Hazardous Waste: Unaddressed Risks at Many Potential Superfund Sites
Released: 1998-12-23T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In 1980, the Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which established the Superfund program to clean up highly contaminated hazardous waste sites. EPA administers the program, oversees cleanups performed by the parties responsible for contaminating the sites, and performs cleanups itself. State governments also have a role in the Superfund process. States may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with EPA to carry out certain Superfund actions, including evaluating sites, cleaning them up, and overseeing the cleanups. In addition, most states have established their own hazardous waste programs that can clean up sites independently of the federal Superfund program. State cleanup programs include efforts to enforce state cleanup laws on responsible parties and to encourage them to “voluntarily” clean up contaminated sites.

CERCLA requires EPA to develop and maintain a list of hazardous sites, known as the National Priorities List, that the agency considers to present the most serious threats to human health and the environment. These sites represent EPA’s highest priorities for cleanup nationwide. Although EPA may undertake cleanup actions at contaminated sites not on the National Priorities List, the agency’s regulations stipulate that only sites placed on the list are eligible for long-term cleanup (“remedial action”) financed by the agency under the trust fund established by CERCLA. Additional details on EPA’s process for placing sites on the National Priorities List are included in appendix I.

The 3,036 sites that were awaiting a National Priorities List decision as of October 1997 represent only a portion of the sites that EPA has evaluated and classified over the history of the Superfund program. According to EPA, as of November 1998, the Superfund program had investigated over 40,000 potential hazardous waste sites and made final decisions about whether or not to include almost 35,000 sites on the National Priorities List. EPA also reported that it has removed waste or taken other interim cleanup actions at over 5,500 sites—most of which are not on the National Priorities List—to address the most urgent risks and stabilize conditions to prevent further releases of contamination. For the more than 1,400 sites EPA has placed on the list, it has completed cleanup studies at most and has completed cleanup construction at 585. States have reported cleaning up thousands of sites under their own programs and authorities.

To obtain information on the 3,036 sites that EPA identified as awaiting a National Priorities List decision, we developed and mailed two surveys for each nonfederal site and three surveys for each federal facility. We sent surveys to site assessment officials in EPA’s 10 regional offices, and since state officials might have more knowledge of some of the sites, we also sent surveys to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Midway Island, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Navajo Nation (collectively referred to as states in this report). In addition, if a federal agency is responsible for cleaning up sites, we also sent surveys to that agency: We surveyed 14 federal agencies for 157 of the 3,036 sites that are federally owned and/or operated. Because we did not receive responses from some states and incomplete responses from others, we sent follow-up surveys to state officials. In total, we received one or more survey responses for 3,023 (99.5 percent) of the 3,036 sites identified by EPA as awaiting a National Priorities List decision. We discuss our methodology in greater detail in appendix II, and appendix III includes reproductions of our surveys.

About 1,800 Sites Classified as Awaiting a National Priorities List Decision Remain Potentially Eligible for the List

The responses to our surveys of officials of EPA, other federal agencies, and states indicate that 1,789 of the 3,036 sites classified by EPA’s database as awaiting a National Priorities List decision are potentially eligible for the list. Another 1,234 sites are unlikely to become eligible for the Superfund program for various reasons. First, EPA’s database of potentially contaminated sites, known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), inaccurately lists some sites as awaiting a National Priorities List decision although they are not eligible for listing. EPA regions reported that about 19 percent of the 3,036 sites should not be considered eligible sites because (1) they received preliminary hazard ranking scores below the qualifying level or (2) EPA has already proposed them for the list or decided not to propose them for the list. According to an EPA Superfund program official, the incorrect data entries may have resulted from regional program managers’ misinterpretation of EPA’s guidance on CERCLIS coding.

We consider another 22 percent of the sites unlikely to become eligible for the National Priorities List because, according to responding officials, they either do not require any cleanup action (183 sites), have already been cleaned up (182 sites), or are currently undergoing final cleanup (304 sites) under state programs. No information is available on the status of the remaining 13 sites because of missing survey responses (see fig. 1).

Final cleanup under way (304 sites)

Sites potentially eligible for the NPL (1,789 sites)

We performed most of our analysis of site conditions, cleanup activities, and plans for future cleanups for the 1,789 sites remaining after we excluded the categories of sites that are shaded in the figure. We refer to the remaining sites as potentially eligible sites. They include 1,739 nonfederal sites and 50 federal facilities.

