Hazardous Waste: Early Goals Have Been Met in EPA's Corrective Action Program, but Resource and Technical Challenges Will Constrain Future Progress
Published: 2011-07-22T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Years of industrial development generated hazardous waste that, when improperly disposed of, poses risks to human health and the environment. To mitigate these risks, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). Subtitle C of RCRA, as amended, requires owners or operators to take corrective actions to clean up contamination at facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste. The corrective action program is administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or states authorized by EPA. GAO was asked by Representative Markey, in his former capacity as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, to assess this program. This report discusses (1) actions EPA has taken to establish goals for the program and expedite cleanup; (2) the progress EPA, states, and facilities have made in meeting these goals; and (3) the challenges EPA, states, and facilities face, if any, in meeting future cleanup goals. GAO reviewed and analyzed EPA documents and data and interviewed EPA and state agency officials and stakeholder groups.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: To focus and streamline the RCRA corrective action program, EPA has over the past decade set a series of progressively more ambitious performance goals and identified which facilities must meet them. Its first set of performance goals, for example--to be achieved in fiscal year 2005--were to control human exposures to contamination and migration of contaminated groundwater at 95 percent of 1,714 "high-risk" facilities. EPA also established a long-range vision for the program, going beyond controlling contamination to cleaning it up. Hence, it targeted 2020 as the year by which 95 percent of 3,747 facilities (expanded from 1,714 to include low- and medium-risk facilities) would have completed construction of all cleanup remedies. EPA also (1) established a process for its regions and authorized states to follow in determining whether facilities undergoing cleanup have met major milestones toward controlling human exposure and preventing the spread of contaminated groundwater and (2) issued guidance to assist in streamlining the corrective action process, maximize program flexibility, and expedite cleanup. EPA, states, and facilities have made considerable progress in meeting corrective action performance goals to control and contain contamination at high-risk facilities. Each of the five EPA regional offices GAO visited cited efforts to improve information on state program status, better estimate remaining work, and identify actions taken to meet the 2020 goals. Several also directly assisted states in assessing whether facilities had controlled contamination. Regional and state offices also reported streamlining reporting requirements and compliance procedures. EPA data show that by the end of fiscal year 2005, the vast majority of high-risk facilities had controlled human exposure to hazards and the migration of contaminated groundwater. Importantly, the EPA data also highlight the challenge facing EPA, states, and facilities in meeting the 2020 goal of constructing final cleanup remedies for 95 percent of the expanded universe of 3,747 facilities. For example, almost three-quarters of these facilities have yet to construct final cleanup remedies. Most EPA and state officials interviewed agreed that the 2020 goal was unlikely to be met. EPA, states, and facilities identified fiscal and human resource constraints and groundwater cleanup as key challenges for achieving the 2020 goals on time. Program cuts resulting from states' fiscal problems and facilities' funding difficulties resulting from the economic downturn have exacerbated resource constraints. Technical complexity associated with groundwater remediation may also impede progress, and disagreements between industry and regulators over groundwater cleanup standards may perpetuate delays. To date, however, EPA has not performed a rigorous analysis of its remaining corrective action workload, including the resources it needs to meet its 2020 goals and the complexity and cost of what remains to be done. Without such an assessment, EPA cannot determine the extent to which the program has the resources it needs to meet these goals.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that EPA assess the remaining corrective action workload, determine the extent to which the program has resources needed to meet 2020 goals, and take steps to either reallocate its resources or revise its goals. EPA agreed with the recommendation.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: During more than a century of American industrial development, huge  volumes of hazardous waste were generated and disposed of in an  environmentally unsound manner. Recognizing that waste disposal  without careful planning and management endangered human health and  the environment, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act of 1976, or RCRA, to manage hazardous waste from  generation to disposal, among other aims. RCRA requires companies  that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste to obtain a permit  specifying how their facilities will safely manage that waste, but the law  initially required cleanup, known as corrective action, only in limited  circumstances. In 1984, Congress amended RCRA to include expanded  provisions for cleaning up contamination at facilities having permits, as  well as those required to have permits, to treat, store, and dispose of  hazardous waste.
Under RCRA, as amended, the owners or operators of facilities located  on sites where hazardous waste was or is treated, stored, or disposed of  must clean up present and past contamination within the boundaries of  their sites, as well as contamination that may have spread beyond those  boundaries. The facilities include, for example, chemical manufacturers,  wood preservers, and commercial landfill operations; the sites range in  size from small hazardous waste storage areas where contaminants  leaked into the ground to sites of more than 1,000 acres in area with  extensive contamination. While conducting corrective actions, facility  owners typically incur capital and equipment costs, operations and  maintenance expenses, and planning and compliance costs. A 2002  study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found that the costs  of cleanup at facilities can vary widely, noting at the time that facilities’  cleanup estimates ranged from less than $1 million to more than  $50 million. More recently, an internal analysis conducted by an EPA  contractor in 2007 estimated that in 2006 nationwide private-sector costs  associated with corrective action program cleanups ranged from about  $400 million to $500 million.
EPA may authorize states to administer their own permitting programs for  hazardous waste in lieu of the federal program, as long as these state  programs are equivalent to and consistent with the federal program and  provide for adequate enforcement. EPA may also authorize states to  implement the corrective action program. To date, 42 states and Guam  are authorized to manage their own corrective action programs (see  app. I). EPA distributes grant funds to these states, not to pay for the cost  of cleanup, but rather to assist in the administration of their programs.  States are required to supplement these grants with at least $1 for every  $3 in federal money. In fiscal year 2010, EPA grants to the states to  administer the program totaled $31 million. States typically work closely  with EPA’s 10 regional offices to implement their programs, and the  pertinent EPA regional office retains lead responsibility for a portion of  facilities undertaking corrective action. EPA’s Offices of Solid Waste and  Emergency Response, and of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance,  oversee the RCRA corrective action program as a whole. The Office of  Solid Waste and Emergency Response is responsible for developing and  implementing policy for the federal corrective action program, and the  Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is responsible for  enforcement and compliance assurance at regulated facilities. Although  RCRA, as amended, set no deadlines for completing cleanups under the  corrective action program, EPA set performance goals for the program in  response to planning requirements established for all federal agencies  under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993.
Over the years, nationwide progress on the cleanup of hazardous waste  has been slow. Moreover, in October 1997 and August 2000, we reported  that a number of management factors limited cleanup progress under the  corrective action program during the 1990s, including a burdensome  cleanup process and resource shortfalls. Against a backdrop of  continuing congressional concern, you asked us to assess the status of  EPA’s RCRA corrective action program in your former capacity as  Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment.  Accordingly, this report examines (1) the actions EPA has taken to  establish goals for the program and expedite cleanup; (2) the progress  EPA, the states, and facilities have made in meeting these goals; and  (3) the challenges, if any, that EPA, the states, and facilities face in  meeting future cleanup goals.
To accomplish our work, we reviewed relevant EPA strategic plans and  guidance, along with the procedures the agency has adopted to establish  goals, identify which facilities it monitors for progress toward meeting  those goals, measure progress, and expedite cleanup. We analyzed  EPA’s data on cleanup status, including information from EPA’s  RCRAInfo database. We assessed the reliability of the RCRAInfo data  elements necessary to our engagement by reviewing system  documentation, performing electronic testing, and interviewing officials  knowledgeable about them; we found the data to be sufficiently reliable  for the purposes of this report.
