Superfund: EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed Current Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the National Priorities List
Released: 2010-06-22T00:00:00

Letter

Background

CERCLA was passed in late 1980, in the wake of the discovery of toxic waste sites such as Love Canal, and it created a mechanism for responding to existing contamination. CERCLA established a trust fund from which EPA receives annual appropriations for Superfund program activities. The Superfund trust fund has received revenue from four major sources: taxes on crude oil and certain chemicals, as well as an environmental tax assessed on corporations based on the taxable income; appropriations from the general fund; fines, penalties, and recoveries from responsible parties; and interest accrued on the balance of the fund. In the program’s early years, dedicated taxes provided the majority of revenue to the Superfund trust fund. However, in 1995, the authority for these taxes expired and has not been reinstated. Since 2001, appropriations from the general fund have constituted the largest source of revenue for the trust fund. After the expiration of the tax authority, at the start of fiscal year 1997, the trust fund balance reached its peak of $5.0 billion; in 1998, the trust fund balance began decreasing. Figure 1 shows changes in the balance of the Superfund trust fund from fiscal years 1981 through 2009. At the start of fiscal year 2009, the trust fund had a balance of $137 million.

EPA’s Superfund program receives annual appropriations from the trust fund, which is in turn supported by payments from the general fund. Since fiscal year 1981, the annual appropriation to EPA’s Superfund program has averaged approximately $1.2 billion in noninflation adjusted (nominal) dollars. Since fiscal year 1998, however, congressional appropriations have generally declined when adjusted for inflation. Figure 2 shows appropriation levels in nominal and constant 2009 dollars since fiscal year 1981.

The Superfund cleanup process begins with the discovery of a potentially hazardous site or the notification to EPA of possible releases of hazardous substances that may threaten human health or the environment. Citizens, state agencies, EPA regional officials, and others may alert EPA to such threats. EPA regional offices use a screening system, called the HRS, to numerically assess the potential of sites to pose a threat to human health and the environment. The HRS scores sites on four possible pathways of exposure: groundwater, surface water, soil, and air. Those sites with sufficiently high scores are eligible for proposal to the NPL. EPA regions submit sites to EPA headquarters for possible listing on the NPL on the basis of a variety of factors, including the availability of alternative state or federal programs that may be used to clean up the site. EPA has considered the NPL the “tool of last resort”; thus, EPA has looked to alternative EPA and individual state programs for hazardous waste cleanup before listing a site on the NPL. However, according to EPA headquarters officials, EPA’s use of the NPL as a tool of last resort has recently changed, and EPA now views the NPL as one of a number of cleanup options and uses whichever option is most appropriate for site cleanup. In addition, EPA officials noted that, as a matter of policy, EPA seeks concurrence from the Governor of the state or environmental agency head in which the site is located before listing the site. Sites that EPA decides that it would like to list on the NPL are proposed for listing in the Federal Register. After a period of public comment, EPA reviews the comments and decides whether to formally list the sites as “final” on the NPL.

Once EPA lists a site, it initiates a process to investigate the extent of the contamination, decide on the actions that will be taken to address contamination, and implement those actions. This process can take many years—or even decades. Figure 3 outlines the process EPA typically follows, from listing a site on the NPL through deleting it from the NPL.

Specifically, after a site is listed, EPA or a responsible party will begin the remedial process by conducting a two-part study of the site: (1) a remedial investigation to characterize site conditions and assess the risks to human health and the environment, among other actions, and (2) a feasibility study to evaluate various options to address the problems identified through the remedial investigation. The culmination of these studies is a ROD, which identifies EPA’s selected remedy for addressing the site’s contamination. Cleanup at a site is often divided into smaller units (operable units) by geography, pathways of contamination, or type of remedy. A ROD typically lays out the remedy for one operable unit at a site, and it contains the cost estimate for implementing the remedy. According to EPA guidance, EPA develops the cost estimate in the ROD to be within an accuracy range of minus 30 to plus 50 percent of the actual costs. EPA may develop earlier estimates of construction costs, but as the site moves from the study phase into the remedial action phase, the level of project definition increases, thus allowing for a more accurate cost estimate. EPA may develop more refined cost estimates after the ROD. Because more information is available during remedial design and remedial action, the accuracy of these estimates is expected to be greater than the accuracy of the ROD estimates. According to GAO’s cost estimating and assessment guide, every cost estimate is uncertain because of assumptions that must be made about future projections, and cost estimates tend to become more certain as actual costs begin to replace earlier estimates.

The selected remedy is then designed during remedial design and implemented with remedial actions, when actual cleanup of the site begins. When all physical construction at a site is complete, all immediate threats have been addressed, and all long-term threats are under control, EPA generally considers the site to be construction complete. Most sites then enter into the operation and maintenance phase when the responsible party or the state maintains the remedy, and EPA ensures that the remedy continues to protect human health and the environment. However, for certain remedial actions, additional work at a site may be required after construction is completed, such as continuing groundwater restoration efforts or monitoring the site to ensure that the remedy remains protective. For EPA-lead remedial actions that have a groundwater or surface water restoration component, EPA funds the necessary activities—known as long-term response actions—for up to 10 years before turning over these responsibilities to the state. Eventually, when EPA and the state determine that no further site response is needed, EPA may delete the site from the NPL. Although most sites progress through the cleanup process in roughly the same way, EPA may take different approaches based on site-specific conditions.

In fiscal year 2009, EPA received about $1.29 billion for the Superfund program, of which $605 million was for the remedial program. Of this amount, EPA allocated $125 million for preconstruction activities— remedial investigation, feasibility study, and remedial design activities—as well as other nonconstruction activities, including conducting prelisting activities through cooperative agreements with states, oversight of all responsible party-lead activities, and providing general support and management. In addition, EPA allocated $267 million for remedial actions. EPA allocated the remaining $213 million for headquarters and regional personnel to implement and oversee the overall program; for site management; and for providing technical and analytical support for all non-NPL sites as well as proposed, final, and deleted NPL sites.

In addition to remedial actions, the Superfund program conducts removal actions at both NPL and non-NPL sites that are usually short-term cleanups for sites that pose immediate threats to human health or the environment. Examples of removal actions include excavating contaminated soil, erecting a security fence, or taking abandoned drums to a proper disposal facility to prevent the release of hazardous substances into the environment. CERCLA limits EPA removal actions paid for with trust fund money to actions lasting 12 months or less and costing $2 million or less, although these limits can be exceeded if EPA determines that conditions for such an exemption are met.

To document and communicate environmental progress toward cleaning up Superfund sites, EPA adopted a human exposure indicator in fiscal year 2002. The indicator was applied to Superfund to communicate progress made in protecting human health through site cleanup activities. In addition, EPA uses the indicator in its annual Government Performance and Results Act reporting. Specifically, on an annual basis, EPA reports the number of Superfund sites at which human exposure was controlled during the most recent fiscal year. EPA identifies a site as having unacceptable human exposure when data indicate that the level of contamination and the frequency or duration of human exposure associated with certain pathways—or routes of exposure—at the site present unacceptable risks to humans. EPA assesses human exposure on a site-wide basis; therefore, if any part of a Superfund site has unacceptable human exposure, EPA classifies the whole site as such. If sufficient and reliable information is not yet available to determine whether a site has unacceptable human exposure, the site is classified as having insufficient data to determine whether there is unacceptable human exposure, or “unknown.”