Many Potentially Eligible Sites Pose Risks

Responses to our surveys indicate that many of the 1,789 sites that are potentially eligible for the National Priorities List pose risks to human health or the environment. Most of them threaten drinking water sources or groundwater; they are generally located in populated areas; and although many of the sites are fenced to prevent entry, workers, visitors, and trespassers may have direct contact with contaminants at more than half of the sites. The sites are contaminated most often with metals, but other contaminants are also present. Officials of EPA, other federal agencies, and states who responded to our survey characterized the risks presented by about two-thirds of the potentially eligible sites. They said that about 17 percent of the sites currently pose high human health and environmental risks; another 10 percent of the sites potentially pose high future risks. In addition, officials were unsure about the severity of site conditions for a large proportion of potentially eligible sites.

Adverse Conditions Caused by Contamination at the Sites

A large portion of the potentially eligible sites have contaminated nearby groundwater, drinking water sources, or both. As figures 2 and 3 indicate, about 73 percent of the potentially eligible sites have already contaminated groundwater, and another 22 percent of the sites, approximately, could contaminate groundwater in the future. In addition, about 32 percent of the potentially eligible sites have already contaminated drinking water sources, and about 56 percent more could contaminate drinking water sources in the future.

Actual groundwater contamination (1,301 sites)

The contamination at many of the potentially eligible sites is also resulting in a number of other adverse conditions. Table 1 shows the percentage of potentially eligible sites that have experienced or contributed to specific conditions. As the table also shows, respondents to our surveys were uncertain whether the conditions were present at a relatively large percentage of the potentially eligible sites.

As figure 4 shows, the sites that are potentially eligible for the National Priorities List are contaminated by a variety of pollutants.

Metals—primarily heavy metals such as lead, mercury, or cadmium—are the principal contaminants at these sites. These metals can cause brain and kidney damage and birth defects. The second most prominent contaminants at these sites are volatile organic compounds (VOC). VOCs are carbon-based compounds, such as benzene, that easily become vapors or gases and can cause cancer, as well as damage to the blood, immune, and reproductive systems. A large portion of the potentially eligible sites are also contaminated by semivolatile organic compounds (SVOC), which are similar to VOCs and can result in human respiratory illnesses. Additional major contaminants at the sites are pesticides, the most toxic of which can cause acute nervous system effects and skin irritations and may cause reproductive system effects and cancer; polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), which can cause skin irritations and other related conditions and may contribute to causing cancers, liver damage, and reproductive and developmental effects; dioxins, which are also a suspected human carcinogen; and other unspecified contaminants. The potentially eligible sites are generally located in populated areas: Ninety-six percent are within a half mile of residences or places of regular employment.

Respondents Ranked the Risks of About Two-Thirds of the Potentially Eligible Sites

We asked officials of EPA, other federal agencies, and states to rank the relative risks of potentially eligible sites. The officials responding to our surveys said that they could assess the current risks of 67 percent of the sites and the potential risks of 68 percent of the sites. According to these officials, about 17 percent of the potentially eligible sites currently pose high risks (see fig. 5), and another 10 percent of the sites (for a total of 27 percent) could pose high risks in the future (see fig. 6) if they are not cleaned up.

Average current risks (455 sites)

Low current risks (443 sites)

EPA’s and States’ Cleanup Activities at Potentially Eligible Sites Have Been Limited

The 1,789 sites that are potentially eligible for the National Priorities List include (1) 686 sites where some cleanup activities have reportedly taken place or are currently being conducted but the final cleanup remedies are not yet under way and (2) 1,103 sites where officials reported that no substantive cleanup activities beyond initial site assessments or investigations have occurred or no information on cleanup progress is available. Data on the year in which each potentially eligible site was entered into EPA’s records—the “discovery date”—indicate that a significant portion of these sites have been in EPA’s and states’ inventories of known hazardous waste sites for more than a decade. Furthermore, 45 percent of the sites reported to have high current risks and 47 percent of the sites with high potential risks have not had any cleanup activities, or no information on their cleanup progress is available.

Only Limited Cleanup Activities Have Been Reported for Potentially Eligible Sites

EPA, other federal agencies, and the states reported conducting some cleanup actions at 38 percent of the potentially eligible sites. Figure 7 shows the number and percentage of potentially eligible sites at which federal and state agencies have undertaken some cleanup activities or conducted other actions such as providing alternative water supplies. (App. IV presents data on the distribution of the sites with and without reported cleanup actions among states and responsible federal agencies.)