To better understand the progress made and what work remains, we  examined a nongeneralizable random sample of 32 facilities (located in  Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) selected from 1,658  facilities that met criteria set by EPA for facilities deemed to pose a high  risk to human health and the environment. Further, we interviewed  officials responsible for the corrective action program in EPA  headquarters and in a nonprobability sample of 4 of EPA’s 10 regional  offices. We selected this nonprobability sample of regions on the basis of  their having the largest caseloads (as determined by the number of  facilities under their jurisdictions that are subject to the program). Taken  together, the four regions account for approximately 65 percent of  facilities EPA has identified that must meet its goals for the corrective  action program. To gain a perspective from a region with a relatively  smaller caseload, we also interviewed EPA officials in Region 10 in  Seattle. Within the five regions, we visited or spoke with officials from nine  states: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio,  Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In addition, we discussed cleanup  challenges with stakeholder groups, including a group of Fortune 50  companies with facilities in the RCRA corrective action program, the  Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials,  and the Environmental Council of States. Appendix II presents a more  detailed description of our scope and methodology.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2009 through July  2011, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 revised RCRA to  include new provisions requiring certain facilities to take corrective action  to clean up their sites. EPA data show that as of the end of fiscal year  2010, about 6,000 facilities were subject to corrective action; that is, they  were required to undertake corrective action in response to a release of  hazardous waste or constituents. Facilities that may be required to  undertake corrective action include, among others, operating or closed  treatment, storage, or disposal facilities that are permitted or have interim  status—during which the owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or  disposal facility is considered to have been issued a RCRA permit even  though a final determination on the permit has not yet been made by the  regulator. Permitted and interim-status facilities generally incur an  obligation for continued corrective action even after closure.
Facilities generally come into the corrective action program when (1) EPA  or an authorized state is considering a facility’s RCRA permit application,  (2) a release of hazardous waste or constituent has been identified, or  (3) a facility volunteers to perform corrective action by entering into an  agreement with EPA or an authorized state. First, when a facility is  seeking a permit or when a permit is already in place, EPA or an  authorized state can incorporate corrective action into the permit’s  requirements. EPA or the state may use this process to address both on- site releases and releases that have migrated beyond a facility’s  boundary. Second, EPA or the state may issue a corrective action order  that is not contingent on a facility’s permit status, for example, when  immediate action is necessary to address a release or threat of release of  a solid or hazardous waste that may present an imminent and substantial  endangerment to human health or the environment, including at an  interim-status facility. Third, facilities may volunteer to take corrective  action before they are required to do so by the terms of the permit or  corrective action order.
There are no comprehensive cleanup regulations under RCRA. Instead,  EPA and authorized states primarily use guidance to implement  corrective action and impose requirements at individual facilities through  their permits or orders. The agency emphasizes the flexible nature of the  program, but several elements are common to most, although not all,  corrective action cleanups:  Initial facility assessment. EPA or an authorized state first assesses a  facility to characterize the risk posed and determine the need for  immediate action.   Facility investigation. If it is determined that information beyond initial  facility assessment is needed, EPA or the authorized state requires  the company owning or operating the facility to conduct a more  detailed investigation to establish the nature and extent of  contamination released to groundwater, surface water, air, and soil.  Depending on a facility’s particular circumstances, this phase may be  complex and take years to complete. The process is monitored by the  agency overseeing the correction action, and the outcome is subject  to that authority’s approval. While facility investigation is under way,  interim measures may be needed to control or abate ongoing risks to  human health and the environment. According to EPA, interim  measures may take place any time during the corrective action  process. In some cases, such actions may be enough to complete the  corrective action process.   Remedy study and selection. If further corrective action is deemed  necessary, facility owners and operators analyze a range of cleanup  options. A company may complete a study of corrective measures  describing the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of various  options. The scope of the effort required for such a study depends on  the risks posed at the facility: a study can be relatively restricted in  scope if the risks and cleanup option are readily identifiable. EPA or  the authorized state solicits public comments on the selected option  and approves a final cleanup method.   Remedy construction and implementation. Facility owners and  operators design and construct and, as necessary, operate, maintain,  and monitor the selected remedy.
EPA has undertaken a number of initiatives over the years to manage the  corrective action program by making decisions on the basis of the level of  the risk to public health and the environment and to improve the cleanup  process. In 1991, EPA decided to focus its resources on facilities it  ranked as high priority for corrective action because of the relatively high  risk they posed. It also decided to first control or abate immediate  threats to human health and the environment at these facilities, instead of  diverting resources to push for final cleanup actions. In 1994, EPA  established two environmental indicators: controlling exposures to  humans and controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater. In  1998, EPA took steps to remove some barriers to cleanups, such as  providing for more flexible treatment of contaminated soil that may  temporarily accumulate during cleanups. In 1999 and 2001, EPA  implemented a set of administrative reforms to promote faster and more  flexible cleanup. These reforms called for new results-oriented cleanup  guidance, promoting program flexibility through training and outreach, and  enhancing community involvement.
section_title: During the Past Decade, EPA Established Goals and Issued Guidance to Expedite Cleanup under the Corrective Action Program
paragraphs: As part of its effort to focus and streamline the RCRA corrective action  program, EPA has since 1997 set a series of progressively more  ambitious performance goals and identified which facilities must meet  them. The agency also issued guidance to expedite cleanup.
subsections: section_title: EPA Has Set a Series of Progressively More Ambitious Performance Goals and Identified Which Facilities Must Meet Them
paragraphs: Goals set by EPA for the corrective action program have encompassed  progressively more facilities and longer time frames. In response to  GPRA, the agency first set performance goals to be achieved by fiscal  year 2005, which focused on high-risk facilities deemed to have  potentially unacceptable levels of contaminants. EPA then began  focusing on longer-term concerns by setting goals to be achieved by  fiscal year 2008. EPA also began to establish a long-range vision for the  program, which included a larger universe of facilities and goals for fiscal  year 2020. In addition, the agency has also issued guidance to expedite  cleanup.
In 1997, in response to GPRA, EPA established its first set of  performance goals for the corrective action program. The goals were to  be achieved by the end of fiscal year 2005 and targeted 1,714 facilities at  high risk of causing potentially unacceptable public exposure to  pollutants, having high levels of groundwater contamination, or both. The  performance goals to be met by fiscal 2005 were as follows:  controlling human exposures to contaminants at 95 percent of these  high-priority facilities and controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater at 70 percent of  the 1,714 facilities.
Importantly, these goals did not explicitly address final cleanup of sites  but rather sought to control contamination at high-risk sites first.  Previously, we and others reported that EPA had not established long- term goals for final cleanup. In our August 2000 report, we noted that  focusing only on controlling contamination and not on implementing final  cleanup actions could postpone cleanups well into the future, and we  recommended that EPA establish long-term and annual goals delineating  the number or portion of facilities that are to implement final cleanup  actions. In response to our recommendation, EPA agreed that  implementing final remedies was important but decided at the time to use  its limited resources to focus on controlling contamination at the worst  sites. EPA also stated that the corrective action program did not have the  resources to focus concurrently on containing contamination and  implementing final cleanup actions.
