Superfund: Information on the Status of Sites
Released: 1998-09-24T00:00:00

Letter

Background

The National Priorities List (NPL) is EPA’s list of hazardous waste sites that present the greatest long-term threats to human health and the environment. After being placed on the NPL, a site generally proceeds through the remedial program, which is responsible for conducting long-term cleanups. A remedial cleanup starts with a remedial investigation, which assesses in detail the contamination and related environmental and health risks, and a feasibility study, which evaluates alternative remedies for cleaning up a site. After one or more cleanup remedies are selected, EPA or, under EPA’s oversight, the parties responsible for contaminating the site design the technical drawings and develop specifications for the remedial actions. The remedial actions are then constructed or implemented. To organize cleanup activities, EPA may divide a site into two or more “operable units” corresponding to different physical areas at the site or different environmental media, such as soil or groundwater.

Under CERCLA, EPA has the authority to compel parties responsible for the contamination at a site to perform the cleanup. EPA may also pay for the cleanup and attempt to recover the costs. Site cleanups conducted by EPA are financed through a trust fund, commonly called the Superfund, established under CERCLA. The state in which a site is located may also carry out a CERCLA cleanup and related actions at the site under an agreement with EPA.

In addition to using the Superfund to pay for remedial actions at NPL sites, EPA can use the fund to pay for removal actions at NPL and other sites. Removals are shorter-term actions that generally address immediate threats from hazardous substances—such as removing leaking hazardous waste containers. These actions may be performed instead of or in addition to the remedial actions. Removal actions may use some of the same cleanup methods as the remedial program but are typically faster because they use a simpler site assessment and remedy selection process.

EPA uses a database called the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) to track activities at NPL and other sites. CERCLIS also contains the dates by which EPA regions are planning to select remedies at NPL sites. Data entries to CERCLIS must be supported by specific documents required by the Superfund/Oil Program Implementation Manual. For example, an entry showing the completion of a remedy design by a responsible party must be supported by an EPA-approved final design document.

EPA allocates the annual Superfund appropriation it receives from the Congress for various program functions. For example, it estimates the funds that will be needed to continue work at ongoing remediation projects and to conduct emergency removal actions. After these and other needs are provided for, it assigns the remaining funds to new cleanup actions. It uses a National Prioritization Panel to allocate these remaining funds to sites ready to start new remedial actions and to unusually large removal actions beyond what can be funded through the regular removal allocation. The Prioritization Panel, which consists of regional and headquarters officials, ranks new remedial and removal actions proposed by the regions in order of priority based on the risks the sites pose and other factors. EPA approves funding for projects based on these priority rankings.

Remedies Have Been Selected at Most NPL Sites

As of September 30, 1997, EPA had selected all remedies at about 70 percent of the NPL sites listed as of that date. It plans to complete the selection of remedies for an additional 22 percent of these sites by the end of fiscal year 1999.

Status of Remedy Selection

As of September 30, 1997, EPA had completed the selection of remedies at 926 (about 70 percent) of the 1,327 NPL sites listed as of that date that the Superfund program is expected to clean up. In addition, EPA had selected at least one remedy at another 222 sites. Almost 60 percent (133) of the sites with at least one remedy selected had only one more remedy to be selected. In total, 1,925 (almost 70 percent) of the 2,753 remedies expected to be selected for the sites listed by September 30, 1997, had been chosen. No remedies had been selected for 179 of the NPL sites. (App. I contains summary data on the status of remedy selection as of September 30, 1997, for nonfederal and federal sites; app. II summarizes remedy selection activity by state; app. III shows the remedy selection status of each NPL site; and app. IV list sites with at least one remedy selected and only one more to be selected.)

Remedy selection was not as far along at federal sites as at nonfederal ones. All remedies had been selected for about 76 percent of the nonfederal sites (890 of 1,169 sites) compared with about 23 percent of the federal sites (36 of 158 sites). EPA had selected about 81 percent of the cleanup remedies planned for nonfederal sites (1,444 of 1,792 remedies) and about 50 percent of the cleanup remedies planned for federal sites (481 of 961 remedies). EPA officials said that the slower pace of remedy selection at federal sites occurred because many were listed on the NPL after nonfederal sites and were larger and more complex. They said that their latest data showed that federal sites had an average of 8 operable units, while nonfederal sites contained 1.8 operable units on average. (See fig. 1 for the relative status of remedy selection at nonfederal and federal sites, as of September 30, 1997.)