Threats to human health and the environment may be present in the four pathways scored on the HRS—groundwater, surface water, soil, and (outdoor) air; however, contaminants may also migrate from groundwater or soil and seep into the air of homes or commercial buildings. This movement of contaminants—typically from petroleum or chlorinated solvents—to indoor air is known as vapor intrusion and has been the subject of increasing research and scientific discussion since the 1980s. Intrusion of contaminated gases into indoor air may lead to fire; explosion; and acute, intermediate, and chronic health effects. Though EPA conducts investigations of vapor intrusion for some sites on the NPL, the HRS does not include a separate pathway for scoring vapor intrusion threats.

Considerable Work Remains at Most Nonfederal NPL Sites with Unacceptable or Unknown Human Exposure, and Some Site Cleanups Have Not Been Funded at the Most Efficient Level

At over 60 percent of the 75 nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable human exposure, all or more than half of the work remains to complete remedial construction, as is the case with over 60 percent of the 164 nonfederal NPL sites with unknown human exposure, according to EPA regional officials’ responses to our survey. Moreover, while EPA has expended a total of $3 billion on the 75 sites with unacceptable exposure, EPA headquarters and regional officials told us that some of these sites have not received sufficient funding for cleanup to proceed in the most efficient manner.

At Most Sites with Unacceptable Human Exposure, Less than Half of the Remedial Construction Work Has Been Completed

At 49 of the 75 nonfederal NPL sites that EPA has identified as having unacceptable human exposure, all or more than half of the work remains to complete remedial construction, according to EPA regional officials’ responses to our survey (see fig. 4). At each of the 15 sites where none of the remedial construction work has been completed, EPA or a responsible party has conducted at least one interim cleanup action, such as a removal, and has initiated or completed a remedial investigation; however, all of the construction work remains, and EPA has determined that human exposure risks continue at these sites. In addition, at the remaining 60 sites where some construction actions have been taken, EPA has determined that human exposure risks have not yet been controlled. For example, at the Lava Cap Mine site in California, EPA has eliminated the exposure to mine tailings—finely ground waste created in the ore extraction process—in the mine area by capping it; however, recreational users of the area downstream of the mine can be exposed to mine tailings in that area, potentially leading to incidental ingestion of arsenic in soil, inhalation of contaminated airborne particulates, or skin contact with contaminated sediments along the shoreline. According to EPA Region 9 officials, EPA is currently investigating methods to stabilize and cover these mine tailings to eliminate the risk of human exposure.

According to EPA regional officials’ responses to our survey, EPA has plans to control human exposure at all of the 75 sites with unacceptable human exposure; however, our survey results also show that EPA regional officials expect 41 of the sites to continue to have unacceptable exposure until fiscal year 2015 or later. According to an EPA headquarters official responsible for overseeing the human exposure indicator, some sites will continue to pose unacceptable human exposure for a long time because of the type of contamination and cleanup required. For example, it may take several years for the risk of human exposure to be eliminated at the Sheboygan Harbor & River site in Wisconsin—which was listed on the NPL in fiscal year 1986—because of high PCB levels in fish. The site currently poses a risk of human ingestion of PCB and heavy metals, including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc, in contaminated fish, which can cause health problems including cancer, liver disease, and problems with the immune and endocrine systems. There is a fish advisory in place, signs are posted in the area warning against fish consumption, and, for the last several years, there has been ongoing removal of sediment and soil contaminated with PCB and heavy metals. However, according to EPA, exposure to PCB may continue even after a significant amount of PCB is removed from the river, because it takes several years for PCB levels in fish to decline, and people continue to consume fish from the area. According to EPA headquarters officials, approximately one-third of the sites with unacceptable human exposure have been identified as such because of ongoing consumption of contaminated fish despite actions having been taken to prevent exposure. Appendix III contains a detailed description of the risks present at the 75 sites.

Most Sites with Unknown Risks of Human Exposure Require Considerable Work to Complete Remedial Construction

Like the sites with unacceptable human exposure, over 60 percent, or 105, of the 164 sites with unknown human exposure have all or most of the work to complete remedial construction remaining, according to EPA regional officials’ responses to our survey (see fig. 5). The majority of the 83 sites with unknown human exposure that have all of the work remaining to complete construction are in the remedial investigation phase, which is when EPA usually determines a site’s human exposure status, according to EPA guidance. EPA may also designate a site as having unknown human exposure during the construction phase of work, or after a site has met the construction complete milestone, if new information suggests that there may be risk at the site, or if an investigation is under way to assess a potential exposure pathway not previously analyzed, such as vapor intrusion. For example, the Waite Park Wells site in Minnesota reached construction complete status in 1999 but, during a review of the continuing effectiveness of the remedy performed in 2005, EPA found potential exposure from vapor intrusion to businesses from trichloroethylene (TCE) in groundwater. EPA Region 5 officials told us that EPA designated this site as having an unknown risk of human exposure until it evaluates a vapor intrusion assessment conducted by responsible parties. EPA expects to determine whether there is unacceptable human exposure at most of the 164 sites by fiscal year 2012. 12.

According to EPA regional officials’ responses to our survey, human exposure risks at the 164 sites may be posed by a variety of contaminants in various media, including soil, sediment, and fish. Beginning around 2003, EPA regions began performing investigations for vapor intrusion, which they saw as an emerging problem, according to EPA officials. Currently, according to EPA regional officials’ responses to our survey, 60 of the 164 sites may pose risks because of vapor intrusion. At the Lusher Street Groundwater Contamination site in Indiana, for example, EPA has not yet evaluated the vapor intrusion pathway, but officials said that they know the site could pose a vapor intrusion risk to human health because a contaminated groundwater plume is present in a mixed residential and industrial area.

Some Sites Have Not Been Funded at the Most Time and Cost Efficient Levels, According to EPA Officials

From the inception of the Superfund program through the end of fiscal year 2009, EPA expended a total of $3 billion in constant 2009 dollars on the 75 sites with unacceptable exposure; however, in managing limited resources, EPA regional officials noted that some of these sites did not receive funding to clean up the sites in the most time and cost efficient manner. According to EPA regional officials’ responses to our survey, the estimated cost of completing construction at 36 of the 75 sites with unacceptable exposure at which EPA is funding remedial actions will be about $3.9 billion. EPA regional officials said that they could not provide cost estimates for an additional 7 sites because the sites are too early in the cleanup phase. For the remaining 32 sites, these officials do not expect EPA to incur remedial construction costs because they expect responsible parties to fully fund the remedial actions at 26 sites, have identified 4 sites as construction complete, and EPA has already fully funded the remedial actions with Recovery Act funds at 2 sites. In addition, EPA expended $1.2 billion in constant 2009 dollars on the 164 sites where exposure is unknown. At 48 of the 164 sites with unknown human exposure, EPA regional officials estimated that the cost to complete construction will be about $601 million. These officials were not able to provide cost estimates for an additional 32 sites because the sites are too early in the cleanup phase. For the remaining 84 sites, these officials do not expect EPA to incur remedial construction costs because they expect responsible parties to fully fund the remedial actions at 52 sites and have identified 32 sites as construction complete.