EPA’s next set of performance goals, for 2008, began to address longer- term concerns. EPA continued the goals to control human exposures to  contaminants and contain the spread of groundwater contamination, but it  added two new goals. These two longer-term goals directed that a portion  of high-priority facilities were to decide upon and construct a final cleanup  remedy. EPA defined the completion of final remedy construction as the  time when the physical components of a final corrective action remedy for  a facility were in place and functioning correctly. EPA also increased the  total number of high-priority facilities that must address the goals from  1,714 to 1,968. The performance goals to be met by fiscal year 2008  were as follows:  controlling human exposures to contaminants at 95 percent of  1,968 high-priority facilities, controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater at 80 percent of  these high-priority facilities, selecting final remedies at 30 percent of these facilities, and completing final remedy construction at 20 percent of these facilities.
While directing attention to high-priority facilities, EPA was also working to  establish what it considered a long-range vision for the corrective action  program—that by the year 2020, cleanup of contamination at an  expanded universe of RCRA facilities would be largely complete. In  developing this vision, EPA issued a memorandum asking the regions  and authorized states to include in this universe facilities that, as of  October 1997, had RCRA permits for actively managing waste, as well as  treatment and storage facilities that had been closed and had postclosure  obligations. The regions and states had discretion to add facilities they  agreed were important to address through the program. According to an  EPA official, this group of facilities includes the majority of facilities  ultimately expected to need corrective action, including those that had  previously been considered as medium or low priority.
Beginning in fiscal year 2009, EPA shifted its focus from the 1,968 high- priority facilities to tracking and reporting progress among the expanded  universe of 3,747 facilities targeted in the 2020 goals. In September 2010,  EPA issued new fiscal year 2015 performance goals for this expanded  universe. These goals were as follows:  controlling human exposures to contaminants at 84 percent of the  3,747 facilities, containing migration of contaminated groundwater at 78 percent of  these facilities, and completing final remedy construction at 56 percent of these facilities.
The agency also set long-range goals for 2020:  controlling human exposures to contaminants at 95 percent of  3,747 facilities, controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater at 95 percent of  these facilities, and completing final remedy construction at 95 percent of these facilities.
Figure 1 depicts the goals set for the corrective action program for fiscal  years 2005, 2008, 2015, and 2020. (App. III contains a map illustrating  the number of facilities covered by the fiscal year 2020 goals in each EPA  region and each state.)
Notably, EPA’s fiscal year 2020 goals are for the final construction of  remedies, which is something short of the ultimate goal of final completion  of corrective action. According to EPA guidance, for corrective action to  be complete, a facility must have constructed all required remedies and  met the relevant specific cleanup objectives. For some facilities, such as  those working to clean up contaminated groundwater, it can take years— perhaps decades—of operation before a site meets final cleanup  standards. To date, EPA has not explicitly articulated such an ultimate  cleanup goal. EPA headquarters officials told us that they may consider  adding an explicit completion goal as the program progresses.
EPA has established a formal process for its regions and authorized  states to follow to determine whether facilities undergoing cleanup have  controlled human exposures to contaminants and the migration of  contaminated groundwater. An EPA document outlining the process calls  for a facility’s lead regulator (an EPA or state official) to evaluate the site,  using a standard assessment tool, to determine if these goals have been  met. Both the individual completing the evaluation and that person’s  supervisor must sign off on the evaluation and provide supporting  documentation for their determination. The resulting determination  represents the status of the facility. If conditions change for a facility  deemed to have achieved its performance goals (for example, if  contamination is no longer under control), the decision can be reversed in  EPA’s records. The major aim of this process is to measure the progress  facilities have made and determine whether a facility poses an  unacceptable risk of human exposures to contaminants or migration of  contaminated groundwater.
Regarding the risk of human exposures, EPA documents direct regulators  to evaluate various pathways, such as air or migrating groundwater, by  which humans could be exposed to contamination and determine whether  controls are in place to prevent unacceptable exposures given present  uses of the land and groundwater. To meet the goal of controlling  unacceptable human exposures, a facility may have to institute controls  such as posting signs, constructing fences, or providing residents with  alternative drinking water sources. In addition, according to EPA  documents, to meet the goal of controlling the migration of contaminated  groundwater, contaminants within groundwater must be contained, and  monitoring must be done to confirm that contaminated groundwater  remains in place. In addition, the groundwater contamination must not  significantly affect the quality of streams, rivers, and other surface waters.  To accomplish this goal, typical actions a facility might have to take  include installing groundwater systems to treat or hydraulically contain  contaminated groundwater, removing contaminated soil, or capping  contaminated areas. Cleanup is not necessarily complete after meeting  the goal of controlling groundwater migration, however. More-permanent  remedies (or more detailed site investigation) are often needed to ensure  the site is safe for reasonably anticipated future uses. As part of longer- term site cleanup, EPA would put these remedies in place.
EPA’s documented process for determining whether a facility has  achieved the performance goal of remedy construction is less formal.  According to this process, EPA and the states must affirm this  achievement in a letter to the facility or in a memorandum to the file,  acknowledging that all physical construction of the last corrective remedy  has been completed and that all the remedies are fully functional. In some  instances, EPA considers facilities to have completed remedy  construction even if no remedy has been constructed. According to its  documented process, EPA may make such a determination in cases  where (1) an investigation of the facility was conducted and no remedy  was needed or (2) no additional construction was needed beyond the  interim measures the facility implemented to control contamination. EPA  has also established criteria for determining when cleanup is to be  documented as complete. For example, if a facility has completed  construction and the facility cleanup objectives have been met, the lead  regulator can make a determination that the facility has achieved  protection of human health and the environment. EPA guidance  recommends that such a determination be reflected in a permit  modification and include procedures for public involvement.