Planned Remedy Selection

We developed information from the CERCLIS database and a survey of EPA regions to show the number of sites that are expected to complete remedy selection in future years and the number of remedies planned to be selected at all sites in those years. (Appendix V shows the steps we took to confirm the planned remedy selection dates recorded in CERCLIS.) Our analysis indicates that in fiscal year 1998, EPA expects to complete remedy selection for 138 of the NPL sites that were listed as of September 30, 1997, and in fiscal year 1999, it expects to complete remedy selection for another 151 sites. If these plans are realized, by September 30, 1999, EPA will have selected all remedies for 1,215 sites, or 92 percent, of the 1,327 NPL sites listed as of September 30, 1997, that are expected to require remedies. Remedies will have been selected for about 95 percent of nonfederal sites (1,109 of 1,169 sites) and for about 67 percent of federal sites (106 of 158 sites). See fig. 2 for the number and percentage of nonfederal and federal sites that had all remedies selected by the end of fiscal year 1997 or that are expected to have all remedies selected by the end of fiscal years 1998 or 1999, or later.

Only 112 sites listed as of September 30, 1997, are not expected to have all remedies chosen by the end of fiscal year 1999. These consist of 52 federal and 60 nonfederal sites. A list of these 112 sites with the date they were listed on the NPL is shown in app. VI.

Data on the Progress of Cleanup Were Accurate for 95 Percent of Sites

CERCLIS contains information on the phase of cleanup reached by each operable unit at each NPL site. These cleanup phases include, in chronological order, the start and completion of a site study, the selection of a remedy, the start and completion of a remedial design, and the start and completion of a remedial action. CERCLIS also indicates whether all remedies have been constructed at sites. To test the reliability of CERCLIS data regarding the cleanup phase reached at NPL sites, we selected a random sample of 98 NPL sites that had not reached the “construction complete” stage as of September 30, 1997, and sought confirmation from EPA’s regional offices of the most recent remedial activity reported by CERCLIS for each operable unit at the sites. We excluded sites at which construction was complete at all operable units because EPA’s Inspector General had recently confirmed that the status of these sites has been accurately reported by EPA.

We selected from CERCLIS the most recent remedial action for 270 operable units at the 98 sampled sites. We requested that the regions provide us with documentation to support these actions. We considered the documentation provided to be adequate to confirm actions at 95 percent (93) of the sites. Regions reported that at five sites CERCLIS incorrectly recorded the status of cleanup work. At two of these sites, one or more operable units had not reached the cleanup stage recorded in CERCLIS; at two other sites, an operable unit had progressed beyond the stage indicated by CERCLIS; and at the fifth site, an action that was recorded as a remedial action in CERCLIS was actually a removal action. Regional information management personnel attributed these errors to data entry problems and agreed to correct the database. On the basis of our sample results, we estimate that the cleanup status of NPL sites reported by CERCLIS, as of September 30, 1997, was accurate for 95 percent (plus or minus 4.4 percent) of these sites. Our estimate of accuracy is limited to the CERCLIS data showing the status of cleanup work.

Not Enough Funds Are Available to Start Remedial Actions at All Sites

More sites are expected to be ready to begin cleanup actions requiring expenditures from the Superfund in fiscal year 1998 than can be started with the funds allocated for new actions. As of June 5, 1998, EPA had approved about $33 million in funding for new cleanup actions at 8 sites and had identified 38 other sites that could begin cleanup actions in fiscal year 1998 at an estimated cost of $230 million. EPA officials expect that about $100 million will be available to fund new cleanup actions by the end of the fiscal year, leaving a shortfall of about $163 million. EPA officials believe that $100 million will fund cleanup actions at up to 20 sites; the exact number will be determined by the cost of the individual projects selected. According to our analysis of EPA’s data, there could be at least 26 sites where new cleanup actions cannot be started in fiscal year 1998 because funds will not be available. Estimates of the funds available for cleanup and the identity and number of the sites ready for cleanup action are subject to revision as the year progresses.

