Superfund: Times to Complete the Assessment and Cleanup of Hazardous Waste Sites
Released: 1997-05-08T00:00:00

Letter

Background

In 1980, the Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), commonly known as Superfund, to clean up highly contaminated hazardous waste sites. The act gave EPA the authority to clean up contaminated sites or to compel the parties responsible for the contamination to perform or pay for the cleanups. As of November 6, 1996, there were 1,205 sites on the NPL: 1,054 nonfederal and 151 federal.

Cleanup actions fall into two broad categories: removal actions and remedial actions. Removal actions are usually short-term actions designed to stabilize or clean up a hazardous waste site that poses an immediate threat to human health or the environment. Remedial actions are generally longer-term and usually costlier actions aimed at achieving a permanent remedy.

To promote timely cleanups, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 set numerical cleanup goals for all NPL sites. SARA provided that, for facilities discovered after the act was passed, a facility shall be evaluated for placement on the NPL within 4 years of the site’s discovery if EPA determines on the basis of a site inspection or preliminary assessment that such an evaluation is warranted. For certain contaminated federal sites identified as of October 17, 1986 (the date of SARA’s enactment), the act required EPA to ensure the performance of a preliminary assessment of each such facility within 18 months (1.5 years) after October 17, 1986. In addition, the act required EPA to ensure the evaluation and placement of such sites on the NPL, if appropriate, within 30 months (2.5 years) after October 17, 1986.

In 1992, EPA implemented the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model. This model introduced several initiatives designed to accomplish Superfund cleanups in less time and at less cost. The initiatives included (1) integrated site assessments—efforts to reduce redundancies in data collection, (2) non-time-critical removals—efforts to reduce risks sooner by accelerating some cleanup actions, and (3) presumptive remedies—efforts to reduce the costs and time to study various cleanup alternatives by identifying in advance the most effective cleanup remedy for a given situation.

We reported last year that EPA’s regions were not effectively using one of the initiatives—the authority to use non-time-critical removals to save time and money. We found that although these removals show promise for expediting Superfund cleanups, budgetary and legal issues have constrained their wider use. EPA site managers estimate that using non-time-critical removals instead of the full remedial process can, on average, cut the time for similar cleanup actions by about 2 years and reduce the costs by about half a million dollars. Compared to the full remedial process, the removal process considerably shortens the evaluation (study and design) steps but may conduct similar cleanup actions.

EPA, other federal agencies, and state governments all play roles in the Superfund process. EPA administers the program, evaluates nonfederal sites for placement on the NPL, oversees cleanups performed by the parties responsible for contaminating sites, and performs cleanups itself when these parties cannot be found. Federal agencies are responsible, under EPA’s supervision, for evaluating and cleaning up their own properties.

States may enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with EPA to carry out certain Superfund actions, including site evaluation and cleanup oversight.

For this report, we asked EPA to provide us with data on the length of time taken by EPA, authorized states, and federal agencies to evaluate sites for possible placement on the NPL, to complete cleanups of listed sites, and to accomplish the steps leading to listing and cleanup. The source of this information was EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS), which is the official repository of Superfund data. For more detailed information on the time taken to complete steps in the evaluation and cleanup phases of the Superfund process, see appendixes I and II, respectively. Appendix III presents the numbers of observations, by year, included in the average time for each processing step (e.g., date of placement on the NPL) depicted in the report’s figures.

We used a “date of event” analysis (e.g., date of a site’s placement on the NPL, date of completing a cleanup) in presenting data on completion times because of its usefulness in showing the productivity and management of Superfund resources over time. (See app. IV.) This analysis considers the actual number of listings, cleanups completed, or intermediate steps completed in a given year regardless of when the sites were discovered or placed on the NPL. Our approach is consistent with a method used by EPA in its management reports to measure the program’s accomplishments. This “date of event” analysis contrasts with a “date of submission” analysis, which would track processing times by the year sites were discovered or listed. Both methods are accepted forms of analysis. The date of submission method can be useful for measuring the effects of policy changes. We did not use this method in our analysis because the changes EPA made to accelerate the Superfund process are too recent for their effects to be reflected in the available data.

We also attempted to measure trends in the time taken to complete listings and cleanups, using SARA’s goals and EPA’s own standards as benchmarks. Because these standards set 4- and 5-year completion goals, our analysis was limited to sites discovered or listed not later than 1991. Because EPA’s initiatives to expedite cleanups were introduced after this time, their effect on achieving the standards cannot yet be determined using this approach. We are, however, currently reviewing the implementation and possible effects of these initiatives.