EPA, other federal agencies, and the states have completed removal actions or interim, partial response actions (not characterized by survey respondents as final cleanup solutions), including changing the water supplies of affected residents, at 576 of the 686 sites with cleanup actions. At the other 110 sites, responding officials told us that some cleanup is under way, but they are not sure if it will be a final response. EPA, other federal agencies, and the states reported conducting no cleanup activities beyond site assessments at the remaining 1,103 potentially eligible sites, or no information on cleanup progress at these sites is available.

Most High-Risk Sites Have Undergone Some Cleanup

One hundred and seventy (55 percent) of the 307 sites that are estimated to currently pose high risks have undergone some cleanup activities, while 137 (45 percent) of these sites reportedly have seen no cleanup activities, or no information on cleanup progress is available (see fig. 8). Similarly, 254 (53 percent) of the 476 sites said to potentially pose high risks have undergone some cleanup actions, and 222 (47 percent) have reportedly undergone none, or information is lacking (see fig. 9).

See appendix V for additional discussion of the sites at which cleanup actions have been taken.

Most Sites Have Been in the CERCLIS Inventory for More Than a Decade

Most of the hazardous waste sites that are potentially eligible for the National Priorities List were “discovered,” that is, entered into EPA’s inventory of sites needing examination, more than a decade ago. As table 2 indicates, 10 percent of the potentially eligible sites were discovered in 1979 or earlier, and 42 percent were discovered before 1985.

As shown in figure 10, one-third of the sites that have been known for 10 to 14 years and another third of the sites that have been in the inventory for 15 years or more have undergone some cleanup activities. Conversely, the majority of the sites that have been known for 10 years or more have reportedly made no cleanup progress, or no information on cleanup progress is available.

According to the CERCLIS database, many of the potentially eligible sites have not only been in the inventory for a long time but have also been awaiting a National Priorities List decision for several years. The CERCLIS database records the date of the “last action” taken at the inventory sites, including, among other actions, the completion of site inspections or expanded site inspections. These dates generally can be used as an indication of when the sites became potentially eligible for placement on the National Priorities List. The last action recorded for 87 percent of the potentially eligible sites is the completion of a site inspection. Another 12 percent of the sites have completed or are undergoing expanded site inspections. The data show that the last action at half of the potentially eligible sites occurred in 1994 or earlier. The last action date for 24 percent of the sites is 1995, and for 27 percent, 1996 or later. For 4 percent of the sites, the last recorded action took place before 1990.

Respondents Are Uncertain About Future Cleanups at Most Sites

It is uncertain whether most potentially eligible sites will be cleaned up; who will do the cleanup; under what programs these activities will occur; what the extent of responsible parties’ participation will be; and when cleanup actions, if any, are likely to begin. Responding officials did not indicate the final outcome for 53 percent of the 1,789 potentially eligible sites (see fig. 11). They estimated that 536 (30 percent) of the sites will be cleaned up under state programs but usually could not give a date for the start of cleanup or say whether responsible parties would participate. Collectively, they believed that 232 (13 percent) of the potentially eligible sites may be listed on the National Priorities List and cleaned up under the Superfund program, but there are few sites that both federal and state officials agreed would be listed (see fig. 12).

Sites likely to be cleaned up under state programs (536)

Cleanup Actions Under State Programs

Respondents thought that the largest portion of the potentially eligible sites for which they could predict a cleanup outcome—536 sites, or 30 percent of the 1,789 sites—are likely to be cleaned up under state enforcement or voluntary cleanup programs. However, state officials were able to estimate when they were likely to begin cleaning up only 121 (23 percent) of the 536 sites. They expected to begin cleanup activities at 84 of these sites before the end of 1998 and at 35 sites by the year 2000.

State officials also said that parties responsible for the waste at the sites that are expected to be cleaned up under state programs are likely to clean up only 172 (32 percent) of the 536 sites. Such parties are unlikely to participate in cleanups at another 29 (5 percent) of these sites. For the remaining two-thirds of the sites that states reported are likely to be cleaned up under state programs, the extent of responsible parties’ participation is uncertain.

Our survey data also show that states are more likely to have cleanup plans for the near future (within 5 years) if responsible parties are available to pay for cleanups. If responsible parties are expected to clean up a site, states are more than twice as likely to have plans to begin work on the cleanup within the next 5 years (10 percent) as for a site at which cleanup by responsible parties is unlikely (4 percent). Furthermore, states are most likely to have plans to complete the cleanup within 5 years if responsible parties are likely to clean up all or almost all of the site. Twenty-one percent of the sites with such parties are expected to be completed by 2003.

