Superfund: Progress Made by EPA and Other Federal Agencies to Resolve Program Management Issues

EPA regional offices have completed negotiations with almost all of the states to decide what remaining sites need to be assessed and who will manage the assessments. Then, they will negotiate who will manage any necessary cleanup activities. In addition, EPA has revised its Superfund management information system so that it can track the status of certain cleanup activities that the states are managing.

Since GAO made this recommendation, DOD, USDA, and the Department of the Interior have established a joint working committee. This committee meets periodically and has five workgroups, including one workgroup responsible for addressing issues such as the contamination and cleanup of public lands. The joint working committee and its workgroups continue to meet and are making good progress at identifying sites, establishing if DOD had activities at the sites and was therefore responsible for cleanup, and adding these sites to DOD's inventory. Because the number of already identified and yet-to-be identified sites is large, the agencies will be continuing with their collaborative efforts for a number of years. DOD is making cleanup progress, although it is somewhat slow because (1) the extensive and time-consuming studies that must be conducted at a site before initiating cleanup, and (2) DOD's very limited cleanup budget compared to the high costs of addressing an individual site. Because of this latter point in particular, DOD is only able to address a relatively small number of new sites each year. Given that the agencies will be involved in their efforts to respond to GAO's recommendation over the long term, but acknowledging that the agencies have the organizational structure in place to respond and are making good progress, GAO is closing this recommendation.

Since GAO made this recommendation, DOD, USDA, and the Department of the Interior have established a joint working committee. This committee meets periodically and has five workgroups, including one workgroup responsible for addressing issues such as the contamination and cleanup of public lands. The joint working committee and its workgroups continue to meet and are making good progress at identifying sites, establishing if DOD had activities at the sites and was therefore responsible for cleanup, and adding these sites to DOD's inventory. Because the number of already identified and yet-to-be identified sites is large, the agencies will be continuing with their collaborative efforts for a number of years. DOD is making cleanup progress, although it is somewhat slow because (1) the extensive and time-consuming studies that must be conducted at a site before initiating cleanup, and (2) DOD's very limited cleanup budget compared to the high costs of addressing an individual site. Because of this latter point in particular, DOD is only able to address a relatively small number of new sites each year. Given that the agencies will be involved in their efforts to respond to GAO's recommendation over the long term, but acknowledging that the agencies have the organizational structure in place to respond and are making good progress, GAO is closing this recommendation.

Since GAO made this recommendation, Interior's Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC) has taken over from the Bureau of Land Management responsibility for the Central Hazardous Materials Fund (CHF) program. Interior and OEPC have taken a number of actions to address this recommendation. In 2005, OEPC developed a department-level database of all known hazardous waste sites on Interior-managed lands, including abandoned mines, called the Environmental and Disposal Liability (EDL) database. The Environmental and Disposal Liabilities Identification, Documentation and Reporting Handbook lays out the approach for identifying, estimating, reporting, and updating environmental liabilities. The handbook also describes the process for prioritizing EDL sites for cleanup. In addition, OEPC issued guidance in December 2007 describing how to prioritize environmentally contaminated sites, such as considering human health and environmental risks, and report the prioritization results. The results of this prioritization process are recorded in the EDL database. Regarding a comprehensive cleanup strategy, as part of the process to nominate cleanup projects to receive CHF funds, project nomination packages must include information on estimated costs, as described in a November 2010 OEPC guidance memorandum. The CHF Technical Review Committee evaluates nominations based on risks posed by the site, the technical merit of the proposed response actions(s), consistency with the National Contingency Plan, and availability of CHF funds. The nomination package must also include a summary of the search for potentially responsible parties. EPA officials stated that five attorneys are currently funded by the CHF to assist in the pursuit of potentially responsible parties.