Listing Times Have Increased

The length of time between discovering a site and placing it on the NPL has increased significantly over the life of the Superfund program. (See fig. 1.) According to EPA, this increase is due largely to the backlog of sites referred to the agency for evaluation, additional processing requirements, and a reduction in the number of sites added annually to Superfund.

No nonfederal sites were listed on the NPL in fiscal years 1988 and 1992. Data for fiscal year 1996 exclude three nonfederal sites that were added to the NPL without undergoing the usual evaluation because they posed imminent public health risks.

No federal sites were listed on the NPL in fiscal years 1986, 1988, 1991-92, and 1996.

Figure 1 shows a generally increasing trend in the time taken to place sites on the NPL following their discovery. In 1996, EPA took an average of 9.4 years to list nonfederal sites and, in 1995, 8.3 years to list federal sites. SARA’s goal was for EPA to evaluate nonfederal sites for listing, when warranted, within 4 years of their discovery. For federal sites, SARA’s goal was for EPA to evaluate certain sites identified as of October 17, 1986, within 2.5 years of that date. EPA established a policy goal to complete preliminary assessments and site inspections of federal sites discovered after October 17, 1986, within 1.5 years of their discovery. EPA made decisions about listing nonfederal sites within 4 years of their discovery for 43 percent of the 8,931 sites discovered from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 1991. However, as shown in figure 2, the percentage of sites for which decisions were made within 4 years of discovery decreased in each succeeding year, from 51 percent in fiscal year 1987 to 36 percent in fiscal year 1991.

According to EPA officials, decisions not to list sites are now being made faster than during the period from 1987 through 1991, when many listing decisions were delayed pending a revision of the standards for evaluating hazardous waste sites. According to EPA, most sites are now excluded from further consideration for Superfund after an early assessment of their conditions.

EPA has made some progress in reducing the time between discovering a site and completing certain steps required to place it on the NPL. Specifically, the average time from discovery to the completion of initial studies at nonfederal sites has declined from its peak in the late 1980s. (See app. I.) In addition, in 1996, the average time taken to list nonfederal sites fell to 9.4 years from 11.4 years in 1995. However, the time between discovery and listing for the seven sites placed on the NPL in the first quarter of fiscal year 1997 moved up again to an average of 11.2 years. These sites were discovered as recently as 1993 and as long ago as 1979.

Although average processing times have lengthened, EPA can move quickly to list some sites if circumstances warrant. For example, in 1996, it listed three sites within about 9 to 12 months of their discovery, when the Public Health Service’s Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry issued a public health advisory concerning the sites. EPA used an expedited process that bypassed its normal evaluation process to list these sites. In addition, EPA may undertake removal actions at sites to deal with imminent threats regardless of whether the sites are listed. However, listing is necessary before the full range of problems presented by many sites can be addressed under Superfund.

EPA officials gave a number of reasons why assessment times have grown. They said that the Superfund program started with a backlog of sites awaiting evaluation. They also cited changes in the program, such as revised evaluation standards requiring the reevaluation of sites and the need to seek a state’s concurrence for listing a site. In addition, the number of sites placed on the NPL in recent years has declined.

The officials also said that the agency’s current priority is to finish cleaning up the sites that have already been listed. Accordingly, EPA reallocated its budget between 1994 and 1996, cutting the funds for assessing sites by some 50 percent. The challenge for the future is indicated by the large number of sites that could enter the Superfund program in the future and the small number that have been placed on the NPL in the recent past. In a 1996 report, we estimated that between 1,400 and 2,300 sites could be added to the program in the future. In contrast, 16 sites per year were admitted, on average, from 1992 through 1996.

EPA officials said that the listing of new sites is likely to remain constrained and that EPA is emphasizing the use of alternative strategies to clean up sites more quickly or to transfer the responsibility for cleanups to other parties. These alternative strategies include (1) assigning more cleanups to the removal rather than the remedial program, (2) expanding state cleanup programs, and (3) encouraging voluntary cleanups by responsible parties.