State officials also provided information about their state’s capabilities for compelling responsible parties to clean up potentially eligible sites or to fund cleanup activities, if necessary. Officials of 33 (75 percent) of the 44 states participating in our telephone survey said that their state’s enforcement capacity (including resources and legal authority) to compel responsible parties to clean up potentially eligible sites is excellent or good. Officials of 5 (11 percent) of the participating states believed that their state’s enforcement capacity is fair, and another 5 (11 percent) said that their state’s enforcement capacity is poor or very poor. The remaining state official was uncertain about the state’s enforcement capability. Furthermore, officials of 11 states (25 percent) told us that their state’s financial capability to clean up potentially eligible sites, if necessary, is excellent or good. Officials of 7 (16 percent) of the states said that their state’s ability to fund cleanups is fair, and 23 (52 percent) said that their state’s ability to fund these cleanups is poor or very poor. The remaining three officials were uncertain about their state’s funding capability. (App. VI presents, by state, officials’ assessments of their state’s ability to fund cleanup activities at potentially eligible sites).

EPA officials told us that 43 potentially eligible sites are likely to be cleaned up under other programs such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program.

Cleanup Actions Under EPA’s Superfund Program

EPA or state officials said that, in their opinion, as many as 232 (13 percent) of the potentially eligible sites may be listed on the National Priorities List in the future. As shown in figure 12, EPA and the states agreed on the possible listing of only a few sites.

In general, EPA and state officials believed that those sites with responsible parties who are likely to clean them up are less likely candidates for placement on the National Priorities List. Of the 232 sites cited as possible National Priorities List candidates, 154 (66 percent) have no identified responsible party or no responsible party who officials felt certain is able and willing to conduct cleanup activities. Survey respondents considered such parties likely to clean up all or almost all of only 22 (9 percent) of the 232 sites. No information was provided on the likely extent of responsible parties’ participation in cleaning up the remaining 24 percent of these sites.

High-risk sites are more likely to be cited as National Priorities List candidates than others. One hundred twenty-nine (56 percent) of the sites that may be listed on the National Priorities List currently pose high risks, according to survey respondents. Another 45 (19 percent) of the sites pose average risks, and 12 sites (5 percent) pose low risks. Responding officials were unable to estimate the risks of the remaining 46 (20 percent) of these sites.

In our telephone surveys, we asked state officials about the types of sites that the states prefer to be placed on the National Priorities List. Officials of 26 (60 percent) of the 44 states that participated in the surveys told us that they are more likely to support listing sites with cleanup costs that are very high compared to those for other types of sites.

Although respondents from EPA, other federal agencies, and states jointly believed that as many as 232 of the potentially eligible sites may eventually be placed on the list, none of these sites has yet been proposed for listing. EPA respondents cited several major reasons that the agency has not yet decided whether to propose these sites for the National Priorities List or remove them from further consideration for listing. The most common reasons were that EPA considers the state program to have the lead for cleanup or more data on the current risks of the sites are needed. Other major factors are shown in figure 13.

Conclusions

EPA has already made decisions about whether or not to place on the National Priorities List most of the sites that have come into its hazardous waste site inventory. However, decisions to list a large number of sites potentially eligible to enter the Superfund program or to exclude them from further consideration for listing have been deferred, in many cases for over a decade.

Our surveys of officials of EPA, other federal agencies, and states indicate that there is a need to decide on how to address these potentially eligible sites. First, about a quarter of the sites may pose high risks to human health and the environment, in the opinion of officials responding to our surveys. Responding officials said that they cannot rank the risks of another third of the sites. Second, some cleanup activities were reported to have occurred at only about half of the sites whose risks were rated high by survey respondents. Third, although all 1,789 potentially eligible sites included in our surveys may require cleanup, officials of EPA, other federal agencies, and states are uncertain about what cleanup actions will be taken at more than half of them and whether EPA or the states should take these actions. Furthermore, some states have concerns about their enforcement and resource capabilities for cleaning up sites. In view of the risks associated with many of the potentially eligible sites and the length of time that EPA or the states have known of them, timely action by EPA and the states is needed to obtain the information required to assess the sites’ risks, set priorities for cleanups, assign responsibility to EPA or the states for arranging the cleanups, and inform the public as to which party is responsible for each site’s cleanup. Also, as part of the process, inaccurate or out-of-date information on sites that are classified in the CERCLIS database as awaiting a National Priorities List decision needs to be corrected.