section_title: EPA Guidance to Support Cleanup
paragraphs: In addition to clarifying when facilities may be deemed to have met  performance goals, EPA has also issued a number of guidance  documents to help streamline the corrective action process, maximize  program flexibility, and expedite cleanup. Key documents include  guidance on results-based cleanup approaches and tailored oversight,  groundwater remediation, and enforcement strategies and financial  responsibilities. Specifically:  January 2001 guidance on enforcement strategies to encourage  timely cleanup. This enforcement guidance describes several actions  regulators could consider during corrective action permitting and  negotiation, including using flexible rather than fixed compliance  schedules to determine when or if facilities should be penalized for  missing deadlines. The guidance also describes more collaborative  approaches, with reduced agency oversight, for facilities with good compliance histories and the capacity to complete necessary  corrective actions.   September 2003 guidance outlining ways that regulators can change  their processes to emphasize results and outcomes. This guidance  outlines several core approaches for consideration at all corrective  action facilities to move oversight and cleanup activities away from a  one-size-fits-all approach to one that is site-specific, based on actual  site risk, and procedurally flexible. For example, the lead regulator  responsible for a site would develop an oversight plan for the  corrective action process based on facility-specific conditions, such as  site complexity, compliance history, and the facility’s financial and  technical capability. In addition, the guidance encourages facilities to  use innovative technologies and to focus first on areas representing  the greatest short-term threats to human health or the environment.  To increase cleanup efficiency at a site with multiple contamination  sources, facility owners or operators would first address immediate  risks to human health and the environment posed by the site as a  whole and then address other short- and long-term cleanup  objectives. The guidance recommends that regulators and facilities  focus on achieving environmental results, rather than follow a  predetermined set of cleanup steps that may not reflect site-specific  circumstances. The guidance states that such results-based  approaches to corrective action can achieve environmental results  faster and potentially save resources for both the facility and  regulatory agencies.   April 2004 guidance for remediating groundwater contamination. In  its own words, the guidance serves as a “plain language”  consolidation of previous EPA policies on groundwater cleanup,  aiming to provide regulators, facilities, and the public with greater  clarity, certainty, and understanding of EPA’s policies and  expectations regarding the cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The  guidance promotes a results-based approach, recommending that  facilities address immediate threats before moving on to intermediate  and longer-term issues. It outlines EPA’s expectation that, where  practicable, final cleanups will return usable groundwater to its  “maximum beneficial use” (e.g., for drinking water, industrial use, or  agriculture) within a time frame that is reasonable. This maximum  beneficial use determines the levels to which a site’s groundwater  should be cleaned up, whether to drinking water standards or  potentially less stringent levels, which may be appropriate for  industrial use. The guidance also notes that EPA’s policy recognizes  that it may in some cases be technically impracticable to achieve  certain groundwater cleanup levels. Importantly, the guidance notes  that EPA policy also recognizes that states are the primary  implementers of the program and that facilities may therefore need to  follow the states’ groundwater requirements, which may be stricter.   April 2010 memorandum on enforcement strategy. This memorandum  outlines a national enforcement strategy to assist the regions and  states in achieving the 2020 goals. This strategy provides direction  for identifying and ranking facilities that warrant enforcement and  clarifies a number of enforcement issues that regions and states  should consider during the various steps of the correction action  process.
In addition to enforcement-related guidance, EPA also implemented  an initiative to improve compliance with financial assurance  requirements to ensure that funds are available for cleanup.  According to EPA officials, to increase EPA and state officials’  knowledge and skills on financial assurance matters, EPA held  training sessions, developed fact sheets and cost estimation software,  held monthly conference calls, and took other education actions.  These officials also stated that the agency hired a contractor to  assess financial assurances obtained from numerous facilities, which  helped to identify violations, as well as areas where more training was  needed.
section_title: EPA, States, and Facilities Have Made Considerable Progress in Meeting Corrective Action Performance Goals, but Meeting Long- Term Cleanup Goals May Be Difficult
paragraphs: EPA, states, and facilities have taken a variety of actions to streamline  the cleanup process, and the vast majority of high-priority facilities have  made considerable progress in meeting EPA’s performance goals to  control contamination. But EPA’s longer-term 2020 goal of actually  constructing final remedies to clean up contamination—a goal that applies  to a much larger universe of high-, medium-, and low-priority facilities— may be difficult for the agency, states, and facilities to meet.
subsections: section_title: EPA Regions and States Have Taken a Variety of Actions to Hasten Cleanup
paragraphs: According to the EPA and state officials we spoke with, EPA’s 2020  corrective action goals have helped motivate regulators and facilities to  address cleanups. Each of the five EPA regional offices we visited has  developed a strategy for achieving cleanup goals at the facilities within its  jurisdiction that are subject to the 2020 goals. The strategies generally  include clarifying the status of the region’s program, projecting remaining  workloads, and identifying actions the region plans to take to meet the  2020 goals. In addition to articulating these long-term strategies, regional  officials also told us that, through the agency’s annual planning process,  they develop annual targets for the states to achieve each year. The  regions build these targets into states’ work plans accompanying their  grant agreements. These work plans specify activities that states are to  perform in their corrective action programs and form the basis of midyear  and end-of-year regional reviews. Regional officials also told us that they  routinely discuss with responsible state regulators facilities’ progress and  projections, and they hold training classes and other meetings to promote  best practices.
EPA officials in several regions also reported assisting states with  facilities. In some cases, the regions have taken over the oversight of  sites with unusually complex circumstances at the state’s request.  Regional officials also told us of taking direct responsibility for completing  assessments of the extent to which particular facilities have controlled  human exposures to contaminants and the migration of contaminated  groundwater. For example, EPA’s Dallas regional office reported  reviewing technical documents and conducting site inspections at  47 facilities in Texas to verify that corrective action goals were met, and  the Chicago office reported a number of assessments in Michigan.
Regional and state officials also cited examples of regional technical  assistance, such as regional support in sampling and analysis and  groundwater surveys or modeling at distressed or bankrupt facilities.
Officials from the regions and states we visited also reported taking steps  to streamline corrective action procedures to help expedite cleanup. For  example, in lieu of the conventional sequence of procedural steps, the  EPA Dallas regional office developed a strategy that involved the  development and use of performance standards and facility-specific risk  management plans for a more results-based approach, which was  adopted by several of its states. Officials in several regional and state  offices told us they had eliminated the “corrective measures study,” which  requires an evaluation of different cleanup alternatives. Officials in one  region explained that this study often took too long and had neither a  focus nor a remedy envisioned and that with the maturing of the  corrective action program, federal and state regulators and the facilities  with more knowledge about successful remedies can better target their  efforts toward these remedies. In the same vein, a Georgia official  explained that instead of studying every option for cleanup, facilities may  now submit a proposal. The state may ask a facility to consider other  alternatives if the proposal does not look appropriate or is not likely to be  implemented within a reasonable time frame.
Several of EPA’s Chicago regional officials told us they have successfully  used streamlined enforcement orders for a number of facilities. According  to the officials, the orders allow facility owners to investigate their sites  and perform cleanup activities with fewer prescriptive instructions from  the regulators. Reporting requirements during the investigation phase  have also been streamlined to reduce the time needed to produce and  review paperwork. The officials maintained that this more flexible  approach has in some cases allowed them to cut substantial time off what  would otherwise be needed to clean up some sites. Along similar lines,  Philadelphia regional officials cited more than 50 “facility-lead  agreements” with lower-risk facilities. Under these agreements, instead of  relying on a more time-consuming enforcement order, the regional office  and the facility sign a nonenforceable letter of commitment to implement a  specified corrective action and use broad performance standards to guide  facility activities.
In addition to these streamlining initiatives, state officials also cited a  number of other actions they believe encourage faster cleanups. For  example, Louisiana has promulgated regulations that allow a tiered  approach for setting minimum cleanup levels for soils and groundwater.
Under the program, a facility may begin with stringent screening  standards and progress through up to three levels of risk-based cleanup  standards that are increasingly tailored to the specific conditions at the  site. As a safeguard, however, before the facility can apply the tailored  cleanup levels, it must conduct extensive site assessment and  investigation work. State officials believe this program has helped  address past situations where facilities and regulators reached impasses  over facilities’ risk assessments and that it has allowed facilities to work  toward cleanup levels more applicable to a given situation while still  achieving environmental goals.
Louisiana officials also adopted a program developed by the EPA Dallas  region to encourage reuse of land at cleaned sites. The state regulator  reviews a site to determine if investigation and cleanup efforts have  confirmed or produced environmental conditions sufficiently protective for  redevelopment or revitalization under current or planned land uses (e.g.,  residential, industrial, agricultural). Under the program, state and EPA  officials provide the facility a letter summarizing the site’s condition, on- site work performed to investigate and address risks, and a determination  that the site is ready for reuse. The determination can apply to the entire  site or just a portion. Both EPA regional and state officials said that the  determinations encourage faster investigations and cleanups, as well as  encourage redevelopment by helping sites posing little environmental risk  to avoid the stigma of historical contamination.
