminary investigation was conducted and  corrective action was terminated before fiscal year 2001. Regarding sites  where the cleanup was recently completed, we examined site  documentation for all 53 Superfund sites deleted from the NPL during fiscal  years 2001 through 2003 and at all 31 RCRA facilities where corrective  action was terminated during the same period. With the exception of the  historical RCRA facilities we examined in two regions, for those deleted  sites or terminated facilities whose documentation indicated the use, or  potential use, of institutional controls, we conducted follow-up interviews  with EPA or state officials knowledgeable about the site to obtain detailed  information and additional documentation and to determine what  institutional controls were actually in place.
To identify the universe of Superfund sites deleted from the NPL during  fiscal years 1991 through 1993 and 2001 through 2003, as well as those sites  where a remedy decision was reached during fiscal years 2001 through  2003, we obtained data from EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS)—a  computerized inventory of potential hazardous waste sites that contains  national site assessment, removal, remedial, enforcement, and financial  information for over 44,000 sites. CERCLIS is a relational database system  that uses client-server architecture (i.e., each computer or process on the  network is either a client or server), installed on separate local area  networks at EPA headquarters and all 10 regional Superfund program  offices, and is used by more than 1,900 EPA staff. A September 30, 2002,  report issued by EPA’s Inspector General found that over 40 percent of  CERCLIS data they reviewed were inaccurate or not adequately supported.  The Inspector General’s review focused on site actions, which it defined as  activities that have taken place at a site—such as site inspections,  removals, studies, potentially responsible parties searches, RODs, and  remedial actions. As a result of its review, the Inspector General concluded  that CERCLIS could not be relied upon to provide error-free data to system  users.
For our review, we verified CERCLIS data related to the NPL sites in our  universe, but we did not verify detailed site action data for all sites in  CERCLIS. To address the reliability of CERCLIS data, we met with the  Inspector General’s staff to discuss the nature of the errors disclosed in  their report. According to the Inspector General’s staff, the reliability of  CERCLIS data was more of a concern at the action level rather than the site  level. They indicated that confirming the data with EPA regions would  decrease concerns about data reliability. As a result, we confirmed all  relevant CERCLIS data fields for all 53 NPL sites deleted during fiscal years  2001 through 2003 and all 23 NPL sites deleted during fiscal years 1991  through 1993; in addition, we verified information regarding all 232 remedy  decisions, including 117 RODs, finalized during fiscal years 2001 through  2003. We verified all relevant CERCLIS data fields with staff in the relevant  region, as appropriate, including confirming that sites were nonfederal and  had been deleted or had a remedy decision during the time frames of  interest. Regional staff found no errors with any of the deleted NPL sites in  our universe. Regional staff identified errors regarding 2 of the 232 remedy  decisions in our universe, including a change to information regarding 1  ROD, and added 1 remedy decision document to our universe, resulting in a  1 percent error rate. We corrected the CERCLIS site-level data that we used  for our analysis to reflect regions’ changes. In addition, we obtained  remedy documentation, Federal Register notices of deletion, and other  documents from regional staff that corroborated the accuracy of our data.  We also conducted interviews with officials knowledgeable about deleted  sites where it appeared there were institutional controls or where it was  unclear. As a result of these interviews and further analysis, we amended  the number of records of decision finalized during fiscal years 2001 through  2003 to 112 and the relevant number of sites deleted during fiscal years  1991 through 1993 to 20. After taking these additional steps, we determined  that the CERCLIS data we used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes  of this report.
In addition, we visited 5 Superfund sites that had been deleted from the  NPL. For the site visits, we went to EPA Region III, headquartered in  Philadelphia, which had (1) the most Superfund sites deleted during fiscal  years 1991 through 1993 and fiscal years 2001 through 2003 and (2) the  most RCRA facilities reaching corrective action termination during the  latter time period. Over the course of 5 days in July 2004, we visited the 5  sites that had institutional controls in place in EPA Region III. We  conducted a physical inspection of each site to verify compliance with the  terms of the institutional controls in place, accompanied by either the EPA  site manager or a representative of the responsible party, or both. We also  visited the relevant county recorder’s office to verify that relevant  institutional controls for each site had been recorded and to assess the  process for accessing these documents. We also met with local officials  responsible for informal monitoring of 1 site. In addition, we met with state  officials to learn about a statewide system of groundwater management  zones, an institutional control in place at 2 of the sites we visited.
To identify the universe of RCRA facilities that reached the corrective  action termination or remedy decision stage throughout the life of the  program, and specifically during fiscal years 2001 through 2003, we  obtained data from the RCRAInfo system—the EPA Office of Solid Waste’s  national, mission-critical, major application consisting of data entry, data  management, and data reporting functions used to support the  implementation and oversight of the RCRA Subtitle C Hazardous Waste  Program as administered by EPA and State/Tribal partners. RCRAInfo is a  relational database management system (Oracle) that is centralized and  Web-enabled, stored on a central Unix server at EPA’s Research Triangle  Park, North Carolina, facility. Access to RCRAInfo is restricted to  authorized EPA Headquarters, EPA Regional, and State staff with RCRA  program oversight or implementation responsibilities. During our review,  we also spoke with officials in each of the 10 EPA regions regarding their  use of the code in the RCRAInfo system used to indicate the termination of  corrective action. Specifically, we asked them whether a site coded in this  way could include an institutional control, as had been indicated by an  official in EPA headquarters early in our review. Officials in 6 EPA regions  indicated that regional policy dictated that a site coded in this manner  should not include institutional controls, while officials in the other 4  regions stated that it could. In addition, officials in 5 of the regions  expressed doubts or uncertainty about whether use of the code had been  consistent over time, whether personnel within their region used the code  consistently, or whether states in the region interpreted the code in a  uniform manner. While EPA’s Inspector General has not examined the  reliability of the RCRAInfo database, at least one previous report about its  predecessor system—the Resource Conservation and Recovery  Information System—raised additional significant questions about data  reliability.