Sites Ready for Remedial Action

According to the Senior Process Manager in EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, who chairs the National Prioritization Panel, a site is considered ready for a remedial action requiring Superfund financing in fiscal year 1998 if four conditions are expected to be met by the end of the fiscal year: (1) The remedial design is complete, (2) the contracting capacity exists to begin work, (3) the state in which the site is located has agreed to pay its share of the project’s costs, and (4) settlement with the responsible parties is not likely. EPA’s regional officials have identified 38 sites that are expected to be ready for cleanup actions in fiscal year 1998 but that had not been approved for funding as of June 5, 1998. (See app. VII for a list of these sites.) Removal actions are scheduled for 10 of the 38 sites, and remedial actions are scheduled at the other 28 sites.

The ten removal actions are expected to cost $56.5 million. According to the Chair of the National Prioritization Panel, top Superfund management will make a decision before the end of the fiscal year about how much of the $100 million available for new cleanup actions can be spent on these removals. He estimated that about $10 million will be allocated for removal actions.

Factors Affecting Funding Availability and Needs

According to EPA officials, the number and identity of the sites that will ultimately receive funding in fiscal year 1998 for new cleanup actions depend on events that may unfold during the year. These events could affect both the supply of funds and the readiness of sites for cleanup action.

The Chair of the National Prioritization Panel said that $100 million is his best estimate of the funds that will be available for new cleanup actions for fiscal year 1998. However, he said that the actual amount could vary from the estimate because of changes in expected expenditures for competing Superfund activities, such as ongoing remedial action projects, and the results of negotiations with responsible parties over EPA’s contribution to certain new cleanup projects. The amount available for new remedial actions could also be affected by the amount of unspent funds that is recovered from Superfund contracts.

The number and identity of sites ready for remedial actions in fiscal year 1998 could also change. For example, the scheduled completion of remedial designs could slip, thereby postponing the start of remedial actions, or settlements with responsible parties not now anticipated might be achieved, thereby negating the need for Superfund financing. Panel members in the EPA regions we interviewed thought there was a possibility of such settlements for 2 of the 38 sites not funded as of June 5, 1998.

The estimates of cleanup costs for individual sites are also subject to some revision. The estimates for some sites are based on preliminary design estimates. In addition, at sites where remedial action costs are estimated at over $5 million, cleanup may be financed over more than one fiscal year when possible. Fifteen of the 38 unfunded sites have estimated remedial action costs exceeding $5 million.

Agency Comments

We provided copies of a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment. EPA responded that the report and the data reported in it were accurate and that the agency had no further comments.

Scope and Methodology

To determine the progress the Superfund program has made in selecting remedies, we obtained a copy of the CERCLIS database dated December 15, 1997. We analyzed this database to calculate the number of sites with all remedies selected by September 30, 1997, and the number of remedies planned for both nonfederal and federal sites. We adjusted the CERCLIS remedy selection data in accordance with information provided by EPA’s regions as described in app. V.

To verify the accuracy of the information in CERCLIS on sites’ cleanup progress, we selected a statistically random sample of 98 sites. For each operable unit at each site, we obtained CERCLIS data showing the latest remedial action as of September 30, 1997, such as the start of a site study or the completion of a remedial design. We asked each EPA region to provide us with documents to demonstrate that the action indicated by CERCLIS had taken place. If documentation was unavailable, we talked to information management coordinators and site managers to obtain testimonial evidence that the information recorded in CERCLIS was accurate and reviewed published reports of work completed at the sites. On the basis of this survey, we estimated the accuracy of the CERCLIS data on site status.