Officials from other states also provided examples of actions they believe  are encouraging faster cleanups. New Mexico officials said the state  achieved better results at its federal facilities by issuing consent orders  with detailed action steps and schedules. To encourage faster cleanups,  Georgia shortened the timetable for the selection of cleanup remedies by  its facilities, requesting that they select cleanup remedies by 2012. The  state also has an internal goal for its facilities to complete corrective  action by 2020. State officials explained that Georgia’s program may be  ahead of some states’ because it was one of the first ones authorized,  and many facilities have therefore been implementing corrective action  measures under Georgia’s policies since the late 1980s.
section_title: The Vast Majority of High- Priority Facilities Have Controlled Contamination
paragraphs: EPA data show that facilities surpassed EPA’s 2005 and 2008  performance goals seeking to stabilize the highest-priority sites by  controlling human exposures to contaminants and the migration of  contaminated groundwater (see fig. 2). By the end of fiscal year 2005,  96 percent of the 1,714 facilities designated at that time as high priority  had controlled human exposures to contaminants, and 78 percent had  controlled the migration of contaminated groundwater. By the end of fiscal  year 2008, 96 percent of the 1,968 facilities designated at that time as  high priority had controlled human exposures to contaminants, and the  percentage controlling the migration of groundwater contamination had  risen to 83 percent. Also by the end of fiscal year 2008, regulators and  facilities had selected final remedies at 43 percent of these facilities and  completed remedy construction at 35 percent of them.
Beginning in fiscal year 2009, EPA began to measure the extent to which  its expanded universe of 3,747 facilities was meeting the performance  goals of controlling human exposures to contaminants, containing  migration of contaminated groundwater, and constructing final cleanup  remedies. EPA regional and state officials explained to us that in fiscal  years 2009 and 2010, regulators and facilities continued to pursue  cleanup remedies at high-priority facilities, which had long been working  toward cleanup. The EPA regions and states also began to evaluate the  extent to which the low- and medium-priority facilities added to the  workload in 2009 had controlled contamination or constructed remedies  to achieve the 2020 goal. As shown in figure 3, 2,712 facilities  (72 percent) have controlled human exposures to contaminants,  2,357 facilities (63 percent) have controlled the migration of contaminated  groundwater, and 1,396 facilities (37 percent) have constructed final  cleanup remedies.
Figure 4 shows progress made by the 3,747 facilities covered by the 2020  goals in carrying out major milestones in the corrective action process— including facility investigation, remedy selection, and remedy  construction—plus cleanup not yet started and cleanup completed. As the  figure shows, by the end of fiscal year 2010, 283 (8 percent) of the 3,747  facilities had not yet begun the cleanup process. Some of these facilities  may have been assessed by EPA or the state and assigned a high,  medium, or low priority, but no further action had been taken. The  facilities in this category are also the ones most recently added to the  universe for the 2020 goals.
Our analysis of EPA data found that 968 of the 3,747 facilities  (26 percent) at the facility investigation and contamination control stage  are completing, or have completed, a thorough investigation of the types  and extent of on-site contamination. These facilities have already  controlled human exposures to contaminants or controlled the migration  of contaminated groundwater but not both. The majority of facilities in this  category are medium- and low-priority facilities. But a small number of  high-priority facilities still fall into this category and have been unable to  contain contamination at their sites despite numerous years as a high- priority facility. One such facility we examined is a small wood treatment  operation in Georgia that has been investigating its groundwater  contamination for years. According to state officials, under the terms of a  2005 consent order, the facility is required to collect more on-site  groundwater contamination data and install remedies by 2011. Georgia  officials told us that progress on this site is slow because the facility has  been struggling to pay for corrective action work.
At 828 of the 3,747 facilities (22 percent), steps have been taken and  both human exposures to contaminants and the migration of  contaminated groundwater have been controlled. Nevertheless, many of  these facilities may need to take additional corrective steps to complete  their cleanups. These facilities may still be investigating their sites and  studying various remedies. They may have completed some remedy  construction but may have additional work to do. Some may also have  implemented remedies but are awaiting longer-term results to determine if  the steps taken can serve as a final remedy.
Two hundred nineteen of the 3,747 facilities (6 percent) have selected  final cleanup remedies for all problems at their sites but have not yet  completed remedy construction. Eight hundred twenty-six (22 percent)  have completed construction of all remedies but have yet to qualify as  having completed cleanup. At these facilities, the selected remedies are  working, but specific cleanup standards have not yet been met.
Six hundred twenty-three of the 3,747 facilities (17 percent) have  achieved complete cleanup. The majority of these facilities have been  medium- and low-priority facilities. High-priority facilities often have  complex groundwater contamination problems and are typically more  difficult to remediate; as a result, less than one-third of the facilities that  had achieved complete cleanup are high-priority.
section_title: It Will Be Difficult for EPA, States, and Facilities to Meet EPA’s 2020 Goal for Constructing Final Cleanup Remedies
paragraphs: Given EPA’s progress to date in meeting its goals and the progress it  needs to make to meet them, it will be difficult to meet the goal of  constructing final remedies at not only high-priority facilities but also at the  medium- and low-priority facilities included in EPA’s expanded universe  covered by the 2020 goals. To date, regulators and facilities have made  significant progress in controlling both human exposures to contaminants  and the migration of contaminated groundwater, but the path toward  meeting the challenging, time-consuming, and expensive goal of actually  constructing remedies at 95 percent of targeted facilities by 2020 is likely  to be more difficult (see fig. 5). Overall, almost 2,300 facilities, or  61 percent, must still complete remedy construction. Of particular note,  even though EPA has focused cleanup efforts on high-priority facilities for  about 20 years, more than 900 high-priority facilities have yet to complete  remedy construction.
The majority of officials from EPA regions and states we interviewed  agreed that while controlling human exposures to contaminants and  controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater were achievable at  most facilities by fiscal year 2020, constructing final remedies at  95 percent of the facilities by fiscal year 2020 was unlikely to be achieved.  Many of these officials offered reasons that meeting the third 2020  remedy construction goal could be more challenging than the numbers  alone would suggest. The officials explained that progress to date has  included some “easy” accomplishments for all three goals. Specifically,  EPA and the states were able to document that some facilities had  controlled human exposures to contaminants, contained migration of  contaminated groundwater, and achieved remedy construction by  reviewing paperwork and examining records of samples and cleanup  activities completed years before. One state official also told us that  facilities have been addressed where contaminant releases were limited  in scope and quickly investigated. Our August 2000 report made the  same observation, noting that a number of stakeholders, including  industry representatives and several state regulators, considered the  goals at that time to be more of a paperwork exercise—documenting that  facilities had contained contamination—than an effort to bring about  additional cleanup actions.