Cleanup Completion Times Have Increased

For sites with completed cleanups, the average time between the site’s placement on the NPL and the cleanup’s completion increased significantly from 1986 to 1996. For nonfederal sites, the time required to complete cleanups increased from 2.4 years in 1986 to 10.6 years in 1996. For federal sites, the time required to complete cleanups increased from about 3.3 years in 1990 to 6.6 years in 1996. The increase in overall cleanup times was accompanied by a marked increase in the time taken to select cleanup remedies—a period that includes the waiting time between placement on the NPL and the start of remedy selection studies, the performance of the studies themselves, and in some cases, negotiations to reach settlements with the parties responsible for the contamination. For nonfederal sites, this phase was completed in about 2.5 years in 1986 but about 8 years in 1996. In contrast, the average time taken to construct the actual cleanup remedy for the nonfederal sites completing this cleanup phase in 1996 was 2.1 years.

For our analysis, we considered a cleanup to be complete as of the date of EPA’s remedial action report indicating that construction has been completed. According to its procedures, EPA approves this report when a cleanup remedy has been put in place at an operable unit and, except where long-term operation is needed, has achieved the required cleanup levels. EPA would consider remedial action complete when a system for pumping and treating contaminated groundwater has been installed, even though the system may have to operate for years before the contamination is reduced to acceptable levels. Our analysis of cleanup times considers whole sites as well as the cleanup projects (operable units) into which sites are often divided. Since EPA and federal agencies have cleaned up more operable units than whole sites, measuring the progress in cleaning up the operable units gives a more complete picture of the program’s activity.

Figure 3 shows the average time between placing nonfederal and federal sites on the NPL and completing cleanups at operable units.

Because few federal sites were cleaned up before fiscal year 1990, we began our analysis of cleanups at federal sites starting in that year.

As figure 3 shows, the time taken to complete cleanups of operable units has grown longer at both nonfederal and federal Superfund sites. In addition, the time taken to complete the principal steps in the process leading to the completion of cleanups has also grown longer (see app. II.) In 1996, cleanup completions averaged 10.6 years for nonfederal operable units and 6.6 years for federal operable units.

As noted, SARA set goals for starting certain cleanup actions, but not for completing the cleanups. For fiscal year 1993, however, EPA set an expectation for its regions to complete a cleanup within 5 years of a site’s listing. At nonfederal sites listed from 1986 through 1990, 10 percent of the operable units were cleaned up within 5 years of their site’s listing. As shown in figure 4, the percentages of operable units cleaned up within 5 years increased from 7 percent for sites listed in fiscal year 1986 to 15 percent for sites listed in fiscal year 1990. EPA officials said that they now believe that sites will be cleaned up within 8 to 10 years of their listing.

We also analyzed data on the time taken to clean up entire Superfund sites (as opposed to operable units). From 1986 to 1996, EPA recorded cleanups for 592 operable units at nonfederal facilities and for 118 operable units at federal facilities. During this same period, EPA recorded cleanups for 226 nonfederal sites and for only 7 federal sites. Figure 5 shows the average duration of cleanups for the 226 nonfederal sites recorded as cleaned up from 1986 to 1996.

Time Taken to Accomplish the Principal Steps in the Process of Placing Sites on the NPL

We examined the time taken to accomplish the principal steps in the process of placing a site on the National Priorities List (NPL)—the preliminary assessment, the site inspection, and the proposal to list the site as a national priority.

Steps in the Process of Listing a Site

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) regulation implementing the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) outlines a formal process for placing hazardous waste sites on the NPL. (See fig. I.1)

The listing process starts when EPA receives a report of a potentially hazardous waste site. A state government or private citizen most often reports a nonfederal site. A responsible federal agency reports a potentially contaminated federal facility to EPA for placement on a list called the federal facility docket. EPA enters a potentially contaminated private site into a database known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). EPA or the state in which the potentially contaminated nonfederal site is located then conducts a preliminary assessment to decide whether the site poses a potential threat to human health and the environment. A federal agency performs the preliminary assessment of its site under EPA’s oversight.

If the site presents a serious, imminent threat, EPA or the responsible federal agency may take immediate action. If the preliminary assessment shows that contamination exists but does not pose an imminent threat, or if the site continues to pose a problem following an immediate action, EPA or the responsible federal agency, with EPA’s supervision, may proceed to the next step of the evaluation process, the site inspection, which takes a more detailed look at possible contamination. If at any point the site is found not to pose a potential threat, the site can be eliminated from further consideration under CERCLA.

Using information from the site inspection, EPA applies the hazard ranking system to evaluate the federal or nonfederal site’s potential risk to public health and the environment. The hazard ranking system is a numerically based scoring system that uses information from the preliminary assessment and the site inspection to assign each site a score ranging from 0 to 100. This score is used as a screening tool to determine whether a site should be considered for further action under CERCLA. A site with a score of 28.5 or higher is considered for placement on the NPL. EPA first proposes a site for placement on the NPL and then, after receiving public comments, either places it on the NPL or removes it from further consideration. The hazardous waste sites on the NPL represent the highest priorities for cleanup nationwide.

