Superfund
Greater EPA Enforcement and Reporting Are Needed to Enhance Cleanup at DOD Sites Gao ID: GAO-09-278 March 13, 2009Prior to the 1980s and the passage of environmental legislation--particularly the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) governing environmental cleanup--Department of Defense (DOD) activities contaminated millions of acres of soil and water on and near DOD sites. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which enforces CERCLA, places the most contaminated sites on its National Priorities List (NPL) and requires that they be cleaned up in accordance with CERCLA. EPA has placed 140 DOD sites on the NPL. Disputes have recently arisen between EPA and DOD on agreements to clean up some of these sites. In addition, most sites were placed on the NPL before 1991; since fiscal year 2000, EPA has added five DOD sites. In this context, we agreed to determine (1) the extent of EPA's oversight during assessment and cleanup at DOD sites and (2) why EPA has proposed fewer DOD sites for the NPL since the early 1990s. GAO interviewed officials at EPA and DOD and reviewed site file documentation at four EPA regions.
EPA evaluates DOD's preliminary assessments of contaminated DOD sites but has little to no oversight of the cleanup of the majority of these sites because most are not on the NPL. Of the 985 DOD sites requiring cleanup of hazardous substances, EPA has oversight authority of the 140 on the NPL; the remaining 845 non-NPL sites are overseen by other cleanup authorities--usually the states. Our review of 389 non-NPL DOD sites showed that EPA decided not to list 56 percent because it determined the condition of the sites did not satisfy the criteria for listing or because it deferred the sites to other programs, most often the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act--another federal statute that governs activities involving hazardous waste. However, EPA regional officials were unable to provide a rationale for not listing the remaining 44 percent because site files documenting EPA's decisions were missing or inconclusive. In addition, EPA has agreements with DOD for cleaning up 129 of the 140 NPL sites and is generally satisfied with the cleanup of these sites. However, DOD does not have agreements for the remaining 11 sites, even though they are required under CERCLA. It was not until more than 10 years after these sites were placed on the NPL that EPA, in 2007, pursued enforcement action against DOD by issuing administrative orders at 4 of the 11 sites. Since the mid-1990s, EPA has placed fewer DOD sites on the NPL than in previous years for three key reasons. First, EPA does not generally list DOD sites that are being addressed under other federal or state programs to avoid duplication. Second, DOD and EPA officials told us that, because DOD has been identifying and cleaning up hazardous releases for more than two decades, and improved its management of waste generated during its ongoing operations, DOD has discovered fewer hazardous substance releases in recent years, making fewer sites available for listing. Third, in a few instances, state officials or others have objected to EPA's proposal to list contaminated DOD sites, and EPA has usually declined to proceed further. For example, in five instances EPA proposed contaminated DOD sites for the NPL that were not ultimately placed on the list. At four of these sites, the states' governors did not support listing, citing the perceived stigma of inclusion on the NPL and potential adverse economic effect. EPA did not list the fifth site because, according to EPA regional officials, DOD objected and appealed to the Office of Management and Budget, which recommended deferring this listing for 6 months to give DOD time to address personnel and contractor changes and demonstrate remediation progress. EPA officials recently told us that cleanup has taken place at these sites and that it was unlikely or unclear whether they would qualify for placement on the NPL based on their current condition.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-09-278, Superfund: Greater EPA Enforcement and Reporting Are Needed to Enhance Cleanup at DOD Sites
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-278
entitled 'Superfund: Greater EPA Enforcement and Reporting Are Needed
to Enhance Cleanup at DOD Sites' which was released on April 16, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
March 2009:
Superfund:
Greater EPA Enforcement and Reporting Are Needed to Enhance Cleanup at
DOD Sites:
GAO-09-278:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-278, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Prior to the 1980s and the passage of environmental legislation”
particularly the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) governing environmental cleanup––Department
of Defense (DOD) activities contaminated millions of acres of soil and
water on and near DOD sites. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
which enforces CERCLA, places the most contaminated sites on its
National Priorities List (NPL) and requires that they be cleaned up in
accordance with CERCLA. EPA has placed 140 DOD sites on the NPL.