Recommendations

Because of the need for current and accurate information on the risks posed by the 1,789 sites that are potentially eligible for the National Priorities List in order to set cleanup priorities and delineate cleanup responsibilities, we recommend that the Administrator, EPA, in consultation with each applicable state, (1) develop a timetable for EPA or the state to characterize and rank the risks associated with the potentially eligible sites and (2) establish interim cleanup measures that may be appropriate for EPA and the state to take at potentially eligible sites that pose the highest risks while these sites await either placement on the National Priorities List or state action to fully clean them up; in consultation with each applicable state, (1) develop a timetable for determining whether EPA or the state will be responsible for cleaning up individual sites, taking into consideration, among other factors, some states’ limited resources and enforcement authority, and (2) once a determination is made, notify the public as to which party is responsible for cleaning up each site; and correct the errors in the CERCLIS database that incorrectly classify sites as awaiting a National Priorities List decision and prevent the recurrence of such errors so that the database accurately reflects whether sites are awaiting a listing decision.

Agency Comments

We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for its review and comment. EPA provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix VII. Overall, EPA agreed with the basic findings and recommendations of the report and stated that it believes that the report will be useful to the Congress, the agency, states, and others interested in the future of the Superfund program. EPA also said that it has made National Priorities List decisions for many of the sites in its hazardous waste site inventory and made significant progress toward cleaning up listed sites. We have added this information to the report. EPA also provided technical and clarifying comments that we have incorporated in the report as appropriate.

Scope and Methodology

We attempted to obtain information on all 3,036 sites that EPA has identified as awaiting a National Priorities List decision, including 157 federal sites and 2,879 nonfederal sites. To obtain this information, we developed surveys that we sent to officials in EPA’s 10 regional offices, the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Midway Island, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, the Navajo Nation, and 14 other federal agencies with responsibility for sites that are potentially eligible for the National Priorities List and awaiting EPA’s decision on their disposition. These agencies include the departments of Agriculture, the Air Force, the Army, Defense, Energy, the Interior, the Navy, and Transportation; the Bureau of Land Management; the General Services Administration; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Coast Guard; and the U.S. Forest Service. We also conducted a telephone survey with officials in 44 states to determine general information on their hazardous waste management programs and sites within their jurisdiction. (App. II discusses our scope and methodology in greater detail.)

We conducted our review between May 1997 and November 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

As arranged with your office, unless you announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator, EPA; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please call me at (202) 512-6111 if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VIII.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Process for Placing Sites on the National Priorities List

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulations outline a formal process for assessing hazardous waste sites and placing them on the National Priorities List (NPL). The process begins when EPA receives a report of a potentially hazardous waste site from a state government, a private citizen, or a responsible federal agency. EPA enters a potentially contaminated site into a database known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). EPA or the state in which the potentially contaminated site is located then conducts a preliminary assessment to decide whether the site poses a potential threat to human health and the environment. (According to EPA, about half of the assessments are conducted by states under funding from EPA.) If the preliminary assessment shows that contamination may exist, EPA or a state under an agreement with the agency may conduct a site inspection, a more detailed examination of possible contamination, and in some cases a follow-on examination called an expanded site inspection.

Using information from the preliminary assessment and site inspection, EPA applies its Hazard Ranking System to evaluate the site’s potential threat to the public health and the environment. The system assigns each site a score ranging from 0 to 100 for use as a screening tool to determine whether the site should be considered for further action under Superfund. A site with a score of 28.5 or higher is considered for placement on the NPL. Once EPA determines that an eligible site warrants listing, the agency first proposes that the site be placed on the NPL and then, after receiving public comments, either lists it or removes it from further consideration. EPA may choose not to list a site if a state prefers to deal with it under its own cleanup program. Generally, EPA’s policy is to not list sites on the NPL unless the governor of the state in which the site is located concurs with its listing.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Our objectives in this review were to (1) determine the number of sites awaiting an NPL decision that remain potentially eligible for the list; (2) describe the characteristics of these sites, including their health and environmental risks; (3) determine the status of any actions to clean up these sites; and (4) collect the opinions of EPA and other federal and state officials on the likely final disposition of these sites, including the number of sites that are likely to be added to the Superfund program.