Preliminary Assessments

Figure I.2 shows, for nonfederal and federal sites, the average time taken to complete a preliminary assessment of conditions at a site following its discovery.

Figure I.2 shows that from 1987 to 1989, EPA sharply reduced the average time between discovery and completion of the preliminary assessment at nonfederal sites. EPA officials attributed this decrease to EPA’s effort to reduce the time for completing preliminary assessments following the passage of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA).

After SARA’s passage, EPA adopted a policy of completing a preliminary assessment within 1 year of a site’s discovery. The preliminary assessment was completed within a year of discovery at about two-thirds of the sites that were discovered after fiscal year 1987 and were preliminarily assessed by the end of fiscal year 1995. The officials said that EPA’s efforts to complete assessments within 1 year had reduced the backlog of sites needing assessments and shortened the time required for the assessments.

However, since 1989, the time from discovery to completion of the preliminary assessment has gradually increased.

For federal sites, the average time between discovery and completion of the preliminary assessment has fluctuated over the years but has consistently exceeded SARA’s goals. In fiscal year 1996, the preliminary assessment was completed for federal sites, on average, 2.5 years after discovery. SARA specified that EPA take steps to ensure that the assessment for all sites entered on EPA’s first federal facility docket be completed within 1.5 years. An EPA policy extended SARA’s deadline to all subsequent dockets. EPA officials told us that federal sites are typically larger and more complex than nonfederal sites and therefore their assessment requires more work and more time to complete. The officials also said that studies prepared by federal agencies often lack needed data, requiring EPA to ask the agencies to do more work to satisfy CERCLA’s requirements. The officials also noted that EPA does not have much leverage over how federal agencies conduct their preliminary assessments.

Site Inspections

Figure I.3 shows, for nonfederal and federal sites, the average time between discovery and completion of the site inspection.

As figure I.3 shows, the average time from discovery to completion of the site inspection has declined in recent years for both nonfederal and federal sites. EPA has made progress over the past 5 years in reducing the time from discovery to completion of the site inspection for nonfederal sites. In 1991, EPA took an average of 6.6 years to complete the site inspection, whereas in 1996, it brought this average down to 4.1 years. EPA officials told us that the time for completing site inspections increased until 1991 because EPA concentrated its resources on completing preliminary assessments within 12 months and this effort created a backlog of site inspections. They said that after reducing the backlog of preliminary assessments, EPA focused on reducing the backlog of site inspections, bringing about the recent improvement in the time for completing site inspections.

For federal sites, EPA’s policy was that inspections were to be completed within 1.5 years. In 1996, inspections took 6.5 years to complete, on average, from the time of site discovery.

Proposing a Site as a National Priority

Figure I.4 shows, for nonfederal and federal sites, the average time between completing the site inspection and proposing to place the site on the NPL.

The broken line indicates that no federal sites were proposed for the NPL in fiscal year 1987. Only two federal sites were proposed for the NPL in fiscal year 1995, and only one was proposed in fiscal year 1996.

As figure I.4 shows, the average time required to propose a site for placement on the NPL generally increased for both nonfederal and federal sites from 1986 to 1996. For nonfederal sites proposed for listing in 1986, the proposal took 20 months from the completion of the site inspection, compared with 6 years in 1996. For federal sites proposed for listing in 1986, the proposal took only 10 months from the completion of the site inspection, compared with 5.5 years in 1994, the last year in which a substantial number of federal sites were proposed for listing.

According to EPA officials, the increases in the time required to propose sites for listing are partly attributable to revisions in the hazard ranking system mandated by SARA. SARA directed EPA to obtain additional data so that the system could more accurately assess the relative risk to human health and the environment posed by sites and facilities nominated to the NPL. EPA officials said that the agency decided to limit listings while it was revising the hazard ranking system. EPA announced in April 1987 that it was considering revisions to the system, and in December 1988 it requested comments on proposed revisions. In December 1990, EPA promulgated final revisions to the hazard ranking system.

EPA officials said that the revisions to the hazard ranking system led EPA to seek additional data on 5,275 nonfederal sites and 27 federal sites from 1992 through 1996. For these sites, EPA developed a temporary intermediate step—referred to as a site inspection prioritization—to gather the additional information needed on the sites’ risks to human health. EPA officials also said that the time taken to assess sites has grown because of the large backlog of sites at the start of the Superfund program, enforcement activities, and the need to seek a state’s concurrence for listing a site. In addition, the number of sites placed on the NPL has declined in recent years.