Disputes have recently arisen between EPA and DOD on agreements to
clean up some of these sites. In addition, most sites were placed on
the NPL before 1991; since fiscal year 2000, EPA has added five DOD
sites. In this context, we agreed to determine (1) the extent of EPA‘s
oversight during assessment and cleanup at DOD sites and (2) why EPA
has proposed fewer DOD sites for the NPL since the early 1990s. GAO
interviewed officials at EPA and DOD and reviewed site file
documentation at four EPA regions.
What GAO Found:
EPA evaluates DOD‘s preliminary assessments of contaminated DOD sites
but has little to no oversight of the cleanup of the majority of these
sites because most are not on the NPL. Of the 985 DOD sites requiring
cleanup of hazardous substances, EPA has oversight authority of the 140
on the NPL; the remaining 845 non-NPL sites are overseen by other
cleanup authorities”usually the states. Our review of 389 non-NPL DOD
sites showed that EPA decided not to list 56 percent because it
determined the condition of the sites did not satisfy the criteria for
listing or because it deferred the sites to other programs, most often
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act––another federal statute
that governs activities involving hazardous waste. However, EPA
regional officials were unable to provide a rationale for not listing
the remaining 44 percent because site files documenting EPA‘s decisions
were missing or inconclusive. In addition, EPA has agreements with DOD
for cleaning up 129 of the 140 NPL sites and is generally satisfied
with the cleanup of these sites. However, DOD does not have agreements
for the remaining 11 sites, even though they are required under CERCLA.
It was not until more than 10 years after these sites were placed on
the NPL that EPA, in 2007, pursued enforcement action against DOD by
issuing administrative orders at 4 of the 11 sites.
Since the mid-1990s, EPA has placed fewer DOD sites on the NPL than in
previous years for three key reasons. First, EPA does not generally
list DOD sites that are being addressed under other federal or state
programs to avoid duplication. Second, DOD and EPA officials told us
that, because DOD has been identifying and cleaning up hazardous
releases for more than two decades, and improved its management of
waste generated during its ongoing operations, DOD has discovered fewer
hazardous substance releases in recent years, making fewer sites
available for listing. Third, in a few instances, state officials or
others have objected to EPA‘s proposal to list contaminated DOD sites,
and EPA has usually declined to proceed further. For example, in five
instances EPA proposed contaminated DOD sites for the NPL that were not
ultimately placed on the list. At four of these sites, the states‘
governors did not support listing, citing the perceived stigma of
inclusion on the NPL and potential adverse economic effect. EPA did not
list the fifth site because, according to EPA regional officials, DOD
objected and appealed to the Office of Management and Budget, which
recommended deferring this listing for 6 months to give DOD time to
address personnel and contractor changes and demonstrate remediation
progress. EPA officials recently told us that cleanup has taken place
at these sites and that it was unlikely or unclear whether they would
qualify for placement on the NPL based on their current condition.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO suggests that Congress consider amending CERCLA to expand EPA‘s
enforcement authority. EPA agreed that such authority would help assure
timely and protective cleanup. DOD disagreed, stating that EPA has
sufficient involvement. We continue to assert that EPA needs additional
authority to ensure that cleanups are being done properly.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-278]. For more
information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or
stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
EPA Evaluates All Potentially Contaminated DOD Sites for Listing, but
Does Not Oversee Cleanup at Most Hazardous Waste DOD Sites:
EPA Proposes Few Contaminated DOD Sites Based on EPA Policy and DOD's
Maturing Inventory of Hazardous Waste Sites:
Conclusions:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Other Cleanup Programs:
Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Chronology of Events to Negotiate IAGs for DOD NPL Sites:
Figures:
Figure 1: Annual Number of DOD Sites Placed on the NPL Has Declined
Since the 1990s, Fiscal Years 1980-2008:
Figure 2: Private, Federal, and DOD Sites on the NPL:
Figure 3: Key Stages of the CERCLA Process to Address and Clean Up
Hazardous Waste at Federal Facilities:
Figure 4: Findings from GAO's Review of 389 DOD Sites:
Abbreviations:
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
HRS: Hazard Ranking System:
IAG: interagency agreement:
NCP: National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan
(National Contingency Plan):
NPL: National Priorities List:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl:
RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act:
SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act:
TCE: trichloroethylene:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
March 13, 2009:
The Honorable Edward J. Markey:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment:
Committee on Energy and Commerce:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable John D. Dingell:
The Honorable Gene Green:
House of Representatives:
Prior to the 1980s and the passage of environmental legislation
regulating the generation, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste,
Department of Defense (DOD) activities and industrial facilities
contaminated millions of acres of soil and water on and near DOD sites
in the United States and its territories. DOD installations generate
hazardous wastes primarily through industrial operations to repair and
maintain military equipment. Manufacturing and testing weapons at Army
ammunition plants and proving grounds have caused some serious
contamination problems as well. To address the cleanup of hazardous
substance releases nationwide, in 1980, Congress passed the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA), better known as "Superfund."
