Hazardous Waste: Early Goals Have Been Met in EPA's Corrective Action Program, but Resource and Technical Challenges Will Constrain Future Progress
Released: 2011-08-25T00:00:00

Letter

Background

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.

During the Past Decade, EPA Established Goals and Issued Guidance to Expedite Cleanup under the Corrective Action Program

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.

EPA Has Set a Series of Progressively More Ambitious Performance Goals and Identified Which Facilities Must Meet Them

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.

EPA Guidance to Support Cleanup

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.

EPA, States, and Facilities Have Made Considerable Progress in Meeting Corrective Action Performance Goals, but Meeting Long- Term Cleanup Goals May Be Difficult

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.

EPA Regions and States Have Taken a Variety of Actions to Hasten Cleanup

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.

The Vast Majority of High- Priority Facilities Have Controlled Contamination

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.

It Will Be Difficult for EPA, States, and Facilities to Meet EPA’s 2020 Goal for Constructing Final Cleanup Remedies

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.

EPA Regions, the States, and Industry Representatives Collectively Identified Resource Constraints and Groundwater Remediation as Key Challenges to Meeting Future Cleanup Goals

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.

Officials in EPA’s Regional Offices and the States Identified Resource Constraints as a Primary Challenge

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.

Technical Complexity and Disagreements over Groundwater Remediation Complicates Cleanup at Some Sites

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendation for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Appendix I: U.S. States and Territories Authorized to Manage a Corrective Action Program

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Appendix III: EPA Regions and Distribution of Facilities Covered by Corrective Action Goals for 2020

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

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.