Duration of Evaluation Steps

We attempted to obtain data from CERCLIS showing the duration of some of the major steps in the process of evaluating sites for placement on the NPL: the preliminary assessment, the site inspection, and the site inspection prioritization. However, the starting date for many of these steps is not recorded in the database. For example, the beginning and ending dates are available for only 27 percent (4,693 of 17,469) of the site inspections completed at nonfederal sites through fiscal year 1995. However, the data that are available indicate that these steps account for only a portion of the total time taken to evaluate a site for listing. The available data show that in fiscal year 1995, preliminary assessments at nonfederal sites were completed on average in 8 months; site inspections in 12 months; and sites inspection prioritizations in 12 months. These numbers suggest that a substantial portion of the time between discovery and listing elapses while a site is awaiting the next step in the process.

Time Taken to Accomplish the Principal Steps in the Process of Cleaning Up Sites

In addition to measuring the total time taken from the placement of a site on the NPL to the completion of its cleanup, we examined the time taken to complete two of the principal intermediate steps—the preparation of the record of decision, which documents the final remedy selected after completing the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS), and the remedial design, which includes the technical drawings and specifications for the selected remedy. We also obtained data on the duration of the RI/FS, the remedial design, and the remedial action.

Steps in the Process of Cleaning Up a Site

EPA’s regulation implementing CERCLA outlines the remedial process for cleaning up sites on the NPL. (see fig. II.1)

The remedial responses to an NPL site consists of several phases. If a site is divided into discrete cleanup projects, known as operable units, each of the operable units may pass through these phases. First, through the RI/FS, the conditions at a site are studied, problems are identified, and alternative methods to clean up the site are evaluated. Then, a final remedy is selected, and the decision is documented in a record of decision. Next, during an engineering phase called the remedial design, technical drawings and specifications are developed for the selected remedy. Finally, in the remedial action phase, a cleanup contractor begins constructing the remedy according to the remedial design. Once EPA, in consultation with the state in which the site is located, determines that the work at a site has achieved all of the desired cleanup goals, the site can be removed (deleted) from the NPL.

Selecting a Remedy

Figure II.2 shows, for nonfederal and federal operable units, the average time taken from the placement of a site on the NPL to the selection of a remedy for its cleanup.

Because few federal sites had remedies selected prior to fiscal year 1990, we began our analysis of remedy selection at federal sites starting in that year.

Figure II.2 shows that the average time taken to select a remedy at nonfederal sites has steadily increased over the years. In 1986, selecting a remedy after a site’s listing took an average of 2.6 years, compared with an average of 8.1 years in 1996. The average time taken to select a remedy at federal sites has also increased over the years, from an average of 2 years in 1990 to an average of 6.3 years in 1996.

The cleanup phase that ends with the selection of a remedy comprises two periods: the time between listing and the start of the RI/FS and the time for the RI/FS. Both of these periods add significantly to the total time taken to complete cleanups. For nonfederal sites at which RI/FSs were begun from 1991 through 1996, an average of 4.5 years had elapsed since the sites were proposed for listing. For federal sites at which RI/FSs were begun during the same years, an average of 3.5 years had elapsed. For the nonfederal sites at which RI/FSs were completed in 1995 (the last year for which complete data were available), the RI/FS took an average of 4.4 years to complete, or about 2 years more than in 1986. For federal sites, the RI/FSs took an average of 4.4 years to complete in 1996, up about 2.5 years from 1991.

Designing a Remedy

Figure II.3 shows, for nonfederal and federal operable units, the average time taken to develop the remedial design, or the technical drawings and specifications for the selected remedy. The elapsed time is measured from the date of a site’s placement on the NPL.

Because few federal sites had remedial designs completed before fiscal year 1990, we began our analysis of remedial designs at federal sites starting in that year.

As figure II.3 indicates, remedial designs are generally completed more quickly at federal sites than at nonfederal sites. EPA officials attributed this difference to the fact that federal cleanups do not usually involve negotiations or litigation with private responsible parties.

Duration of Cleanup Steps

EPA’s records indicate that the actual time taken recently to complete the latter phases of the cleanup process—the remedial design and the remedial action—is less than one-half of the total time taken, from listing, to complete recent remedial actions. Nonfederal remedial designs took 2.3 years to complete in 1996, up from 1.6 years in 1991. Nonfederal remedial actions took about 2 years in 1996, essentially as long as they took in 1991.