These observations were further echoed by cases of several high-priority  facilities we examined for this report with “easy” accomplishments  because the remedies were installed about a decade before EPA  established its corrective action program performance goals. For  example, Louisiana was able to document that an active wood treatment  facility had controlled groundwater contamination by using a pump-and- treat system—wells installed to pump contaminated groundwater to the  surface for treating—that the facility had installed in 1991. Similarly,  several facilities we reviewed in Pennsylvania had controlled the spread  of groundwater by removing soils or installing pump-and-treat systems in  the 1990s. By reviewing quarterly groundwater monitoring reports and  other documentation, EPA was able to document that these Pennsylvania  facilities had controlled human exposures to contaminants and the  migration of contaminated groundwater and, in some cases, completed  construction before 1999. Likewise, several of the facilities we reviewed in  Georgia had controlled human exposures to contaminants and the  migration of contaminated groundwater by 1999. In Michigan, on the  basis of a review of groundwater monitoring reports that showed no  significant problems, the state was able to document that several of the  facilities in our review had met corrective action program performance  goals.
EPA and state officials have acknowledged to us that the facilities that  can be characterized as “easy” or “low-hanging fruit” have largely been  addressed and will therefore constitute a smaller percentage of the  workload that lies ahead. Most of the work has been completed that  evaluates the extent to which facilities have controlled human exposures  to contaminants and contained the migration of contaminated  groundwater (especially at high-priority facilities). The officials explained  that the majority of the work ahead will involve selecting and constructing  remedies, which in many cases will likely prove more difficult. Several  officials also told us that the remedy construction goal will be increasingly  harder to attain because the remaining facilities will tend to be larger,  more complex, and more labor-intensive to clean up.
EPA Region 5 officials in Chicago told us that facilities in their region in  particular are not progressing at the same rate as those in other regions,  and they would be hard-pressed to meet the remedy construction goal by  2020. More than 20 percent of facilities that have yet to complete remedy  construction are located in that heavily industrialized region. The officials  predicted that after 2015, the region would likely have an even larger  share of facilities yet to complete remedy construction because the other  regions will most likely be further along. Their views were substantiated  by state officials in Ohio and Michigan. Ohio represents more than  36 percent of Region 5’s remaining workload, and Michigan, 18 percent.  State officials in Ohio told us they were uncertain if they could meet the  remedy construction goal by 2020, and those in Michigan said they  definitely could not reach the remedy construction goal by 2020. The  federal and state officials cited the lack of sufficient resources as the  primary reason they could not do so. Region 5 and Michigan also cited  the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler as increasing their  workload in a way that has diverted attention away from facilities on the  2020 list.
section_title: EPA Regions, the States, and Industry Representatives Collectively Identified Resource Constraints and Groundwater Remediation as Key Challenges to Meeting Future Cleanup Goals
paragraphs: Officials in EPA regions and the states identified fiscal and human  resource constraints as the preeminent challenge for achieving the 2020  goals on time. The technical complexity associated with groundwater  remediation may also continue to impede progress, and industry  representatives noted that difficulty reaching agreement on the type of  groundwater remediation will continue to cause delays in cleanup  progress at some facilities.
subsections: section_title: Officials in EPA’s Regional Offices and the States Identified Resource Constraints as a Primary Challenge
paragraphs: EPA and selected state officials identified resource constraints—both in  terms of money and staff—as the preeminent challenge that is likely to  impede their future cleanup efforts. The problem will likely worsen if  federal, state, or facilities’ fiscal problems deteriorate further.
The gap between workload and available resources has affected the  progress of the corrective action program since it began. In our previous  reports, we cited resource shortfalls as a major barrier to cleanups— shortfalls that have continued to the present day. Specifically, EPA’s  funding for program operations in headquarters and the regions has  stayed generally the same since fiscal year 2004, with EPA receiving  $39 million in fiscal year 2004 and $39 million in fiscal year 2010— effectively a decrease when adjusted for inflation. Officials from several  EPA regions we visited noted in particular the impact this flat funding has  had on funding available for outside contracts, called contract funds. The  regions use contract funds for a variety of purposes, including for  monitoring cleanup work at facilities and providing site-specific support to  the states. For example, officials from several regions reported using  these funds for hiring the Army Corps of Engineers to monitor  construction, hiring hydrologists to provide technical assistance, or  conducting limited cleanup work at financially struggling or bankrupt  facilities. These funds decreased from $5.2 million in fiscal year 2004 to  $3.7 million in fiscal year 2010 in nominal dollars. Several regional  officials told us that the decrease has limited their ability to oversee work  at facilities or assist the states.
As funding has decreased, so has the total number of full-time-equivalent  EPA employees dedicated to the corrective action program. EPA  corrective action program staffing has fallen from 275 full-time equivalents  in fiscal year 2004 to 245 in fiscal year 2011. At the same time, according  to both headquarters and regional officials we interviewed, corrective  action program responsibilities increased. In 2007, for example, EPA  shifted the management of cleanup of PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls)  to the office that implements the corrective action program. Several  regional officials told us that a renewed emphasis on community outreach  has also taken a significant amount of additional staff time. These  officials expressed agreement with the principle of community outreach  but noted that the new approach had significantly affected their  resources.
Officials in several regional offices also cited an inability to replace retiring  regional staff as an additional problem that has slowed progress toward  corrective action goals, noting that over a period of several years, they  could replace three experienced staff members with only one new hire.  Several officials added that this dilemma continues, with many  experienced project managers approaching retirement when the regional  offices are tackling remedy selection and construction at some of the  most difficult sites.
Added to restrictions on the agency’s own spending, EPA’s grants to  states have also experienced restrictions. As shown in figure 6, grant  funding EPA provides to authorized states to help pay for the corrective  action program has remained virtually flat in nominal dollars and  decreased somewhat in constant dollars. In 2010 constant dollars,  EPA’s corrective action grants to the states totaled $34.9 million in fiscal  year 2004 to $31 million in fiscal year 2010, a decrease of 13 percent.  Officials in several EPA regions we visited told us that this level of support  would not be adequate to keep states on track to achieve the 2020 goals.  A representative of the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste  Management Officials noted that grants have not kept pace with inflation,  increases in worker salaries, health insurance costs, and increasing  workloads.
The grants EPA provides to the states only partially support states’  corrective action programs. States are required to supplement the grants  with at least $1 for every $3 in federal funds. According to the Association  of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, some states  contribute more than the minimum required by the grant. The program’s  heavy reliance on state funds helps explain the impact of state  governments’ recent budget crises on the program. According to officials  in the EPA regional offices we visited, many states in their regions have  sustained severe funding shortages, leading to furloughs and hiring  freezes. The majority of state officials we interviewed told us that budget  problems have led to fewer staff available for the corrective action  program, with remaining staff having to absorb heavier workloads, leading  to delays in cleanup efforts. Officials in two states specified that limited  resources have constrained their ability to visit facilities for oversight  purposes and obtain validating samples.
According to the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste  Management Officials representative we interviewed, most states have  streamlined their corrective action programs to cope with funding or staff  cuts. He added that this streamlining, combined with the substantial  experience of many state staff, has so far helped dampen the cuts’  effects. He noted, however, that state capacity will likely shrink as  experienced workers retire and not all are replaced.