In 1986, CERCLA was amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA). SARA reflected concern with the adequacy
and timeliness of DOD and other federal agency cleanups, which was
compounded by the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) unwillingness
or inability to carry out enforcement actions against other federal
agencies. SARA addresses this problem by (1) requiring DOD and other
federal agencies to comply with CERCLA; (2) providing EPA with the
authority to select remedies at federal facility National Priorities
List (NPL) sites if agreement cannot be reached on the remedy to be
selected; and (3) requiring federal agencies to enter into interagency
agreements (IAG) with EPA at NPL sites. SARA also added a citizen suit
provision to CERCLA specifically authorizing nonfederal parties such as
states and citizens' groups to sue DOD and other federal agencies to
enforce the terms of IAGs, among other things; and established a
Defense Environmental Restoration Program along with separate
Department of the Treasury accounts specifically for DOD environmental
cleanup activities--to better ensure cleanup funding availability--and
requiring DOD to carry out those activities in accordance with CERCLA.
Section 120 of CERCLA, as amended, requires federal agencies to comply
with CERCLA and submit information to EPA on certain potentially
hazardous releases. EPA maintains this information in a Federal Agency
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket which includes a history of federal
facilities that generate, transport, store, or dispose of hazardous
waste or that have had some type of hazardous substance release or
spill.
For each site on the docket, CERCLA Section 120 requires EPA to take
steps to ensure that a preliminary site assessment is conducted by the
responsible federal agency.[Footnote 1] The preliminary assessment,
which is generally based on site records and other information
regarding hazardous substances stored or disposed of at the facility,
forms the basis for EPA to evaluate the site for listing on the NPL.
EPA reviews preliminary site assessments to determine whether a site
poses little or no threat to human health and the environment or
requires further investigation or assessment for possible cleanup.
Based on this assessment, EPA may then score and rank the site based on
whether the contamination presents a potential threat to human health
and the environment.[Footnote 2] If a site scores at or above a minimum
threshold for cleanup under CERCLA, EPA may place the site on the NPL
or defer it to another regulatory authority, such as a state agency,
for cleanup under other statutory authorities or programs, such as the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). As of November 2008, the
NPL included 1,587 sites.[Footnote 3] Of these, according to EPA
officials, 140 were federal DOD sites, representing almost 9 percent of
the NPL.[Footnote 4]
Section 120 of CERCLA also establishes specific procedures for cleaning
up federal facilities on the NPL. As part of its oversight
responsibility, EPA works with DOD to evaluate the nature and extent of
contamination at a site, select a remedy, track cleanup and monitor the
remedy's effectiveness in protecting human health and the environment.