Federal remedial designs were done in 1 year in 1996, up slightly from about 10 months in 1991. Federal remedial actions were completed in 1.6 years in 1996, again up slightly from 1.4 years in 1991.

Number of Observations Represented in This Report’s Figures

Data are not presented for this year because the year is not included in the corresponding figure.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The Chairman of the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight asked us to provide information on the pace of Superfund cleanups. He specifically asked that we examine trends in the time taken to (1) evaluate hazardous waste sites for possible placement on the NPL and (2) clean up the sites following their listing. To accomplish these objectives, we asked EPA to provide us with data from the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS). This information system is the official repository of Superfund data and provides integrated information on the evaluation (preremedial) and remedial programs as well as the removal program.

To determine the time taken to evaluate sites for placement on the NPL, we asked EPA to provide us with data on the sites that had moved through the various stages of the assessment process from fiscal year 1986 through fiscal year 1996. For this report, we concentrated our analysis on the following four phases of each site’s evaluation: (1) from discovery to placement on the NPL, (2) from discovery to completion of the preliminary assessment, (3) from discovery to completion of the site inspection, and (4) from completion of the inspection to the proposal for listing.

To determine the time taken to clean up sites placed on the NPL, we asked EPA to provide data on sites that had progressed through the stages of the remedial cleanup process. These data also covered fiscal years 1986 through 1996. For this part of the analysis, we examined data for three principal stages of the cleanup process: (1) from the site’s placement on the NPL to the selection of a remedy, (2) from the site’s listing to the completion of the remedial design, and (3) from the site’s listing to the completion of the cleanup. We also measured the duration of the RI/FS, the remedial design, and the remedial action and the time from the proposal for listing to the start of the RI/FS.

We used a “date of event” (such as NPL listing or completion of cleanup) analysis in our review to measure the duration of listing and cleanup phases. This method classifies sites by the year in which they completed an activity. Our approach is an accepted form of analysis useful for showing the productivity and management of resources over time. Another analytical approach would have grouped sites by their “date of submission” (discovery or listing) and compared the duration of processing steps among these groups. This method can be useful in assessing the effect of policy or operational changes. We did not use it in our report because EPA’s initiatives to speed up the Superfund process are so recent. We also used goals for the completion of listing or cleanup set out in SARA or EPA directives as benchmarks for comparison with actual listing and cleanup times.

We used EPA’s definitions of site discovery and cleanup completion. Site discovery for this report is defined as the date of a site’s listing in CERCLIS. Cleanup completion is defined as the end of the remedial action phase, that is, the date when, under EPA’s procedures, the designated regional or state official signs a document indicating that the physical construction is complete for all remedial and removal work required at a site and, except where the long-term operation of a remedy is needed, the required cleanup levels have been attained.

EPA’s management data track a site’s projects, or operable units. Nonfederal sites average 1.8 operable units, while federal sites average 5.9 operable units. Each operable unit generally proceeds through the individual cleanup stages.

For example, the Department of Energy’s Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site was placed on the NPL in 1989 as one site. DOE subsequently categorized the known or suspected hazardous waste sources into 16 operable units on the basis of its cleanup priorities, the type of waste, the unit’s geographic location, and public input. EPA’s records show that cleanups at 3 of Rocky Flats’ 16 operable units have been completed, 2 in 1992 and 1 in 1993. Tracking the time required to clean up operable units allows EPA to measure progress without waiting for entire sites to be cleaned up. At some complex sites—like Rocky Flats—work may extend well into the future. We also examined data for sites where all of the operable units had been cleaned up.

While we did not independently verify EPA’s data for completeness or accuracy, EPA took a number of steps to ensure the accuracy and reliability of its data. For example, sites without valid identification numbers or with inappropriate status codes were excluded. Also, any times for individual study phases that could not possibly be valid were excluded from the analysis. For example, negative times were excluded. Also, sites with times exceeding the mean by more than three standard deviations were eliminated to prevent a few sites on the high or low end of the spectrum from skewing the overall results. These adjustments resulted in the exclusion of fewer than 1 percent of the sites.

EPA provided written comments on a draft of this report. These comments are discussed and evaluated in the pertinent sections of this report and are reprinted in appendix V. We conducted our work from November 1995 through February 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency

The following are GAO’s comments on EPA’s letter dated December 23, 1996.