We also checked with the responsible EPA regional offices on the accuracy of the information in CERCLIS about sites at which remedy selection was planned to be completed in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. Using the CERCLIS database, we developed lists of 586 sites with remedies planned for completion by September 30, 1999. From these lists, we determined that 166 sites fit into one of three categories: (1) The study phase that precedes remedy selection had not started, (2) the study phase was started during calendar year 1997, or (3) the study phase was started before calendar year 1990. The first two categories presented questions as to the completion of the remedies in the time forecast by CERCLIS, since studies take an average of over 4 years to complete, and the third category raised questions because of the long apparent delays in completing the studies. We provided the lists to EPA’s regions and asked them to confirm the study and remedy dates or to revise the dates. We also asked regional officials to explain why they thought that the remedy selection dates could be met and to state how confident they were that the dates could be met. The regions were asked to add to the lists any sites that would have remedies completed by September 30, 1999, if those sites were not shown on the lists. We followed up by telephone to clarify the regions’ responses and to obtain missing or incomplete information. (The results of this work are provided in app. V.)

To determine the number of cleanup projects that cannot be started in fiscal year 1998 because of a lack of funding, we interviewed the chair of the National Prioritization Panel and other EPA officials, obtained lists of sites considered by the Panel for funding, and confirmed with regional officials that the listed sites were expected to be ready for new cleanup actions in fiscal year 1998.

We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards from October 1997 through August 1998.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly 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 the report to other congressional committees; the Administrator, EPA; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.

Should you need further information, please call me at (202) 512-6111. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VIII.

Completed and Planned Remedies at Sites on the National Priorities List, as of September 30, 1997

Summary of Remedy Selection by State/Territory, as of September 30, 1997

Status of Remedy Selection at Nonfederal and Federal Sites, as of September 30, 1997

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Sites with all remedies selected by 1999 (continued)

Nonfederal and Federal Sites With at Least One Remedy Selected and Only One Left to Be Selected, as of September 30, 1997

Olin Corp. (McIntosh Plant)

Stauffer Chemical Co. (LeMoyne Plant)

T.H. Agriculture & Nutrition (Montgomery Plant)

Motorola, Inc. (52nd Street Plant)

Brown & Bryant, Inc. (Arvin Plant)

Chemical Sales Co.

Dover Gas Light Co.

Halby Chemical Co.

Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc.

Petroleum Products Corp.

Marzone Inc./Chevron Chemical Co. (continued)

Outboard Marine Corp.

Parson’s Casket Hardware Co.

Pester Refinery Co.

National Southwire Aluminum Co.

Kane & Lombard Street Drums Sand, Gravel & Stone W.R. Grace & Co., Inc. (Acton Plant)

Ott/Story/Cordova Chemical Co.

Rockwell International Corp. (Allegan Plant)

Spartan Chemical Co.

Thermo-Chem, Inc. (continued)

Nebraska Ordnance Plant (Former)

Bridgeport Rental & Oil Services Chemical Insecticide Corp.

Chemsol, Inc.

Diamond Alkali Co.

Hercules, Inc. (Gibbstown Plant)

Imperial Oil Co., Inc./Champion Chemicals Industrial Latex Corp.

Roebling Steel Co.

Shield Alloy Corp. (continued)

Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division)

White Chemical Corp.

Forest Glen Mobile Home Subdivision Goldisc Recordings, Inc.

Hooker Chemical/Ruco Polymer Corp.

York Oil Co.

Avco Lycoming (Williamsport Division)

Fischer & Porter Co. (continued)

Peterson/Puritan, Inc.

Koppers Co., Inc. (Charleston Plant)

Portland Cement (Kiln Dust 2 & 3)

Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc.

Greenwood Chemical Co.

Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats Harbor Island (Lead)

Fike Chemical, Inc.

Total (112 nonfederal sites)

Anniston Army Depot (SE Industrial Area)

Sangamo Electric Dump/Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge (DOI)

Materials Technology Laboratory (U.S. Army)

Weldon Spring Former Army Ordnance Works Monticello Mill Tailings (DOE)

Fairchild Air Force Base (4 Waste Areas) (continued)

Hanford 300-Area (DOE)

Naval Undersea Warfare Station (4 Areas)

Puget Sound Naval Shipyard Complex Total (21 federal sites)

Steps We Took to Confirm the Planned Remedy Selection Dates Recorded in the CERCLIS Database

The Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), a database of information on National Priorities List (NPL) and other sites, contains the dates by which EPA regions are planning to select remedies at NPL sites. To get the most accurate estimates of the expected progress on remedy selection through fiscal year 1999, we checked many of the planned dates recorded in CERCLIS with officials in the regional offices that are responsible for choosing the remedies. We asked regional officials to confirm or revise the planning dates recorded in CERCLIS to reflect their latest estimates of when remedy selection would be completed.