EPA headquarters and regional officials and state officials all told us that  if program resources continued to decline, they would likely be unable to  meet their 2020 goals. EPA headquarters officials explained that they see  value in having aggressive goals for the program but have in recent years  begun to acknowledge that they may have to adjust them to better reflect  the realities of available resources. The agency has not, however,  performed a systematic analysis of the funding that would be needed to  achieve the goals or to determine how the goals should be adjusted.  Headquarters officials explained that predicting funding needs for  corrective action is complicated because the workload model reflects  43 states and requires funding from federal, state, and owners’ or  operators’ resources. These officials noted that in developing the shorter- term 2005, 2008, and 2015 goals, they did in fact discuss with regional  and state officials what could actually be achieved within prescribed time  frames. They explained, however, that the long-term 2020 goals— originally developed in 2003—were viewed at the time as reflecting a  long-term “vision” and, as such, not warranting a robust analysis of the  resources needed to achieve them. With the passage of time, however,  what was once viewed as a long-term vision is being increasingly treated  as a high-profile, nearer-term target, whose practicality, we believe,  should be assessed.
According to several regional and state officials we interviewed, economic  hardship has also tightened facilities’ own budgets for identifying and  constructing remedies. One state official told us that the state has the  enforcement tools to compel compliance, but some facilities do not have  sufficient cleanup funds. Another state official explained that financial  conditions in some industries have translated into a reluctance among  facilities to assign as high a priority to cleanup work as in the past. Still  another state official told us that whereas the state had previously  succeeded in getting facilities to clean up sites with redevelopment  potential, the recent economic downturn has reduced this incentive for  cleanups. Officials from several regions and states also told us that some  facilities within their jurisdictions are bankrupt or nearly so.
The sites we reviewed included a number of facilities with funding  difficulties. In Georgia, two of the facilities that have not completed final  remedy construction lack adequate funds, according to state officials.  One of them has struggled to pay for investigation of its groundwater  contamination and can pay only $2,000 to $3,000 a year toward it. At the  second facility, the state was concerned that contamination may be  reaching a nearby stream, so the state and EPA worked together using  EPA contract funds to investigate the site and found that contamination  was under control. In Louisiana, one site was the location of a large  chemical plant, most of which is now closed. Louisiana officials said they  are working on cleanup standards for a contaminated groundwater plume  and that standards are likely to be strict because the groundwater plume  lies over a potential source of drinking water. The officials said that the  cleanup will be expensive and that the company will have to budget to  complete it.
section_title: Technical Complexity and Disagreements over Groundwater Remediation Complicates Cleanup at Some Sites
paragraphs: Cleaning up contaminated groundwater is inherently complex, requiring  large expenditures and long time periods—many centuries in some  cases—according to a 1994 National Research Council report. The  report states, however, that it is often difficult to characterize with  precision the nature and extent of groundwater contamination, citing as  complicating factors the diversity of materials, such as sand, gravels, and  solid rock, layered under the ground. For example, water, along with any  dissolved contaminants, flows through these materials along pathways  that are hard to predict. In addition, organic solvents once used at many  hazardous waste sites do not mix with water. Heavier or lighter than  groundwater, these chemicals may migrate to or become trapped in  inaccessible spaces, adhere to solid particles underground, and remain a  source of continuing groundwater contamination. Flushing out such  contaminants using conventional pump-and-treat systems can be difficult,  time-consuming, costly, and inefficient or impracticable. Alternatives to  conventional pump-and-treat systems rely on a variety of biological,  chemical, or physical technologies to treat or contain the contaminated  groundwater in place underground. Like conventional pump-and-treat  methods, alternative technologies can also be time-consuming, although  they can potentially reduce costs. Nevertheless, the use of innovative  cleanup methods has been limited by technical, institutional, and  economic barriers.
Given such inherent difficulties, various groups with an interest in  groundwater cleanup are critical of the levels some states set for  groundwater cleanup and disagree with methodologies proposed by  states to meet those standards. EPA’s recommendation that cleanup  remedies at groundwater-contaminated sites be selected on the basis of  “maximum beneficial use” recognizes both that it may be technically  impossible to remediate groundwater contamination at all sites to drinking  water standards and that less stringent cleanup levels may be appropriate  for groundwater that is not a current or reasonably expected future source  of drinking water.
Some states, however, designate all groundwater as a current or future  source of drinking water, meaning that stringent standards must always  be applied. In other states where drinking water standards do not apply to  all groundwater, facilities may disagree with regulators about the  designation of a particular source of groundwater as drinking water. Such  disagreements tend to slow cleanup progress while regulators and  facilities spend time negotiating cleanup terms.
Illustrating such disagreements, a representative from an industry group  representing Fortune 50 companies with whom we met expressed  concern that facilities have been required to apply drinking water  standards to groundwater remediation efforts in situations where  groundwater had not been used for that purpose and was not likely to be  used as such in the foreseeable future. He also cited instances in which it  was technically impracticable to achieve drinking water standards. The  industry representative also noted that facilities may hesitate to install  remedies that may not be able to achieve the applicable cleanup level  when new or additional systems may later be required as technology  advances. He went on to say that, in his view, EPA has not provided  enough guidance to states and that some states are not implementing the  guidance the agency does provide—for example, guidance about less  stringent cleanups or waivers that may be granted to facilities where  cleanup to drinking water standards is technically impracticable.
EPA officials and some state regulators explained to us that a natural  tension exists between regulatory and industry positions. Regulatory  officials and the industry representatives agreed that because of the cost  and long time frames involved in groundwater cleanup, facilities may be  reluctant to invest in groundwater cleanup equipment. In essence, they  say that disagreements center on judgments over questions like, “How  clean is clean enough?” and on whether, for example, industrial sites  should be cleaned up to the same levels as sites in or near residential  areas. Disagreements also arise when the final remedy required under  the corrective action program is one that contains contaminated  groundwater (which requires long-term controls, operation, and  monitoring), rather than eliminates groundwater contaminants. We heard  from state regulators in Georgia and Michigan that while affected facilities  may want to focus only on controlling contamination, regulators may want  to see removal or effective treatment in place that eliminates as much of  any continuing sources of contamination as possible before emphasizing  containment of the remainder. Michigan officials noted that this issue is  especially important given the possibility that, in the event of  bankruptcies, future long-term management and costs of operating the  containment systems may fall to the state, EPA, or both.
It is difficult to gauge the extent to which such disagreements may stand  in the way of achieving EPA’s 2020 goals. State and EPA regional  officials we interviewed said that state standards and procedures would  not limit their ability to reach the 2020 goals. Given the state lead on  groundwater-related issues, EPA headquarters officials noted that the  agency generally defers to state judgment on these issues. Officials from  three states with particularly strict groundwater cleanup policies— Georgia, Michigan, and New Mexico—told us that their groundwater  policies do not factor into their ability to reach the remedy construction  goal by 2020. In fact, in reviewing a draft of this report, Michigan officials  noted that addressing concerns raised by the public about the sufficiency  of the standards may have more of an impact on their ability to reach the  2020 goals. Officials in Georgia added that, in their experience, less  stringent standards do not significantly expedite cleanup. Specifically,  officials said that allowing facilities to contain groundwater contamination  or restrict its use, rather than remediate it, does not motivate most  facilities with a history of delaying corrective action to clean up. The  officials also noted that weakening cleanup standards with the hope of  increasing the number of facilities that reach the 2020 goals would put  facilities that have complied with existing regulations at an economic  disadvantage with respect to competitors that have delayed compliance.