Even though EPA officials noted that EPA does not use the human exposure indicator to determine risk or to prioritize sites for cleanup, average annual per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable exposure have been considerably higher than for sites with unknown exposure or for sites where EPA has determined that human exposure is under control. For example, in fiscal year 2009, the average per-site expenditure for sites with unacceptable human exposure was $3.0 million, compared with $0.5 million for sites with unknown exposure and $0.2 million for sites where EPA has determined that human exposure is under control. Furthermore, this difference has been increasing over time, as shown in figure 6. One reason that average per-site expenditures are higher for sites with unacceptable human exposure than for other sites is that a larger percentage of these sites are megasites—sites with actual or expected total cleanup costs, including removal and remedial action costs, that are expected to amount to $50 million or more. While 47 percent of the sites with unacceptable human exposure are megasites, 13 percent of sites with unknown human exposure are megasites, and 8 percent of sites where human exposure is controlled are megasites.

Despite the relatively high level of expenditures at sites with unacceptable human exposure, EPA regional and headquarters officials told us that construction has not been conducted in the most time and cost efficient manner at some of these sites because EPA had to balance annual resources among various program activities. For example, EPA officials told us that at the Bunker Hill Mining site in Idaho—where people can be exposed to metals in soil and sediments and where children’s blood lead levels have been found to be above Centers for Disease Control and Prevention levels of concern—the pace of the cleanup had to be slowed down because of preconstruction and remedial action funding limitations. The site received between $13 million and $19 million per year from fiscal years 2003 to 2009, when, according to an EPA regional official, it could have used $30 million per year to clean up the site and control human exposure in the most efficient manner. Similarly, at the Eureka Mills site in Utah, people who are in contact with soil and dust contaminated with lead from mining activities face human health risks. From 2003 to 2008, the site received $6.6 million to $10 million a year for construction, even though regional officials said that an additional $3 to $5 million per year would have allowed them to complete construction at the site 3 to 4 years earlier at a reduced overall cost. However, with the addition of $26.5 million for the Eureka Mills site in fiscal year 2009 from Recovery Act funding, officials said that they will be able to complete construction at least 1 year earlier than planned and control human exposure at the site. In response to our survey, EPA regional officials noted that they are using Recovery Act funding to partially or completely control the unacceptable human exposure at 20 NPL sites. However, despite EPA’s use of Recovery Act funds to control human exposure at these sites, EPA officials noted that EPA’s constrained funding had delayed the control of human exposure at some sites.

EPA’s Costs for Conducting Remedial Construction at Nonfederal NPL Sites Will Likely Exceed Recent Funding Levels for These Activities

EPA’s annual costs for conducting remedial construction at nonfederal NPL sites that are not yet construction complete from fiscal years 2010 through 2014—as estimated by EPA regional officials—exceed recent annual funding allocations for these activities. In addition, these estimates do not include costs for all remedial actions at all sites or costs for sites that have a responsible party who is currently funding remedial actions but may be unable to do so in the future. Furthermore, according to EPA officials, experience has shown that EPA’s actual costs are almost always higher than its cost estimates.

Estimated Costs for Conducting Future Remedial Actions Exceed Past Funding Levels

EPA’s annual costs to conduct remedial construction in the most efficient manner at nonfederal NPL sites for fiscal years 2010 through 2014 may range from $335 million to $681 million, according to EPA regional officials’ estimates (see table 1). These estimates include EPA’s costs to conduct remedial actions at 142 of the 416 nonfederal sites that are not construction complete. Of the remaining 274 sites, EPA regional officials were unable to provide cost estimates for 57 sites, expect responsible parties to fully fund remedial actions at 206 sites, and do not expect to incur additional costs to complete construction at 11 sites because these sites are already fully funded.

These annual cost estimates for remedial construction at these sites exceed past annual funding allocations for such actions. For example, EPA regional officials’ cost estimates for remedial construction for the next 2 years—fiscal years 2011 to 2012—are $253 million to $414 million greater than the $267 million in annual funding that EPA allocated for remedial actions in fiscal year 2009. From fiscal years 2000 to 2009, EPA allocated $220 million to $267 million in annual funding for remedial actions. According to EPA headquarters officials, however, funds from additional sources—such as prior year funds, settlements with responsible parties, and state cost share agreements—may also be available to fund remedial construction from year to year. While the amount of funding available through these sources may vary substantially from year to year, according to EPA headquarters officials, approximately $123 to $199 million was available from additional sources for remedial actions in fiscal years 2007 to 2009. Our analysis indicates that, even if this level of funding was available in future years, it would not supplement EPA’s annual funding allocation enough to cover the estimated costs for conducting remedial construction in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Therefore, despite funding from additional sources, EPA’s estimated costs to conduct remedial construction will exceed available funds if funding for remedial construction remains constant.

Cost Estimates Are Likely Understated

EPA regional officials’ cost estimates are likely understated. These officials were not able to provide annual construction cost estimates for 57 of the 416 nonfederal sites that are not yet construction complete because they are in the early stages of the remedial process, and EPA does not yet know the extent of the contamination and/or has not chosen a cleanup remedy for them. For example, EPA Region 9 officials said that, as of October 2009, the feasibility study for the Alark Hard Chrome site in California was just beginning and that no cost estimates were available for possible remedies. For some additional sites, EPA regional officials were unable to provide cost estimates for construction at some of the operable units at the site. For example, EPA Region 3 officials were able to provide a partial cost estimate for the Crossley Farm site in Pennsylvania and noted that this estimate did not include additional remedial construction funding that will be necessary for operable units that have construction work remaining. Finally, EPA regional officials’ estimates did not include costs for conducting long-term response actions—such as operating groundwater treatment facilities—that are considered part of the remedial action or for performing 5-year site reviews, both of which EPA funds from its remedial action allocation and which would, therefore, increase the cost estimate for remedial actions.

EPA’s estimates also do not include construction costs for sites that currently have a potentially responsible party that may be unable to fund the cleanup. EPA officials told us that EPA has identified one or more potentially responsible parties at 206 of the 416 nonfederal NPL sites that are not yet construction complete. However, officials also said that they were slightly or not at all confident that a responsible party would fund future remedial actions at 27 of these sites. For example, EPA officials explained that the responsible parties at one site in EPA Region 4 entered into bankruptcy and that EPA is not at all confident that the responsible parties will be able to fund future remedial actions. While in some cases funds from a settlement agreement may be available for site cleanup, in several instances, EPA officials reported that responsible parties may be financially unable to perform the remedy or fund future cleanup. Without responsible parties to fund remediation costs at these sites, EPA is likely to bear the costs of future remedial actions.