To improve understanding of the purpose and size of the Central Hazardous Materials Funds (CHF), members of Interior's Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance met with the Bureaus in fiscal year 1999 to discuss the CHF, and they have made presentations at several training sessions for Bureau environmental personnel. On November 22, 1999, Interior issued a memorandum to the heads of all Bureaus and Offices explaining the purpose of the fund and the information needed for nominating sites for funding. As a result, funded projects increased from 10 to 17 between fiscal years 1998 and 1999.

EPA adopted a new method to calculate the costs it incurs to operate the Superfund program. By using the new cost rate, EPA should be able to increase recoveries from responsible parties in situations where EPA initially pays for the cleanup. Indirect costs are those prorated across all sites because they are not attributable to a particular site and, in the past, EPA did not include many of them in its indirect cost calculations. EPA estimates the new indirect cost rates will enable it to pursue the recovery of up to $600 million on those cleanups currently awaiting a final settlement and, on average, about $100 million per year on future cleanups.

In response to the Corps' and GAO's recommendations, EPA has worked with the Corps to draft new guidance on cost estimating--including amassing data on actual past costs--that will be available to work assignment managers by the end of 2001. The agency also developed new training on preparing estimates. About 10 percent of the agency's approximately 500 work assignment managers have attended the training to date and they have generally found the course to be useful, according to the course evaluations they prepared. Because EPA has made significant progress in addressing GAO's concerns about its cost estimating, GAO is closing this recommendation.

In March 2001, GAO reported that Superfund managers, with officials from the Office of Acquisition Management, review all Superfund contracting activities in the regions by visiting each of the 10 regions approximately once every 3 years to conduct reviews. Superfund managers assured GAO that, in response to the concerns GAO raised in 1999 regarding estimate quality, the reviews conducted in the past 2 years have included an examination of the quality of a region's estimates. At the time of the report's issuance, the three most recent reviews, beginning with the review of the Seattle region in June 1999, contained assessments of estimates and recommendations for improvement. In addition, Superfund managers told GAO that they use the periodic meetings and monthly teleconferences of the Senior Regional Management Acquisition Council as a forum to exchange information on issues or problems affecting estimates and that the discussion of estimates is a regular topic on the agenda for the Council's semiannual conferences. Superfund mangers plan to continue to rely on the regional reviews, supplemented by the Council's and other discussions, to determine whether the quality and usefulness of contract estimates have improved in the regions as a result of the new guidance and training. They pointed out that recent regional reviews have found that estimate quality has generally improved in the regions. Although the director of the division in the Office of Acquisition Management that oversees Superfund contracting activities believes that more frequent monitoring would probably be beneficial, he and the Superfund managers cite limited resources, which preclude more frequent regional reviews. Because of the progress EPA has made in this area, GAO is closing this recommendation.

In March 2001, GAO reported that, in response to the Corps' and GAO's recommendations, EPA has worked with the Corps to draft new guidance on cost estimating--including amassing data on actual past costs--that will be available to work assignment managers by the end of 2001. The agency also developed new training on preparing estimates. About 10 percent of the agency's approximately 500 work assignment managers have attended the training and they have generally found the course to be useful, according to the course evaluations they prepared. Because of EPA's progress in this area, GAO is closing this recommendation.

In January 2001, in GAO's Performance and Accountability update on this issue, GAO reported that EPA has significantly reduced its program support cost rates. The agency did this in part by reducing the number of cleanup contracts it maintains, from 45 in 1995 to 18 as of June 2000, when GAO had last reviewed and reported on this issue. In January 2001, GAO found that only five of the 18 existing contracts had program support cost rates that exceeded EPA's goal of 11 percent of total costs, ranging from 12 to 18 percent. The rates for the remaining contracts were well within EPA's goal, ranging from one to 11 percent. Consequently, GAO is closing this recommendation.

In September 1999, EPA issued a Contracts 2000 strategy, with milestones and performance measures, for analyzing the contracting types that the regions currently use for Superfund cleanups and those that will be needed in the future. According to EPA officials, in September 2000, EPA had completed most of its analysis and made decisions about which contracting vehicles it should keep available for the Superfund program. GAO believes that EPA has made sufficient progress in this area.