EPA’s CERCLIS database indicates that as of October 8, 1997, 3,036 sites were potentially eligible for the NPL on the basis of a combination of criteria. These criteria include a preliminary hazardous ranking system score of 28.5 or above, the completion of a site inspection or the initiation of an expanded site inspection, and a status that neither eliminates the site from consideration for the NPL nor includes a proposal to list it. Because our objectives require data for each site, we did not sample the sites but included all 3,036 in our survey.

To obtain information on all 3,036 sites that EPA identified as awaiting an NPL decision, we developed three mail surveys. These surveys appear in appendix III. We sent the first of the surveys to officials in EPA’s 10 regional offices responsible for evaluating the sites and making decisions about listing. Because state officials may have closer contact with some of the sites, we sent the second survey to officials in the 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Midway Island, and the Navajo Nation (collectively referred to as states in this report). In addition, we sent a third survey to federal agencies that are responsible for cleaning up the 157 federally owned and/or operated sites that were classified as awaiting an NPL decision. We sent surveys on the 157 sites to 14 federal agencies, including the departments of Agriculture, the Air Force, the Army, Defense, Energy, the Interior, the Navy, and Transportation; the Bureau of Land Management; the General Services Administration; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; the U.S. Coast Guard; and the U.S. Forest Service. The three surveys asked respondents for detailed information on the conditions at each site, including the site’s current and potential risks, and their opinions on the involvement of potentially responsible parties and the likely outcome for the site’s cleanup, including any potential for NPL listing.

We mailed our three surveys in November and December 1997 and received the final survey responses in September 1998. We received one or more survey responses for 3,023 (99.6 percent) of the 3,036 sites identified by EPA as awaiting an NPL decision. On the basis of these responses, we identified 1,234 sites that are no longer eligible for the NPL or no longer awaiting an NPL decision. Because we received no survey responses for 13 sites, we could not determine whether they are still eligible for the NPL; therefore, we excluded these sites from our analyses. The remaining 1,789 sites are analyzed in this report as potentially eligible sites. Of these sites, 1,739 were nonfederal sites, and 50 were federally owned and/or operated sites.

Through our surveys, we obtained information from both EPA and the states on 1,319 (76 percent) of the 1,739 potentially eligible nonfederal sites. This information includes 1,326 state responses (76 percent) and 1,732 responses from EPA (99.6 percent). Similarly, we obtained information from at least two of the three possible respondents—EPA, other federal agencies, and states—for 45 (90 percent) of the 50 potentially eligible federal sites. Responsible federal agencies provided information for 39 (78 percent) of the 50 potentially eligible federal sites, states provided responses for 26 (52 percent) of the federal sites, and EPA regions provided responses for 49 (98 percent) of the federal sites.

Because 19 states—including California, Massachusetts, and New York, which account for 19 percent of the 3,036 sites—did not fully respond to our initial survey mailing, in July 1998 we sent a second survey to these states. In order to minimize the effort required for states to complete this follow-up survey, we eliminated sites that EPA and other federal agencies had identified as no longer eligible for the NPL. In addition, the follow-up survey included as a starting point the information on each site that EPA regions had provided in their responses. We asked state officials to confirm or correct the information provided to us by EPA regions. In the follow-up survey, we also repeated the original questions asked of the states but not of EPA regions. The original state survey was included as a reference source. This follow-up effort resulted in our receiving an additional 85 completed surveys from some states. However, despite numerous contacts, we received no survey responses from California, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and the District of Columbia. Rather than responding to our survey, California officials suggested that we obtain their responses to a brief 1-page survey on NPL-eligible sites conducted by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. Similarly, Massachusetts officials provided us copies of their responses to the Association’s survey. However, because of differences in the format, specificity of answers, comparability of answers, and topics covered, we could not incorporate the results of that survey into our analyses. In addition, New York State officials agreed to respond to only three survey questions for the sites in the state that EPA classified as awaiting an NPL decision. The three questions asked for information about whether sites would be listed on the NPL and what state cleanup activities had occurred at the sites. The responses to these questions were incorporated into our analyses.

While our overall survey response rate was high, our data for some states are incomplete. We did not receive fully completed state surveys for 491 of the 1,789 potentially eligible sites. Nearly three-quarters of these sites are located in California (125 sites) and Massachusetts (190 sites). In addition, we received only partial information from New York for 54 of its 56 potentially eligible sites. Table II.1 shows the 16 states that either did not respond to our survey or responded only in part, and the number and percentage of potentially eligible sites in each state for which we did not receive fully completed surveys.