EPA headquarters and regional officials also told us that EPA’s actual costs for construction are typically higher than its cost estimates because of a number of uncertainties they may encounter. Most importantly, according to EPA officials, the extent of contamination at a site may be greater than EPA expected when it developed the cost estimate, which can expand the scope of work and remedies needed and increase overall construction costs. For example, we recently reported that at the Federal Creosote Superfund site in New Jersey, the greater-than-expected quantities of contaminated material contributed to a $111 million increase in construction costs over EPA’s estimates. According to EPA officials, it is common for EPA to remove more soil than originally estimated at Superfund sites because of the uncertainty inherent in using soil samples to estimate the extent of underground contamination. Another factor that can increase construction costs is change in acceptable contaminant levels. For example, at the Arsenic Trioxide site in North Dakota, additional cleanup was necessary after the site had already been deleted from the NPL because EPA subsequently reduced the maximum contaminant level for arsenic in drinking water, which had the effect of changing the level at which the cleanup was considered protective of public health. In addition, according to an EPA official, the actual costs of goods and services—such as energy, construction materials, and labor— may increase above estimated prices, causing an increase in the actual construction cost. At the Escambia Woods site in Florida, for example, inclement weather, identification of additional contamination, and other unforeseen occurrences all contributed to increased cleanup costs of about $2.2 million. EPA officials noted that there may be some instances when construction costs are overestimated because, for example, there is less contamination at a site than previously thought or the prices of goods and services decrease; however, the officials commented that this is rare.

Because of the many uncertainties in cost estimating, EPA officials told us that actual construction costs never equal the cost estimated in the ROD. According to EPA guidance, because of the inherent uncertainty in estimating the extent of site contamination from early investigation data, cost estimates prepared during the remedial investigation/feasibility phase are based on a conceptual rather than detailed idea of the remedial action under consideration. The guidance states that these estimates are, therefore, intended to provide sufficient information for EPA to compare alternatives on an “order of magnitude” basis, rather than an exact estimate of a particular remedy’s costs. According to EPA headquarters officials, these estimates could vary by 100 percent from the actual costs of implementing a remedy. As EPA’s estimates become more refined during the remedial design phase, estimates that vary from actual costs by 100 percent are not common; however, variation by 20 to 40 percent is common, according to EPA headquarters officials. The frequent occurrence of additional unexpected costs further enhances the likelihood that EPA’s costs for remedial actions over the next several years will exceed recent funding levels for these activities, and EPA may be forced to choose between funding construction at some sites in the most efficient manner or funding construction at more sites less efficiently.

EPA Allocates Remedial Program Funding Separately for Preconstruction Activities and Remedial Actions, and Limited Funding Has Caused Delays at Some Sites

EPA headquarters allocates funds to the regions for preconstruction activities—remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and remedial design activities—which the regions then distribute among sites. For remedial action funding, headquarters works with the regions to allocate funds to sites. According to EPA headquarters and regional officials, the funds for both types of activities have not been sufficient to clean up some sites in the most time and cost efficient manner.

EPA Headquarters Allocates Funding to the Regions for Preconstruction Activities for Distribution Among Sites and, in Consultation with the Regions, Allocates Remedial Action Funding on a Site-by-Site Basis

EPA headquarters determines the amount of resources that the Superfund program will allocate to the regions for preconstruction activities by using a model that distributes available funding based on a combination of historical allocations and a work-based scoring system that scores each region based on projects planned for the upcoming year. Regions then prioritize sites to receive funding for preconstruction activities primarily by considering the human exposure risks present at sites while, at the same time, attempting to provide some funding for all their sites to keep them progressing toward the construction phase, according to EPA regional officials. According to EPA’s Superfund Program Implementation Manual, at the initiation of the planning process, headquarters provides general projections of funding for preconstruction activities that will be available to the regions. On the basis of these projections, each region then develops a plan for allocating these funds to sites. Before finalizing this plan, each region holds planning discussions with headquarters to discuss actions that can be accomplished during the year and alters its plans, as needed, based on refined projections of available funding from headquarters.

To allocate funding for remedial actions, EPA headquarters, in consultation with the regions, determines funding priorities on a site-by- site basis. EPA’s Superfund Program Implementation Manual states that sites with ongoing construction receive priority for funding over new construction work. Headquarters develops the initial plan for ongoing construction based on regional funding requests, projections of available funding, and discussions with regional officials. As part of these discussions, EPA headquarters and regional officials determine whether and how to incrementally fund remedial actions, according to EPA headquarters officials. According to an EPA headquarters official, headquarters’ goal in allocating funds is to ensure that all sites with ongoing construction continue to progress toward construction completion while also funding some new construction projects. EPA officials explained that demobilizing and remobilizing equipment and infrastructure at a site once construction has begun is costly and an inefficient use of resources. Therefore, if EPA cannot fully fund ongoing construction at a site, the agency attempts to fund the site at a level that maintains at least a minimal level of construction to avoid demobilizing equipment and infrastructure. In addition, EPA headquarters works with the regions to adjust the amount of funding provided to sites throughout the year as cleanup circumstances change.

For new construction, EPA’s National Risk-Based Priority Panel— comprising EPA regional and headquarters program experts—evaluates the risk with respect to human health and the environment to establish funding priorities for all new construction projects in the remedial program. To evaluate sites, the panel uses five criteria and associated weighting factors to compare projects. These criteria are the extent of risks to the exposed human population; contaminant stability; contaminant characteristics; threat to a significant environment; and program management considerations, such as state involvement and high- profile projects. Using the priority ranking process ensures that funding decisions for new projects are based on the use of common evaluation criteria that emphasize risk to human health and the environment.

In addition to annual funding, EPA’s Superfund program received $600 million in Recovery Act funds in fiscal year 2009 and allocated $582 million for remedial cleanup activities. EPA officials explained that EPA prioritized these Recovery Act funds in a manner similar to that for annual remedial action funding, with funds targeted first toward sites with ongoing construction and then toward new projects that were construction-ready. According to EPA officials, when identifying sites to receive Recovery Act funding, EPA also considered additional factors, such as the jobs that could be created. However, EPA officials noted that identifying the number of jobs created was difficult and that the criteria in the Office of Management and Budget’s initial guidance for disbursing Recovery Act funds were not clear on how to calculate the number of jobs created. Therefore, EPA officials said that they used the ability to spend funds quickly as a surrogate for creating and retaining jobs when prioritizing sites to receive Recovery Act funds. Furthermore, EPA officials noted that it is difficult to quantify the number of jobs created because, while contractors involved in site remediation reported data on jobs created, subcontractors did not.

EPA ultimately chose 51 sites to receive Recovery Act funding. According to EPA, 25 of these sites received funding for ongoing construction, 24 received funding for new construction, and 2 received funding for both ongoing and new construction. EPA officials reported that the use of Recovery Act funding will decrease the overall cleanup costs at some sites and accelerate the pace of cleanup at a majority of the sites receiving this funding. At the Gilt Edge Mine site in South Dakota, for example, EPA officials noted that construction for a portion of the cleanup project should be completed 1 year ahead of schedule because EPA allocated $3.5 million in Recovery Act funds to the site. Appendix IV provides additional details about sites that received Recovery Act funding.