GAO’s Comments

1. The graphs presented in this report represent the actual recorded time frames for all Superfund sites and projects that moved through the Superfund processing pipeline from 1986 through 1996. This method of analysis is analogous to measuring a company’s bottom-line financial performance over time. We did not attempt to forecast the potential effects of EPA’s recent initiatives to accelerate the pace of the Superfund program. 2. We have revised the title of the report to more precisely indicate the report’s contents. 3. The graphic depiction of trend data in this report is a historical presentation of the average time spent in the Superfund process by those sites that were listed and cleaned up in a given year. The information responds to the Committee’s questions on (1) how long it took to evaluate and process sites for possible placement on the NPL from the time of their discovery and (2) how long it took to clean up sites after they were placed on the NPL. We agree with EPA that our presentation of historical data may not fully reflect the effects of recent policy changes. Nevertheless, in reviewing EPA’s initiatives to accelerate the pace of Superfund cleanups under the Superfund Accelerated Cleanup Model (SACM) and in discussing this report with agency personnel, we found that EPA lacks data for measuring the extent to which these initiatives have been implemented or the effects of these initiatives. Our recent report on the non-time-critical removal component of SACM showed that although non-time-critical removals have an excellent potential to reduce costs and expedite the protection of human health and the environment, the program’s full implementation has been constrained by budgetary and legal issues. Without adequate data, we were unable to assess the effects of the new initiatives on reducing the overall duration of stages in the Superfund process. EPA told us that it is currently embarking on an analysis of its recent initiatives to better communicate to stakeholders and communities the successes of Superfund. 4. We disagree that using the year of listing, rather than the year of completion, would array the data in a more equitable way. The method using the year of listing attributes longer processing times to sites listed in earlier years and shorter times to more recently listed sites. In other words, this method will always show that recent processing times are an improvement over earlier processing times. As sites are completed in the future, average completion times will grow for each listing year containing these sites. 5. EPA’s efforts to explore alternatives to listing sites are noteworthy. However, the Congress in the 1986 SARA legislation established a goal for completing evaluations of nonfederal sites within 4 years of their discovery and for certain federal sites within 2.5 years. The agency still maintains these time goals as its stated policy. We disagree with EPA’s assertion that shortening the average time taken to evaluate sites for placement on the NPL may not be desirable. Placing a site on the NPL associates it with the nation’s most hazardous waste sites. To be considered for listing, a site must demonstrate that it has potential adverse effects on human health or the environment. For communities near a toxic waste site, the time taken to investigate and decide on a site’s listing may indeed be relevant and an early decision may be desirable. 6. We revised our statement of the act’s purpose and included enforcement activities among the reasons EPA officials cited for long listing and cleanup time frames. 7. According to EPA, the results of its recent changes will not be complete for 8 to 10 years. We previously testified that EPA’s current policy initiatives are a step in the right direction to improving the pace of Superfund cleanups. However, to effectively manage the new initiatives, EPA managers cannot wait 8 to 10 years to determine whether the recent changes work. EPA managers need data to measure the effects of the new policy initiatives. 8. See comment 4. EPA’s reference to figures 1 and 2 applies to the two parts of figure 1. 9. EPA stated that backlogs of sites awaiting processing increase the time taken to list and clean up sites over time. We agree that backlogs have contributed to increased time frames. In July 1993, we reported in Superfund: Backlog of Unevaluated Federal Facilities Slows Cleanup Effort (GAO/RCED-93-119) that the existence of substantial backlogs of unevaluated federal sites was a principal reason why EPA had not met its statutory deadlines under SARA for making listing decisions. We reported that EPA had not placed a high enough priority on assessing federal facilities and that EPA and other federal agencies had never established a plan for jointly responding to SARA’s deadlines. For nonfederal sites awaiting Superfund listing decisions, SARA provided that EPA should evaluate such sites for listing, when warranted, within 4 years of SARA’s enactment. For many sites, this goal was not met. We believe—and EPA agrees elsewhere in its comments—that backlogs of sites dating from the creation of the program are not the only reason for the increase in completion times. 10. The data we used in preparing our charts showing the average time between site discovery and the completion of various steps leading to listing did not include extensive periods preceding CERCLA’s enactment in 1980. Specifically, 200 sites discovered before October 1, 1969, were excluded from the analysis, and all sites discovered between October 1, 1969, and September 30, 1979, were adjusted to set a discovery date of October 1, 1979. However, we have revised the charts to begin the trend lines in 1986 to exclude possibly unrepresentative sites completed early in the program. 11. See comment 4. 12. There are extremes at either end of the processing time curve. While some sites may take only a few months to list, as EPA maintains, others take significantly longer than average. We do not disagree with EPA’s statement that the agency can expedite the processing of certain sites. 13. EPA argues that because it does not have full control over the time between a site’s proposed and final listing, the length of this period is not a good measure of its performance. EPA’s data indicate that the time required for this processing step has remained fairly constant over the life of the program and was not a factor leading to the increase in processing times. For example, from 1992 through 1995, it took 1.2 years, on average, to finalize the listing of a nonfederal site proposed for listing. This is slightly less than the 1.4 years taken, on average, from 1983 though 1995. 14. We included federal facilities listed in 1983 and 1984 because they were included in CERCLIS. However, in view of EPA’s comment and the limited number of federal listings until 1990, we have deleted federal facilities listed before 1990. 15. We have revised our report as suggested and deleted the sentence in question. 16. A statement indicating EPA’s disagreement with our presentation of the duration data was added to the agency comments section of the report. See comment 4. 17. We have deleted the years before 1986 from our analysis to eliminate possibly atypical sites that were completed early in the history of the Superfund program. Also, we have added the data in appendix III to the report to supplement the trend lines shown in the report’s figures and indicate for the reader how many sites or operable units were tracked in these figures. 18. See comment 4. 19. Sentence deleted. 20. See comment 4. 21. See comment 17. Also, we note that our report does present data on “discrete milestones.” For example, it presents information on the times taken to complete preliminary assessments, site inspections, the selection of remedies, and other steps in the Superfund process. 22. The data mentioned by EPA from figure 3 represent the average time taken to clean up 17 distinct operable units in 1986. The data in figure II.2 represent the average time taken to select a remedy for 82 other distinct operable units for that same year. These data are not inconsistent or inappropriate, as EPA implies, because they represent two distinct universes. 23. See comment 3. 24. The Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) 1994 study is based on “estimated” average durations from the proposal for listing through the completion of construction, while our data represent actual durations for operable units and sites from the final listing through the completion of the remedial action. The main finding of CBO’s report was that the average time between the proposal for listing and the completion of construction will be at least 12 years for the first 1,249 sites. CBO obtained its data through interviews with remedial project managers. The managers estimated that the completion time for the nonfederal sites proposed for listing from 1981 through 1983 would average 12.9 years, while the completion time for the nonfederal sites proposed from 1984 through 1992 would average 9.6 years.