EPA regions I and V notified us that because of time and resource constraints, they had taken a generic approach to answering certain survey questions: That is, they answered certain questions in a standardized manner for all sites in the region rather than on a site-specific basis. Questions addressed in this manner included, among others, those relating to the likely placement of sites on the NPL and the risks posed by the sites. For example, for most sites, Region I answered our questions about the degree of human health or environmental risks posed by each site by responding that it is “too early to tell/more information is needed to answer” because, according to Region I officials, “risk assessments are not conducted for most CERCLIS sites, and thus the current risks posed by these sites are difficult to determine.” EPA Region II responded to key survey questions in a similar manner. Consequently, because neither EPA regions I, II, and V nor three states in those regions —Massachusetts (190 sites), New Jersey (66 sites), and New York (54 sites)—provided complete survey information, we could not characterize the conditions at these sites with the same degree of accuracy as for other sites. For example, these three states account for 54 percent of the sites for which we could not obtain an official’s estimate of the risks to human health and the environment.

We conducted pretests of our surveys with officials in six states, at two federal agencies, and in five EPA regional offices. Each pretest consisted of a visit with an official by GAO staff. We attempted to vary the types of sites for which we conducted pretests and the familiarity of the respondents with the sites. In some cases, the respondent used only site records to answer our survey. In other cases, the respondent knew most of the answers without consulting records. The pretest attempted to simulate the actual survey experience by asking the official to fill out the survey while GAO staff observed and took notes. Then the official was interviewed about the survey items to ensure that (1) the questions were readable and clear, (2) terms were precise, (3) the survey was not a burden that would result in a lack of cooperation, and (4) the survey appeared independent and unbiased. We made appropriate changes to the final survey on the basis of our pretesting. In addition to our pretesting, we obtained views on our surveys from managers in EPA’s Office of Emergency and Remedial Response in Washington, D.C., which oversees the Superfund program. We incorporated comments from these reviews as appropriate.

In analyzing survey responses, we reviewed comments written by respondents on the surveys, including marginal comments, comments at the end of the survey, and comments when the respondents provided explanations after checking “other.” If a respondent’s comment explaining the selection of “other” could reasonably be interpreted as another of the answer choices provided for the question, we revised the response as appropriate. In some cases, respondents’ comments indicated a misunderstanding of our questions or answer choices. In these cases, where possible, we revised the response to reflect the appropriate answer. In other cases, respondents checked more than one answer; we then selected, where possible, what we considered to be the appropriate answer, on the basis of other responses in the survey or our own judgment. The procedures used in this editing process were documented in an internal 17-page document provided to all of the GAO reviewers of the survey responses. At least two reviewers analyzed each survey response, and the reviewers coordinated their efforts to ensure that all reviewers followed the established procedures. Both the original answers and the answers revised by reviewers were recorded.

In our surveys of officials of EPA regions, states, and federal agencies, some of the questions we asked about particular sites were identical. We combined the responses to these questions where possible in this report. If opinions differed, we used a set of criteria to combine answers. Namely, we chose the answer that seemed to reflect the most knowledge of the site. For site conditions, we assumed that any affirmative answer was the more knowledgeable. For example, if one respondent said that a site has groundwater contamination and the other respondent was unable to comment on that site’s contamination, we recorded the site as having groundwater contamination. We also sought to avoid understatement of the risks posed by a site. Therefore, if respondents disagreed on the level of a site’s risks, we selected the response indicating the more severe threat. For example, sites scored by any respondent as high-risk were recorded as high-risk sites. Furthermore, if a respondent indicated in any survey response that a site might be included on the NPL, we recorded the site as a possible candidate for the NPL. Finally, when opinions about the most likely outcome for a site were in conflict—for example, if the state thought that EPA would clean up a site but EPA thought the state would conduct the cleanup—we recorded the most likely outcome as unknown.

In addition to our mail surveys, we also conducted a telephone survey with officials in 44 states to determine general information on their hazardous waste management programs and sites within their states. State officials in Idaho, New York, Missouri, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming declined to participate in our telephone survey.

We conducted our review between May 1997 and November 1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

GAO Surveys on Potentially Eligible Sites

Numbers of Hazardous Waste Sites That May Be Eligible for Placement on the National Priorities List

The 1,789 sites that are potentially eligible for the NPL include 1,739 nonfederal sites and 50 federal facilities. Among the 1,789 sites, there are (1) 686 sites at which some cleanup activities have taken place or are currently being conducted, but the final cleanup remedy is not yet under way, and (2) 1,103 sites for which no substantive cleanup activities have been reported or no information on cleanup progress is available.