For our review, we verified the data obtained from RCRAInfo with  knowledgeable staff in each EPA region. We asked regional officials to  verify that (1) the facilities in our universe belonged there and (2) there  were no facilities that should be present in our universe but were not.  Verifying the facilities in our universe entailed verifying information about  each facility, such as whether it was a federal or nonfederal facility,  whether corrective action activities at the facility were led by the state or  by EPA, and whether the site had reached the relevant milestone within the  prescribed time frame. As a result, we checked all relevant RCRAInfo data  fields for the 30 EPA-led RCRA facilities where corrective action was  terminated during fiscal years 2001 through 2003 and 21 EPA-led RCRA  facilities where a remedy decision was finalized during that period,  according to data provided by RCRA officials in EPA headquarters. We  verified all relevant RCRAInfo data fields with staff in the relevant region,  as appropriate, including confirming that facilities were nonfederal and had  had corrective action terminated or had a remedy decision during the time  frames of interest. From our universe of RCRA facilities where corrective  action was terminated, regional officials deleted 1 facility, added 3 more,  and edited the data for 1 additional facility, for a total of 32 facilities.  Subsequent follow-up work and interviews with site managers brought the  relevant universe of RCRA facilities to 31. Similarly, from our universe of  RCRA facilities where a remedy decision was finalized, regional officials  deleted 1 facility, added 3 more, and edited the data for 1 additional facility,  for a total of 23 facilities. We corrected the RCRAInfo data for facilities in  our universe to reflect regions’ changes. In addition, we obtained  documentation of remedy selection and corrective action termination from  regional staff that corroborated the accuracy of our data. We also  conducted interviews with knowledgeable site officials at terminated  facilities where it appeared there were institutional controls or where it  was unclear. After taking these additional steps, we determined that the  RCRAInfo data we used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this  report.
To learn the extent to which EPA ensures that institutional controls at  Superfund sites and RCRA corrective action facilities are implemented,  monitored, and enforced, we interviewed EPA or state officials  knowledgeable about particular sites. To identify sites of interest, we  examined documentation related to all 20 Superfund sites deleted from the  NPL during fiscal years 1991 through 1993, as well as all 53 Superfund sites  deleted from the NPL and all 31 RCRA facilities where corrective action  was terminated during fiscal years 2001 through 2003. For those deleted  sites or terminated facilities among these whose documentation indicated  the use, or potential use, of institutional controls, we conducted follow-up  interviews with EPA or state officials knowledgeable about the site to  obtain detailed information and documentation regarding the  implementation, monitoring, and enforcement of any institutional controls  in place.
To understand the extent to which states implement, monitor, and enforce  institutional controls in the RCRA corrective action program, we  interviewed RCRA program managers in the 2 states with the most  corrective action remedy decisions and terminations at state-led facilities  during fiscal years 2001 through 2003—Colorado and New Jersey. We also  interviewed officials in 4 additional states that were selected at random  from the 37 states that, in addition to Colorado, were authorized by EPA to  conduct RCRA corrective action activities as of March 2002—California,  Nevada, South Dakota, and Texas. In addition, we reviewed An Analysis  of State Superfund Programs: 50-State Study, 2001 Update, a 2002 report  by the Environmental Law Institute, an independent environmental  research organization, and interviewed the report’s main author. To inform  their study, the Environmental Law Institute collected documents from  states, requested program information from them, and conducted  telephone interviews to clarify responses and reconcile any discrepancies.  While a few states declined to participate, the study achieved a 92 percent  response rate. As a result of our review, we determined that this study was  sufficiently methodologically sound for the purposes of our review.
To identify the challenges of developing a system to track institutional  controls, we interviewed the EPA officials in charge of developing tracking  systems for the Superfund and RCRA corrective action programs. We also  analyzed documentation related to these efforts and initial data drawn from  these systems. In addition, we discussed systems to track institutional  controls with officials we interviewed in 6 states, including how the states  tracked institutional controls, if at all, and whether the states had any  concerns about such national tracking systems.
In addition, we collected information about the Superfund program’s  Institutional Controls Tracking System (ICTS) to inform a data reliability  review of this new database. ICTS is an Oracle database accessed through a  user interface consisting of HTML Web pages with JavaScript. The current  version of ICTS was designed to provide some baseline information on  institutional controls but was planned as a step toward a more  comprehensive system. The current ICTS has been used to gather baseline  information on institutional controls at approximately 900 EPA Superfund  construction completion sites. Officials in all 10 EPA regions were asked to  populate the system in 8 weeks using the best available information and/or  their best professional judgment. Because of the expedited data entry, EPA  plans additional research into the status of institutional controls at the site- specific level and significant data quality assurance activities. In light of the  uncertain quality of the data, in this report we present data from ICTS with  appropriate caveats.
We conducted our work from October 2003 to January 2005 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards, including an  assessment of the data reliability and internal controls.
section_title: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
paragraphs: John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 (stephensonj@gao.gov)  Vincent P. Price, (202) 512-6529 (pricev@gao.gov)
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individuals named above, Nancy Crothers, Shirley  Hwang, Justin Jaynes, Richard Johnson, Jerry Laudermilk, Judy Pagano,  Nico Sloss, and Amy Sweet made key contributions to this report.