Under Section 120 of CERCLA, DOD and EPA are required to enter into an
IAG within 180 days of the completion of EPA's review of the remedial
investigation and feasibility study at a site. According to EPA
officials, shortly after Section 120 was enacted, EPA and DOD
acknowledged that regulatory oversight during the investigation phase
was required if EPA was to meet its statutory obligation regarding
remedy selection at NPL sites. Beginning in 1988, EPA and DOD agreed to
model language for IAGs which included a provision to enter into IAGs
earlier than mandated by statute--prior to the remedial investigation
stage--to establish the roles and responsibilities of EPA and DOD to
investigate and clean up sites. IAGs are required to include, at a
minimum, a review of the alternative remedies considered and the
selected remedy, a schedule for cleanup, and plans for long-term
operations and maintenance. The Federal Facility Compliance Act, among
other things, authorized EPA to order the cleanup of contaminated sites
by initiating administrative enforcement actions against a federal
agency under RCRA, on the same basis as they would be applied to
private parties.
Disputes have recently arisen between EPA and DOD regarding the terms
of IAGs governing cleanup and whether EPA had a sufficient basis for
administrative enforcement actions at several DOD sites. In addition,
in recent years, EPA has added fewer sites to the NPL. According to
EPA's 2007 annual report on Superfund, more than 75 percent of all
sites listed on the NPL--both federal and nonfederal--were listed
before 1991. Since fiscal year 2000, EPA added five DOD sites to the
NPL (see figure 1).
Figure 1: Annual Number of DOD Sites Placed on the NPL Has Declined
Since the 1990s, Fiscal Years 1980-2008:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Fiscal year: 1979;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 1980;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 1981l
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 1982;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 1983;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 2.
Fiscal year: 1984;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 1.
Fiscal year: 1985;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 1986;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 1987;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 29.
Fiscal year: 1988;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 1989;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 7.
Fiscal year: 1990l
Sites Placed on the NPL: 57.
Fiscal year: 1991;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 1992;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 1993;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 6.
Fiscal year: 1994;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 18.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 6.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 2.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 2.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 5.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 2.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 1.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 1.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 1.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Sites Placed on the NPL: 0.
Source: EPA data.
[End of figure]
In this context, we agreed to determine (1) the extent of EPA's
oversight during assessment and cleanup at DOD NPL and non-NPL sites
and (2) why EPA has proposed fewer DOD sites for the NPL since the
early 1990s.
To determine the extent of EPA's oversight during assessment and
cleanup at NPL and non-NPL DOD sites, we reviewed EPA policies and
documentation on oversight processes, and interviewed officials at EPA
headquarters and four regional offices to determine the extent to which
the agency helps to ensure that the most contaminated DOD sites are
expeditiously assessed and cleaned up. We also reviewed documentation
and interviewed DOD officials on the agency's environmental restoration
program and efforts to clean up contaminated DOD sites. To determine
why EPA has proposed fewer DOD sites for the NPL since the early 1990s,
we reviewed EPA's file documentation on contaminated DOD sites and
interviewed officials at EPA headquarters and selected EPA regions. We
excluded from our review sites under DOD's military munitions response
program due to the ongoing uncertainty associated with defining
unexploded ordnance as hazardous substances and the fact that GAO has
ongoing work in this area.
We conducted work at four EPA regions--Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and
San Francisco--which, taken together, are responsible for about half of
all DOD sites in EPA's database of contaminated federal facilities. We
selected the Atlanta and Chicago regions because they are responsible
for five DOD sites that EPA proposed for the NPL but which were not
listed. We selected the San Francisco region because it has the largest
number of contaminated DOD sites. We selected the Dallas region to
pretest our review methodology because it was geographically
convenient. We conducted this performance audit in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards between January 2008
and March 2009. 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.
More detail on the scope and methodology of our review is presented in
appendix I.
Results in Brief:
While EPA evaluates DOD's preliminary assessments of all DOD sites on
the Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket, according to EPA officials, the
agency has little to no enforceable oversight authority under Section
120 of the cleanup of the majority of these sites because most are not
on the NPL. Of the 985 current hazardous release DOD sites, EPA has
oversight authority of the 140 DOD sites on the NPL; 11 of these NPL
sites do not have IAGs in place that CERCLA Section 120 requires to
guide cleanup activity, DOD choosing instead to conduct cleanup with
minimal, if any, EPA oversight. The remaining 845 DOD sites are
overseen by other cleanup authorities--primarily the states--or
required no further action under CERCLA following assessment.