CERCLIS indicated that remedy selection is expected to be completed at 586 sites in fiscal years 1998 and 1999. We asked EPA’s regional officials whether they believed they could meet the planned dates for about 166 planned remedies at 135 of these sites. We selected these sites because although their planning dates were for the near future, fiscal years 1998 and 1999, the sites’ remedy selection studies (which must be completed before remedies are chosen and which take an average of about 4 years to complete) (1) had not begun, (2) were started in fiscal year 1997, or (3) had been going on for much longer than 4 years without a decision having been made on remedies.

Officials in EPA’s regional offices confirmed or revised 159 of the 166 remedy planning dates in CERCLIS. They said that the remaining seven remedies were combined with other remedies or were for sites that had been transferred to other authorities for cleanup. The officials confirmed that the expected remedy selection date recorded in CERCLIS was accurate for 64 of the 159 planned remedies (40 percent). These officials revised the expected completion date for 95 remedies (60 percent). Most of the revisions moved the remedy completion date less than 1 year beyond the date shown in CERCLIS.

Regional officials were generally confident that they could select remedies at the sites we surveyed by the dates given in CERCLIS or the revised dates. Of the 159 planned completion dates, regions reported that 11 had already been reached and another 128 would probably or definitely be met. They were uncertain or doubtful about the remaining 20 dates. The most common reasons given by regional officials for their confidence were that the site study was almost completed, the potentially responsible party was cooperating on the study, prior site action reduced the study’s scope, or remedy selection was routine.

Federal and Nonfederal Sites for Which Final Remedies Will Be Selected After Fiscal Year 1999

Table VI.1: Nonfederal Sites for Which Final Remedies Will Be Selected After Fiscal Year 1999 Number of remedies selected as of 9/30/97 (continued)

Number of remedies selected as of 9/30/97 (continued)

Table VI.2: Federal Sites for Which Final Remedies Will Be Selected After Fiscal Year 1999 Number of remedies selected as of 9/30/97 (continued)

Number of remedies selected as of 9/30/97 (continued)

Sites Expected to Be Ready for Cleanup Action in Fiscal Year 1998 but Not Approved for Funding as of June 5, 1998

Table VII.1 shows sites that are expected to be ready for new cleanup actions requiring Superfund outlays in fiscal year 1998 and that had not been approved for funding as of June 5, 1998. The table is based on a list prepared by EPA headquarters and on discussions we had with representatives from the National Prioritization Panel from six EPA regions representing almost 90 percent of the sites on the headquarters’ list.

Table VII.1: Sites Expected to Be Ready for Cleanup Action in Fiscal Year 1998 but Not Approved for Funding as of June 5, 1998 Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum Cosden Chemical Coatings Corp.

Imperial Oil Co., Inc./Champion Chemicals Nascolite Corp.

Roebling Steel Co.

Genzale Plating Co.

North Penn - Area 6 Coleman-Evans Wood Preserving Co.

American Creosote Works (Jackson Plant)

Parson’s Casket Hardware Co.

Sauget Site Qa, b Continental Steel Corp.

Parsons Chemical Works, Inc.

MacGillis & Gibbs Co./Bell Lumber & Pole Co. (continued)

Better Brite Plating Chrome & Zinc Shops Madisonville Creosote Works, Inc.

RSR Corp.

Mid-America Tanning Co.

Bee Cee Manufacturing Co.

Proposed for the NPL.

Major Contributors to This Report

James F. Donaghy, Assistant Director Angelia V. Kelly, Evaluator-in-Charge James B. Musial, Senior Evaluator Mitchell B. Karpman, 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.