Limited Funding Has Delayed Preconstruction Activities and Remedial Actions at Some Sites and Can Impact State Cleanup Programs

EPA officials from several regions told us that their regions currently receive about half or less than half of the funding they could use for preconstruction activities. For example, Region 2 officials said that their region currently receives about half the preconstruction funding it could use and that officials try to be flexible and creative in using the funding the region does receive to conduct work in the most efficient manner possible. Several EPA officials noted that limited funding available for preconstruction activities not only extends the length of time it takes to prepare a site for construction, but it can ultimately increase the overall costs for cleaning up the site as well. According to our survey, which collected data on fiscal years 2000 through 2009, most regions have sites that have experienced delays in the preconstruction phase because of insufficient funding. For example, officials in Region 3 noted that the Jackson Ceramics site located in Pennsylvania was delayed in fiscal year 2005 because, when prioritizing sites to receive funding for preconstruction activities, the Jackson Ceramics site was considered lower risk compared with other sites in the region and, therefore, received no funds. Instead, Region 3 funded other sites that posed a higher risk or were farther along in the preconstruction phase. In addition, Region 10 did not fully fund preconstruction activities at the Bunker Hill Mining site in Idaho from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2009—which extended work schedules and stopped some design work—because of a lack of funding for preconstruction activities. Region 10 officials explained that the region reduced funding for preconstruction activities at this site so that the region could allocate funding across more sites in the region.

As previously discussed for sites with unacceptable human exposure, sites with ongoing construction have experienced delays caused by limited funding, according to EPA officials. Since fiscal year 2000, most regions have experienced delays because of insufficient funding at one or more sites with ongoing construction, according to responses to our survey. For example, the Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt site in Missouri received $10 million a year in fiscal years 2008 and 2009 instead of the $15 million that regional officials said they could have used to clean up the site in the most efficient manner. These officials reported that the limited funding has delayed the completion of the remedial action and resulted in significant cost increases. In addition, the New Bedford Harbor site in Massachusetts has received $15 million per year instead of the $50 to $80 million per year that a regional official said the region could use to complete construction in the most efficient manner. According to several EPA regional officials, delays in funding for sites with ongoing construction increase the length of time it takes to clean up a site; the total cost of cleanup; and, in some cases, the length of time populations are exposed to contaminants.

In addition, funding limitations have caused delays at sites that were ready to begin new construction. According to EPA Superfund Accomplishment Reports, between fiscal years 2004 and 2008, 54 sites, or over one-third of all sites ready for new construction funding, were not funded in the year that they were ready to begin construction, and some sites were not funded for several years after they were construction-ready. For example, in Region 4, funding limitations caused a 2-year delay at the Sigmon’s Septic Tank Service site in North Carolina—a site with potential exposure risks to residents and trespassers from contaminated soil—even though it was ready to begin construction in October 2007. EPA allocated Recovery Act funding to this site in September 2009, which allowed EPA to remove the contaminated soil, eliminating the threat of direct contact to nearby residents and trespassers at the site. According to EPA headquarters officials, 25 sites needing new construction funding in fiscal year 2009 would most likely not have received funding had Recovery Act funding not been available. A representative from the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials pointed to the Superfund program’s ability to quickly absorb about $582 million in Recovery Act funds as evidence of limited funding for construction activities.

Limited funding can also impact state cleanup programs, which sometimes take the lead in cleaning up seriously contaminated sites that are not listed on the NPL, according to EPA and state officials. A study conducted by the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials found that funding for prelisting activities offers benefits beyond the Superfund program by providing valuable data, such as the data obtained during prelisting site assessments and investigations, which help state cleanup programs remediate sites that are not listed on the NPL. Several state officials said that, because their states have received less funding from EPA for these investigations than in the past, the number of assessments they have been able to perform has been limited.

Most EPA Regional and Selected State Officials Expect an Increase in the Number of Sites Added to the NPL over the Next 5 Years but Cannot Estimate the Cleanup Costs

Most of the EPA regional officials and state officials we interviewed told us they expect the number of sites listed on the NPL over the next 5 years will be greater than the number listed in the past 5 years. However, neither EPA regional officials nor state officials were able to provide cost estimates for many of the sites they expect will be added to the NPL.

EPA and State Officials Expect an Increase in the Number of Sites Listed over the Next 5 Years

EPA regional officials estimate that from 101 to 125 sites—an average of 20 to 25 sites per year—will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years. This is higher than the 79 sites—an average of about 16 sites per year— added from fiscal years 2005 to 2009. Overall, our analysis of these estimates shows that listings could increase by 28 to 58 percent. As table 2 shows, all EPA regions expect that the number of sites added to the NPL over the next 5 years from their region could increase. According to EPA headquarters officials, the number of sites proposed for listing over time has decreased as a result of the expanded use of other cleanup programs, including state programs. Most of the officials who expect an increase in listings noted that current economic conditions—which can limit states’ abilities to clean up sites under their own programs and responsible parties’ abilities to pay for cleanup—are a contributing factor to the expected increase in listed sites.

Most of the officials we spoke with in the 10 selected states also expect that the number of sites listed from their states over the next 5 years could increase above the number of sites listed over the past 5 years, as table 3 shows. For example, officials from the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Environment said that they expect EPA to list five sites from Michigan to the NPL over the next 5 years, even though no sites have been listed from their state since 1996. These officials noted that the Superfund program has traditionally been a program of last resort, but declining resources in their state’s cleanup program have renewed Michigan’s interest in cleaning sites up through the federal program. Similarly, while EPA did not list any sites from Maine over the past 5 years, officials from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection expect that one to two sites may be added to the NPL over the next 5 years. An official explained that potential bankruptcies by responsible parties at one site may require that the state seek assistance in cleaning up the site through the federal Superfund program.

EPA and state officials noted that the number of sites actually listed over the next 5 years could vary from their projections because of a number of uncertainties. For example, all the EPA regional officials we spoke with told us that economic conditions can affect the number of sites added to the NPL, and several of these officials told us that the number of sites listed from their region could increase above their projection if economic conditions do not improve. Many EPA regional officials noted that sites currently being cleaned up under state programs and by responsible parties may require assistance through the federal Superfund program if these groups face financial hardship, such as bankruptcy. In addition, some EPA and state officials identified EPA’s policy for obtaining state concurrence for listing as a factor that could limit the number of sites added to the NPL if EPA is unable to obtain this concurrence. Officials from several EPA regions noted that particular states are resistant to listing because of financial or political concerns, and a few EPA regional officials and state officials mentioned difficulty in obtaining state concurrence for some sites.

In addition to the number of sites that could be listed, the number of sites eligible for the NPL could increase if EPA begins to assess, as a part of its listing process, the risk of vapor intrusion caused by subsurface hazardous substances that have migrated via the air into homes and commercial properties. Although sites with vapor intrusion can pose considerable human health risks, EPA’s HRS—the mechanism used to identify sites that qualify for NPL listing—does not currently recognize these risks; therefore, unless a site with vapor intrusion is listed on some other basis— such as groundwater contamination, EPA cannot clean up the site using remedial program funding. Many EPA regional officials and state officials noted that vapor intrusion is a concern, and several of these officials told us that they believe additional sites would be eligible for listing if assessments of vapor intrusion are included as part of the listing process. According to an EPA headquarters official, based on recent discussions with regional officials, up to 37 sites could be eligible for NPL listing if EPA includes vapor intrusion assessments as part of the listing process. However, according to EPA headquarters officials, EPA must first determine whether or not it can consider the vapor intrusion pathway under its existing HRS regulations, and it has not yet made such a determination. While these sites are not currently eligible for NPL listing, the EPA headquarters official noted that EPA is addressing vapor intrusion at 13 of these sites through its Superfund removal program; however, this official also told us that, when conducting removal actions, EPA is limited in its ability to fully remediate the source of contamination. For example, according to an official from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, preliminary data collected at the Billings PCE site—which the official noted is not eligible for NPL listing—indicated vapor intrusion in buildings, and EPA conducted a removal action at this site. However, according to this official, it is unclear whether the removal action was effective in mitigating the vapor intrusion contamination, and people may continue to be exposed. In addition, this official noted that Montana has many sites with vapor intrusion from contaminants such as chlorinated solvents, which can cause cancer. If EPA cannot list these sites on the NPL on another basis, EPA will not be able to fund remedial actions at these sites, and continued exposure to carcinogens is possible if other cleanup programs do not remove the risks at these sites.