In contrast, the industry representative cited above acknowledged that  groundwater policy decisions are in fact largely state prerogatives, but he  maintained that EPA’s failure to more forcefully promote alternatives that  were less costly and easier to implement (while still protective of human  health and the environment) stood in the way of achieving the 2020 goals  at many facilities.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: EPA, states, and facilities have made significant progress over the past  decade in streamlining RCRA corrective action processes, setting  performance goals to better direct the corrective action program and  accomplishing on-the-ground cleanups of hazardous waste.  Nevertheless, resource constraints, the size and cost of the program’s  remaining workload, and projected federal and state budget cuts are  leading EPA and state regulators to question whether this rate of  progress can be sustained. Without realistically taking these factors into  account, EPA cannot reliably determine the extent to which the program  has the resources it needs to meet its 2020 vision and goals nor better  align the 2020 goals with resources it will take to attain them.
We acknowledge the complexities associated with a definitive and  detailed analysis of the program’s costs, given the number and  complexity of cleanups required and the varied federal, state, and  industry sources that fund it. Nevertheless, short of an exhaustive, facility- by-facility study, we believe that much useful information can be gained  from a more limited effort in which EPA headquarters, EPA regions, and  participating states collaborate in an analysis that sheds light on the  practicality of the 2020 goals—particularly one that takes into account the  recent economic and fiscal events that have affected program participants  and the funding they rely on. We believe that such an analysis could  provide useful information to senior EPA managers and to Congress and  would help inform decisions about the program’s future direction.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To sustain progress in the RCRA corrective action program and better  align the 2020 program goals with resources it will take to attain them, we  recommend that the EPA Administrator direct cognizant officials to  assess the agency’s remaining corrective action workload, determine the  extent to which the program has the resources it needs to meet these  goals, and take steps to either reallocate its resources to the program or  revise the goals.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment; the  agency’s written comments are reproduced in appendix IV. EPA’s July 6,  2011, letter stated that the report was accurate in its representation of the  corrective action program, noting specifically that it “provides a good  summary . . . on the Corrective Action Program, highlights some of the  challenges and issues the program faces, and notes initiatives that  individual states or regions have taken.” The letter also expressed  agreement with the recommendation to assess the program’s workload  and potentially make adjustments in either program resources or in  program goals. Toward this end, EPA noted that it will “work with its  regional offices and authorized state programs to define . . . remaining  workloads, identify efficiencies to help with addressing the workload, and  strive to use resources in the most focused way possible to achieve these  goals.”
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Administrator of EPA, and other interested  parties. In addition, this 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 about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. Key contributors to the report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: U.S. States and Territories Authorized to Manage a Corrective Action Program
section_title: Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: Our objectives were to determine (1) the actions the Environmental  Protection Agency (EPA) has taken to establish goals for the Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action program and to  expedite cleanup; (2) the progress EPA, the states, and facilities have  made in meeting performance goals; and (3) the challenges, if any, that  EPA, the states, and facilities may face in meeting future cleanup goals.
To determine the actions EPA has taken to establish goals for the  corrective action program and expedite cleanup, we reviewed relevant  EPA strategic plans. We reviewed the process the agency has adopted to  establish goals and the methodology used to identify which facilities will  be monitored for progress toward meeting those goals. We also reviewed  the procedures established to evaluate whether facilities have met the  goals. To determine the actions taken by EPA to expedite cleanup, we  reviewed applicable guidance and training materials. We also reviewed  strategy documents each region prepared to address actions to be taken  to meet EPA’s 2020 goals for the program. We obtained the budget for,  and number of full-time-equivalent EPA employees dedicated to, the  corrective action program for fiscal years 2004 through 2011.
To determine the progress EPA, the states, and facilities have made in  meeting corrective action performance goals, we reviewed EPA’s fiscal  years 2005 and 2008 Performance and Accountability Report to  Congress and obtained data from EPA on the status of the corrective  action program at the end of fiscal years 2005 and 2008. To determine  the current status of the program toward meeting the 2020 goals, we  collected and analyzed data from EPA’s national program management  and inventory system of hazardous waste handlers, RCRAInfo. This  system includes a range of information on treatment, storage, and  disposal facilities, including permit and closure status, compliance with  federal and state regulations, and cleanup activities. We focused our  analysis on the facilities that EPA has identified as part of the universe of  facilities to meet its 2020 corrective action performance goals. We  determined the number of facilities designated by EPA as having  controlled human exposures to contaminants, contained the migration of  contaminated groundwater, and constructed final cleanup remedies. We  also compared the status of facilities in this group that EPA has  designated as high priority with the status of facilities the agency has  designated as medium- and low-priority. To illustrate facilities’ cleanup  progress, we also grouped facilities into categories generally  corresponding with stages in the corrective action process: cleanup not  started, facility investigation and contamination control under way,  contamination controlled, remedy selected, remedy constructed, and  cleanup completed. We assessed the reliability of the RCRAInfo data  elements necessary to our engagement by (1) performing electronic  testing of required data elements, (2) reviewing existing information about  the data and the system that produced them, and (3) interviewing agency  officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined that the data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To better understand progress made; identify any initiatives by EPA and  states to expedite cleanups; and identify challenges EPA, the states, and  facilities may face in meeting future cleanup goals, we interviewed  officials responsible for the corrective action program at EPA  headquarters and at a nonprobability sample of 4 of EPA’s 10 regional  offices. We selected the regions because they had the largest caseloads  (as determined by the number of facilities subject to the program that are  under their jurisdictions). Taken together, the 4 regions—Region 3 in  Philadelphia, Region 4 in Atlanta, Region 5 in Chicago, and Region 6 in  Dallas—account for approximately 65 percent of facilities EPA has  identified that are to meet its goals for the corrective action program. To  gain a perspective from a region with a relatively smaller caseload, we  also interviewed EPA officials in Region 10 in Seattle. The findings from  our interviews at these regional offices cannot be generalized to those we  did not include in our nonprobability sample. Within the 5 regions, we  visited or spoke with officials from nine states: Alabama, Georgia,  Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and  Virginia. Except Pennsylvania, these states are authorized to implement  the corrective action program (see app. I). We examined a  nongeneralizable, random sample of 32 facilities (located in Georgia,  Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) selected from 1,658 facilities that  met criteria set by EPA for facilities deemed to pose a high risk to human  health and the environment. We randomly selected the 32 to ensure an  objective selection of facilities to examine more closely. We did not  generalize our findings from this sample to the population. Included in the  information collected about these facilities were the types of activities  conducted to reach the goals at the facility and the type of work  remaining.
In addition, we discussed cleanup challenges with various stakeholder  groups. These included the RCRA Corrective Action Project, a group of  major corporations with facilities in the corrective action program,  represented by attorneys and cleanup managers. We also met with  officials from the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste  Management Officials and the Environmental Council of States.
We conducted this performance audit from December 2009 through July  2011, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix III: EPA Regions and Distribution of Facilities Covered by Corrective Action Goals for 2020
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Steven Elstein (Assistant  Director), Antoinette Capaccio, Ellen W. Chu, Melinda Cordero, Cindy  Gilbert, Brian Hartman, and Leigh McCaskill White made key  contributions to this report.