State Locations of Sites Potentially Eligible for the NPL and Their Cleanup Status

The 1,789 sites that are potentially eligible for placement on the NPL are located in 48 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands and under the jurisdiction of the Navajo Nation (hereinafter referred to as states). Table IV.1 shows, for each state, the number of (1) sites classified in EPA’s inventory as awaiting an NPL decision as of October 8, 1997, (2) sites that our surveys indicate are unlikely to become eligible for the NPL, (3) potentially eligible sites at which some cleanup activities have been conducted, (4) potentially eligible sites at which there has been no reported cleanup progress or for which no information on cleanup progress is available, and (5) sites for which we received no surveys.

Number of sites for which no surveys were received (continued)

Number of sites for which no surveys were received (continued)

California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Nebraska did not respond to our surveys. For these states, the data in table IV.1 are based on EPA’s survey responses alone and, for that reason, may be less reliable than for states having responses from both EPA and states. New York provided responses to only a few questions in our survey.

Federal Agencies Responsible for Potentially Eligible Federal Facilities

Under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), federal agencies are responsible, under EPA’s supervision, for evaluating and cleaning up properties under their jurisdiction. As required by CERCLA, EPA has established a Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket that lists federal facilities awaiting evaluation for possible cleanup. Once a federal facility is listed on the docket, the responsible agency then conducts a preliminary assessment to gather data on the facility and performs a site inspection, which may involve taking and analyzing samples, to learn more about potential contamination there.

Ten federal agencies other than EPA have primary responsibility for managing the 50 federal facilities that are potentially eligible for the NPL. Table IV.2 presents for each agency the number of (1) sites classified in EPA’s inventory as awaiting an NPL decision as of October 8, 1997, (2) sites that our surveys indicate are unlikely to become eligible for the NPL, (3) potentially eligible sites at which some cleanup activities have been conducted, and (4) potentially eligible sites at which there has been no reported cleanup progress or for which no information on cleanup progress is available.

Additional Information on Potentially Eligible Sites That Have Undergone Some Cleanup Actions

We asked officials of EPA, other federal agencies, and states about the cleanup actions that have been conducted at the potentially eligible sites. These activities include interim measures to mitigate the contamination, such as removing waste or taking action to protect people against contaminated drinking water sources. These actions were not considered by the officials to be final cleanup remedies.

As figure V.1 shows, of the total 1,789 potentially eligible sites, 13 percent exhibit one or more of the conditions associated with contaminated drinking water sources. The majority of these sites have undergone some cleanup activities. Survey data indicate that some cleanup activities have occurred at 77 percent of the sites for which nearby residents are advised not to use wells and at 72 percent of the sites for which residents are advised to use bottled water.

Figure V.1 includes, among other factors, the five most prevalent adverse conditions identified by officials responding to our surveys. As this figure indicates, the majority of the sites with these conditions reportedly have made no cleanup progress, or no information on cleanup progress is available. No known cleanup actions have been taken at (1) 56 percent of the sites at which workers or visitors may come into direct contact with contaminants; (2) 57 percent of the sites at which trespassers may come into direct contact with contaminants; (3) 52 percent of the sites with fences, barriers, and/or signs to prevent entry into contaminated areas; (4) 61 percent of the sites associated with fish that may be unsafe to eat; and (5) 48 percent of the sites about which nearby residents have expressed some health concerns.

States’ Financial Capabilities to Clean Up Potentially Eligible Sites

During our telephone survey of officials in 44 states to obtain general information on their hazardous waste management programs, officials gave their opinions about their state’s capability to fund cleanup activities if responsible parties were not willing or able to pay for these actions. Officials of about a quarter of the responding states told us that their state’s financial capability to clean up potentially eligible sites, if necessary, is excellent or good, and more than half said that their state’s ability to fund these cleanups is poor or very poor. Table VI.1 presents, by state, the responding officials’ assessments of each state’s ability to fund cleanup activities at potentially eligible sites.

State officials’ assessment of state’s financial capability to clean up potentially eligible sites (continued)

Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency

Major Contributors to This Report

James F. Donaghy, Assistant Director Vincent P. Price, Senior Evaluator Rosemary Torres Lerma, Staff Evaluator Fran Featherston, Senior Social Science Analyst Alice Feldesman, Assistant Director The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.