In November 2002, EPA issued draft guidance on evaluating vapor intrusion at NPL sites. However, a December 2009 EPA Inspector General’s report found that EPA had not updated this guidance to reflect current science and recommended that EPA issue final guidance to establish current agency policy on the evaluation and mitigation of vapor intrusion risks. EPA headquarters officials told us that, in response to this report, EPA is beginning discussions to update the vapor intrus ion guidance.

EPA and State Officials Could Not Provide Cost Estimates for Many of the Sites They Expect Will Be Added to the NPL over the Next 5 Years

Neither EPA regional officials nor state officials we contacted were able to provide cost estimates for many of the sites they expect to be added to the NPL over the next 5 years. Furthermore, when these officials were able to provide cost estimates, most of them were imprecise figures based on limited knowledge and best professional judgment. For example, while New Jersey officials expect 15 to 25 sites to be added to the NPL from their state over the next 5 years, these officials noted that most of these sites are not expected to be megasites and the average cost of cleaning up most of the sites will probably be around $10 to $25 million. Officials also explained that they could not provide cost estimates for some of the sites, because the type and extent of contamination is not yet known. In addition, some officials based their 5-year projection on past listings and have not identified the actual sites that may be listed. For example, officials with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality noted that one site in Virginia could be listed over the next 5 years, but the officials could not provide an estimated cost for cleaning up this site because it has not yet been identified. Therefore, it is impossible to accurately estimate what the cost may be to clean up these unknown sites. While EPA regional officials and state officials were not able to provide cost estimates for many of the sites they expect to be added to the NPL, we reported in July 2009 that the average amount EPA spent to clean up individual sites has increased in recent years. In that report, we found that individual site costs may have increased because the sites on the NPL now are more complex than in the past, construction costs have been rising, and EPA has not been able to identify as many responsible parties to fund site cleanups as in the past, leaving a higher share for EPA to fund.

Conclusions

Congress enacted CERCLA to decrease the risk to human health and the environment posed by hazardous waste sites. However, some sites that EPA has identified as among the most seriously contaminated have involved long and costly cleanups, leading to protracted risks of human exposure to hazardous substances. Not long after the authority for the taxes that served as its main source of revenue expired in 1995, the Superfund trust fund started to diminish. Further, appropriated funding for cleanups has declined over time in real dollars, and the limited funding has caused delays in cleaning up some sites in recent years. The limited funding, coupled with increasing costs of cleanup, has forced EPA to choose between cleaning up a greater number of sites in a less time and cost efficient manner or cleaning up fewer sites more efficiently.

Compounding these challenges, EPA may not be listing some sites that pose health risks that are serious enough that the sites should be considered for inclusion on the NPL. While EPA is assessing vapor intrusion contamination at listed NPL sites, EPA does not assess the relative risks posed by vapor intrusion when deciding which sites to include on the NPL. By not including these risks, states may be left to remediate those sites without federal assistance, and given states’ constrained budgets, some states may not have the ability to clean up these sites on their own. Ultimately, assessing the relative risk of vapor intrusion could lead to an increase in the number of sites listed on the NPL and thereby place additional demands on already limited funds in the Superfund program. However, if these sites are not assessed and, if needed, listed on the NPL, some seriously contaminated hazardous waste sites with unacceptable human exposure may not otherwise be cleaned up.

Recommendation for Executive Action

To better identify sites that may be added to the NPL, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA determine the extent to which EPA will consider vapor intrusion as part of the NPL listing process and how this will affect the number of sites listed in the future.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft copy of this report to EPA for review and comment. We received a written response from the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response that also included comments from EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Office of the Chief Financial Officer. EPA agreed with our recommendation and noted that, while the agency currently considers vapor intrusion impacts in both the remedial and removal programs, EPA is evaluating whether vapor intrusion needs to be more specifically addressed in the HRS model. EPA also noted that our report contains substantial useful information on very important subjects relating to the Superfund Program.

In its comments, EPA also noted two issues that it believed require additional clarification. First, regarding its human exposure measure, EPA stated that it is important to highlight that people are not typically in danger of immediate harm at sites with unacceptable human exposure. EPA explained that, when acute health threats are identified, the agency takes immediate action to address the threats using its removal authority and, in other situations, works to characterize the risks at these sites. We agree with EPA and note in our report that EPA conducts removal actions at sites that pose immediate threats to human health or the environment. We also note that EPA has plans to control human exposure at all sites with unacceptable human exposure. EPA also commented that it does not use the term “unknown” when referring to sites that it has identified as having “insufficient data to determine human exposure control status.” EPA noted that this term does not reflect EPA’s efforts in characterizing a site to determine whether people are exposed at unsafe levels at a site. While we recognize that EPA may have collected and analyzed some data regarding a site’s human exposure status, EPA’s determination of insufficient data to determine human exposure control status shows that it has not yet made a determination about a site’s status. For this reason— and for ease of reporting—in this report we refer to EPA’s determination of “insufficient data to determine human exposure control status” as “unknown” human exposure.

Second, EPA recognized our report’s finding that regional cost estimates are likely understated, since the estimates do not include funding for sites where a responsible party is currently funding remedial construction but may be unable to do so in the future. While EPA does not dispute that the regional cost estimates are likely understated, EPA believes that we should recognize that, in cases where responsible parties are conducting remedial construction under existing settlement agreements, those agreements require those parties to maintain financial assurance mechanisms to ensure that response actions are completed. In addition, EPA noted that it has made considerable efforts to ensure that these mechanisms are in place for existing and new response settlements, and these financial assurances would provide funding for cleanup under existing settlements. EPA also acknowledged, however, that for sites where potentially responsible parties are experiencing financial difficulty and have not yet reached a settlement with EPA, the parties may be unable to complete cleanups in the future, which would increase the burden on EPA’s Superfund trust fund. We agree with EPA’s assessment; however, in response to our survey, EPA regional officials told us that they were slightly or not at all confident that a responsible party would fund future remedial actions at 27 sites. We also state in our report that funds from a settlement agreement may be available for site cleanup at some sites, but regional officials told us that responsible parties may be financially unable to perform the remedy or fund future cleanup at other sites and, in those situations, EPA’s trust fund may have to fund future cleanup. EPA’s comments are presented in appendix V of this report. EPA also provided technical comments on the draft report, which we incorporated, as appropriate.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, Administrator of EPA, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This appendix provides information on the scope of work and the methodology used to determine (1) the cleanup and funding status at currently listed nonfederal National Priorities List (NPL) sites with unacceptable or unknown human exposure; (2) what is known about the future costs to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to complete remedial actions at nonfederal NPL sites that are not construction complete; (3) the process EPA uses to allocate remedial program funding; and (4) how many sites EPA and selected state officials expect will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years, and what they expect the future costs of cleaning up those sites will be.