CBO’s report said that the difference between the two estimates (of 12.9 years and 9.6 years) “may merely be evidence of the overoptimism suspected by officials at EPA headquarters. The sites listed more recently have generally not progressed as far through the Superfund pipeline; for example, only 16 percent of those with actual or estimated completion dates had been finished by 1993, compared with 31 percent of the early sites.” 25. We continue to believe that EPA’s efforts to expedite cleanups are steps in the right direction. However, enough time has now elapsed for EPA to evaluate the progress and effects of the program to date. Over 4 years have elapsed since EPA formally initiated SACM, and over 2 years have elapsed since the agency proceeded to fully implement the program. As indicated in this report, our review of non-time-critical removals showed limited use of this SACM component in EPA’s regions. 26. We have revised our report to indicate in the agency comments section that EPA regards factors such as budget shortfalls, legislative and administrative weaknesses in the current program, and a continuing influx of large and complex sites as barriers that undermine its efforts to increase the pace of assessments and cleanups. 27. See comment 9. 28. The presumptive remedy for municipal landfills was issued by EPA in September 1993. An EPA directive with the same date stated that presumptive remedies were expected to be used at all appropriate sites. The time savings cited by EPA were achieved at three pilot sites that used the landfill presumptive remedy in the spring of 1992. EPA’s December 1996 annual report on Superfund administrative reforms stated that the agency is beginning to collect and analyze data on the use of presumptive remedies. At the time of our review, no adequate data were available to assess the effects of presumptive remedies on the time taken to complete the Superfund process. 29. We added EPA’s estimate of the time savings attributable to these reforms to the report.

Major Contributors to This Report

James F. Donaghy, Assistant Director Robert J. Tice, Evaluator-in-Charge Larry D. Turman, Evaluator Pauline Lichtenfeld, Evaluator Mitchell B. Karpman, Senior Operations Research Analyst Annette Wright, Graphics Analyst Bess Eisenstadt, Communications Analyst Lynne L. Goldfarb, Publishing Adviser 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 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 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 (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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.