To determine the cleanup and funding status at the 75 sites with unacceptable human exposure and the 164 sites with unknown human exposure, we surveyed branch chiefs from each of the 10 EPA regions and received responses from October 2009 through November 2009. Through our survey, we obtained and analyzed information from each of the regions on the cleanup work that remains, human exposure risks, short- term planned actions to reduce exposure, long-term actions needed to eliminate exposure, expected time until human exposure risks will be under control or known, future estimated costs of remedial actions, whether American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) funding will be used to control human exposure, delays due to constrained funding, and the impact of any limited funding at these sites. In addition, we obtained some limited documentation to support regional officials’ cost estimates provided in the survey. We also analyzed data from EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) to determine when sites were listed, what cleanup actions have been taken at sites, which sites are construction complete, and which sites are megasites. We analyzed expenditure (outlay) data from EPA’s Integrated Financial Management System for all final and deleted nonfederal NPL sites to determine how much EPA has spent on these sites. Moreover, to obtain additional information on human exposure risks, we searched EPA’s Superfund Site Information System. We analyzed data on exposure risks from our survey and the Superfund Site Information System to determine the types of contaminants present, the types of contaminated media present, and the exposed populations at the sites. We also discussed the human exposure indicator with EPA headquarters and regional officials and reviewed EPA guidance on this indicator.

To determine what is known about future costs to EPA to complete remedial actions at nonfederal NPL sites, we collected data through our survey of all EPA regions to obtain information about the 416 nonfederal sites that are not construction complete. Through our survey, we obtained and analyzed data on annual and total estimated costs to EPA to conduct remedial actions in the most efficient manner, the entity responsible for funding cleanup, and EPA’s confidence in responsible parties’ ability to fund future remedial actions. In addition, we obtained information on total funding amounts that EPA provided for remedial actions for fiscal years 2000 to 2009 from EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Environmental Response. Finally, we discussed the cost estimating process with EPA headquarters and regional officials and reviewed EPA’s guidance on cost estimating.

To determine how EPA allocates remedial program funding, we interviewed EPA headquarters officials and regional officials from each of the 10 EPA regions about the process they use to prioritize sites to receive funding. We also discussed the process EPA used to allocate Recovery Act funding for the Superfund program with headquarters officials. Additionally, we reviewed EPA guidance and planning documents to identify the process for assigning annual and Recovery Act funding. In addition, through our survey, we obtained and analyzed information from each of the 10 EPA regions on the 51 sites receiving Recovery Act funding to determine how much funding each site received and whether the use of the funding is decreasing costs of cleanup and/or accelerating cleanup. We also obtained data through our survey on delays at sites with ongoing construction. Moreover, to identify sites that were delayed when ready to begin construction, we reviewed Superfund Accomplishment Reports from 2004 through 2008. In addition, we spoke with representatives from the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials to obtain their perspectives on delays in cleanup.

To determine how many sites EPA officials expect will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years and what they expect the cost of cleaning up those sites to be, we conducted semistructured telephone interviews of NPL coordinators in each EPA region. In addition, through these interviews, we obtained information about factors that have affected the number of listings in the past and factors that may affect the number of listings in the future. We also interviewed EPA headquarters officials to obtain their perspectives on future listings and factors—including vapor intrusion—that may affect listings. Finally, to compare the projected numbers of future listings with past listings, we analyzed data from EPA’s CERCLIS database on sites that have been listed to the NPL from each region.

To determine how many sites selected state officials expect will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years and what they expect the cost of cleaning up those sites to be, we interviewed state hazardous waste agency officials from 10 states: California, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington. We selected these states using a nonprobability sample, consisting of one state from each of EPA’s 10 regions and selected to ensure that we would obtain information from states that vary in the total number of sites listed over the past 10 years. We conducted telephone interviews with officials from each of these states to obtain information about potential site listings from their state, the costs to clean up those sites, and factors that may affect the number of sites actually listed over the next 5 years. We also discussed the site assessment process, listing process, and potential future listings with an official from the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. Finally, we compared the projected numbers of future listings with past listings by analyzing data from EPA’s CERCLIS database on sites that have been listed to the NPL from each of the 10 states.

To assess the reliability of the data from EPA’s databases used in this report, we analyzed related documentation, examined the data to identify obvious errors or inconsistencies, and worked with agency officials to identify data problems. To ensure the reliability of the data collected through our survey of the 10 EPA regions, we took a number of steps to reduce measurement error, nonresponse error, and respondent bias. These steps included conducting three pretests prior to distributing the survey to ensure that our questions were clear, precise, and consistently interpreted; reviewing responses to identify obvious errors or inconsistencies; and conducting follow-up interviews with officials to review and clarify responses. We determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

We conducted this performance audit from March 2009 to May 2010, 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 II: GAO Survey of Superfund Sites

We surveyed regional officials from EPA’s 10 regions using all of the questions below as stated here. We provided these questions to the regions in an Excel spreadsheet that identified the sites pertaining to each question. We have grouped the questions below to list all questions that pertain to a particular universe of sites.

A. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites that were not construction complete, as of September 30, 2009. 1. Who is currently leading remedial actions at this site? If the site has not yet had a remedial action, who is anticipated to lead remedial actions at this site? a. Potentially Responsible Party(s) b. EPA (Fund-lead) c. State d. Federal Facility e. Mixed (Potentially Responsible Party & Fund-lead) f. Mixed (Potentially Responsible Party & State) g. Mixed (Potentially Responsible Party & Federal) 2. How confident are you that a viable Potentially Responsible Party(s) will fund future remedial actions at this site? a. Very confident b. Moderately confident c. Slightly confident d. Not at all confident/No viable Potentially Responsible Party(s) e. Don’t know 3. What is the projected fiscal year the site will be construction complete? a. FY 2009 b. FY 2010 c. FY 2011 d. FY 2012 e. FY 2013 f. FY 2014 g. FY 2015 h. FY 2016 i. FY 2017 j. FY 2018 k. FY 2019 l. FY 2020 m. FY 2021 n. FY 2022 o. FY 2023 p. After FY 2023 4. Given what is currently known about contamination at this site, how much work remains to complete construction? a. No work remains b. Less than half the work remains c. About half the work remains d. More than half the work remains e. All work remains f. Unknown 5. Given what is currently known about contamination at this site, what is the approximate projected cost to EPA to complete construction in the most efficient manner? (in millions of dollars) If there is no cost to EPA because a Potentially Responsible Party is funding ALL remedial actions at a site, please check the box for No Cost to EPA.

FY 2015 and beyond $ 6. What information are you using to make these cost projections? 7. If you cannot provide cost projections for one or more years, please explain why they are not available. 8. Is a Long Term Remedial Action planned at this site? If yes, please provide the estimated total cost to EPA of the LTRA (in millions).

B. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable human exposure, as of September 30, 2009. 1. In what fiscal year did EPA determine that there was an unacceptable risk of human exposure at this site? a. Prior to FY 1999 b. FY 1999 c. FY 2000 d. FY 2001 e. FY 2002 f. FY 2003 g. FY 2004 h. FY 2005 i. FY 2006 j. FY 2007 k. FY 2008 l. FY 2009 m. Unknown 2. In what fiscal year do you expect human exposure to be controlled at this site? a. FY 2009 b. FY 2010 c. FY 2011 d. FY 2012 e. FY 2013 f. FY 2014 g. FY 2015 h. After FY 2015 i. Unknown 3. Please provide a description of the actual or potential for human exposure. For each site, please describe the actual or potential for current human exposure, including the physical setting, populations affected, exposure pathways, contaminants, and health risks, if known. 4. What are EPA or other parties doing in the short-term to contain the risk of exposure or the actual human exposure? 5. What will EPA or other parties do in the long-term to eliminate the risk of exposure or the actual human exposure?

C. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites with unknown human exposure, as of September 30, 2009. 1. In what fiscal year did EPA determine that there was insufficient data to assess if there was an unacceptable risk of human exposure at this site? a. Prior to FY 1999 b. FY 1999 c. FY 2000 d. FY 2001 e. FY 2002 f. FY 2003 g. FY 2004 h. FY 2005 i. FY 2006 j. FY 2007 k. FY 2008 l. FY 2009 m. Unknown 2. In what fiscal year do you expect to know whether human exposure is under control at this site? b. FY 2010 c. FY 2011 d. FY 2012 e. FY 2013 g. FY 2015 h. After FY 2015 i. Unknown 3. Why is there insufficient data to determine whether human exposure is under control? 4. Please describe the potential for human exposure at this site.

D. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites (1) with unacceptable human exposure, (2) with unknown human exposure, and/or (3) that were not construction complete, as of September 30, 2009. 1. From FY 2000 to FY 2009, for which years, if any, were pipeline activities delayed at this site due to constrained funding? 2. Did this site receive funding to begin construction in the fiscal year when it was ready? If not, for how many years did the site not receive construction funding? a) Yes - site received funding when construction ready b) No - construction delayed 1 year c) No - construction delayed 2 years d) No - construction delayed 3 years e) No - construction delayed 4 years f) No - construction delayed 5 years g) No - construction delayed more than 5 years h) N/A - Site has not reached construction phase i) N/A - Construction funded by Potentially Responsible Party(s)

If cleanup was not funded when the site was construction-ready, please describe the impacts, if any, of the delay. 3. From FY 2000 to FY 2009, for which years, if any, were ongoing remedial actions delayed at the site due to constrained funding? a. For years in which ongoing remedial actions were delayed, how much funding was needed to clean up the site in the most efficient manner? (in millions) b. For years in which ongoing remedial actions were delayed, how much funding was received? (in millions) c. Please explain the source of the funding numbers in your responses for parts (a) and (b). d. What was the impact, if any, of the delay in cleanup? e. Have delays increased the total cost of construction at this site?

Please briefly explain your response.

E. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites which EPA designated to receive Recovery Act funds. 1. How much Recovery Act, or stimulus funding, has or will this site receive? Please respond in millions of dollars. 2. Will stimulus funds be used at this site for (1) beginning new construction at a site with no previous remedial actions, (2) beginning new construction at an operable unit at a site with previous remedial actions, and/or (3) supporting ongoing remedial actions? 3. Would construction have been delayed in the absence of this stimulus funding? Please choose an option below and briefly explain your response. a. Yes b. No c. Unknown 4. Will stimulus funds accelerate the pace of construction? Please choose an option below and briefly explain your response. a. Yes b. No c. Unknown 5. Will the stimulus funds decrease the total cost of construction at this site? Please choose an option below and briefly explain your response. a. Yes b. No c. Unknown 6. Will the use of stimulus funding control human exposure at this site?

Please choose an option below and briefly explain your response. a. Yes, completely b. Yes, partially c. No d. Not applicable e. Unknown 7. Please describe your region’s involvement, if any, in identifying sites to receive stimulus funding.

Appendix III: Sites with Unacceptable Human Exposure

As of the end of fiscal year 2009, EPA identified 75 nonfederal sites on the NPL as having unacceptable human exposure. The human exposure at these 75 sites is due to a variety of contaminants that may be present in soil, groundwater, sediments, or other media at the site and may impact areas where people live, work, and recreate. As figure 7 shows, the most common medium of concern at sites with unacceptable human exposure is soil, with 42 sites containing this medium of concern. The next most common media are fish or shellfish, sediment, and groundwater. Many sites had more than one medium of concern. For example, the Caldwell Trucking Co. site in New Jersey has four media of concern: soil, groundwater, surface water, and indoor air. At this site, groundwater contaminated with solvents is seeping onto surface soils and discharging into surface-water streams in a residential area, and the solvents may have potentially migrated from groundwater to indoor air, posing a risk of vapor intrusion.

The contaminants that most commonly cause unacceptable human exposure are lead, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), arsenic, and metals other than lead. Some sites contained several contaminants, present in different media. For example, the Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. site in Virginia contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pentachlorophenol (PCP), dioxins, and heavy metals present in soil and shellfish, as well as creosote present in sediments. As a result of the variety of contaminants and contaminated media, there are multiple risks at the site, including risks to (1) recreational users of the river who could come into direct contact with sediments contaminated with creosote, (2) consumers of large quantities of shellfish exposed to unacceptably high levels of contaminants, and (3) workers at the Atlantic Wood Industries concrete manufacturing business who are exposed to surface soils at the site.

Residents of contaminated areas are the population most commonly exposed to unacceptable exposures at the 75 sites, with over half of the sites posing a contaminant risk to residents on or nearby the site, according to the data collected through our survey. In addition, contaminated waterways, including rivers, lakes, and harbors, pose unacceptable risks to those who consume contaminated fish caught from these areas. Risks to workers and other commercial tenants and those who recreate at contaminated sites are present at fewer sites. The exposed populations face different health risks based on the contaminants present at the site. For example, consuming PCB in fish may cause liver disease, problems with the immune and endocrine system, developmental problems, and cancer, while human health threats from arsenic include irritation of the stomach and intestines, blood vessel damage, reduced nerve function, and increased mortality rates in young adults.

According to an EPA headquarters official responsible for overseeing the human exposure indicator, the indicator demonstrates a high potential for human exposure, but it does not always indicate that documented human exposure is occurring at a site. The official explained that it can be difficult to obtain evidence of actual human exposure; however, EPA has been able to document exposure at some sites. For example, the Big River Mine Tailings site contains lead-contaminated soils on residential properties, and blood tests have shown elevated lead levels in children. For some risks, however, such as consumption of contaminated fish, EPA may not have evidence of actual ingestion of contaminated fish but does have information suggesting that people are fishing in the area of concern.

Table 4 provides a description of the human exposure risks at the 75 sites, as well as the fiscal year that EPA estimates human exposure will be under control at those sites.

Appendix IV: Sites Receiving Recovery Act Funding

EPA identified 51 sites to receive Recovery Act funding. Table 5 provides the amount of Recovery Act funds EPA allocated to each site and the planned use of these funds.

Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, Vincent Price, Assistant Director; Deanna Laufer; Barbara Patterson; Kyerion Printup; and Beth Reed Fritts made key contributions to this report. Elizabeth Beardsley, Nancy Crothers, Pamela Davidson, Michele Fejfar, Carol Henn, and Mehrzad Nadji also made important contributions.