Therefore, state agencies or another regulatory authority, rather than
EPA, oversee the cleanup of hazardous substance releases at most
contaminated DOD sites. Most states have their own cleanup programs to
address hazardous waste sites and RCRA corrective action authority to
clean up RCRA sites. While EPA regions have some oversight of states'
RCRA programs by reviewing site files and providing technical advice to
states, EPA defers oversight authority to states for the cleanup of
individual RCRA sites. Our review of 389 non-NPL DOD sites at four EPA
regions showed that for more than one-half of these sites, EPA
generally did not propose to list these sites because it determined
that the condition of the sites did not satisfy the criteria to score a
high Hazard Ranking System (HRS) score--that is, little to no hazardous
release or the potential for a hazardous release was found--or because
it deferred the sites to another cleanup program, most often RCRA. EPA
regional officials were unable to provide documentation for the
agency's decision not to list the remaining sites we reviewed, however,
because original site file records were missing or inconclusive. EPA
has IAGs with DOD in place for most of its NPL sites--129 of the 140
DOD sites on the NPL. According to an EPA headquarters official, EPA is
generally satisfied with the cleanup of DOD NPL sites where there is an
IAG. However, the remaining 11 sites do not have IAGs because DOD has
disagreed with the terms of the provisions contained in the agreements,
stating the terms conflict with or go beyond CERCLA or its regulatory
requirements. Despite the CERCLA requirement for IAGs at all NPL
federal facility sites, CERCLA Section 120 imposes no specific
sanctions if a federal agency refuses to enter into an IAG. Although
EPA may initiate administrative enforcement actions, in appropriate
circumstances, under other laws, such as RCRA and the Safe Drinking
Water Act, to compel DOD to clean up contaminated sites, EPA chose not
to pursue enforcement actions until 2007, more than 10 years after
these sites were listed on the NPL. In its most recent report to
Congress in 2007, EPA noted the number of NPL sites with IAGs but did
not explain the basis for the 11 DOD sites without IAGs. Later that
year, the agency issued administrative enforcement orders under RCRA
and the Safe Drinking Water Act against four of these sites. Each order
stated that contamination at the respective sites may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment and
directed DOD to carry out certain cleanup and related actions. In May
2008, DOD sent a memorandum to the Department of Justice (DOJ) asking
DOJ to resolve a dispute over EPA's authority to issue the orders. In
December 2008, DOJ issued a letter upholding EPA's authority to issue
administrative cleanup orders at DOD NPL sites in appropriate
circumstances, and to include in IAGs certain provisions other than
those specifically enumerated in CERCLA[Footnote 5].:
Since the mid-1990s, EPA has listed fewer DOD sites on the NPL than in
previous years for three key reasons. First, EPA does not generally
list DOD sites that are being addressed under other federal or state
programs to avoid duplication of remedial actions. Second, DOD and EPA
officials told us that over the years, DOD has discovered fewer
hazardous substance releases, making fewer sites available for listing.
Fewer sites have been discovered, in part because DOD has been
identifying and cleaning up hazardous releases for more than two
decades, and because DOD has improved its management of waste generated
during its ongoing operations. Finally, in rare instances, EPA did not
list some contaminated defense sites due to the objections of other
interested parties. For example, although EPA proposed listing five DOD
sites between 1994 and 2000, the agency ultimately chose not to
complete the listing process for them. At four sites, the states'
governors did not support placement of these sites on the NPL. The
governors for three of these sites cited the perceived stigma of NPL
listing and potential adverse economic effect as the reasons why the
state did not support listing. The governor did not support listing the
fourth site after it was closed under the Base Realignment and Closure
program and DOD began to clean up the site. Although EPA may list sites
over the objections of a governor, EPA officials told us they generally
do not list federal sites without a governor's concurrence. According
to EPA regional officials, EPA did not list the fifth DOD site because
DOD objected, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recommended
against listing. OMB officials encouraged EPA to defer listing for 6
months to provide DOD with more time to address personnel and
contractor changes and demonstrate remediation progress. If after that
time, progress was not forthcoming, then listing was to be pursued, but
in fact, never was. EPA officials said that cleanup has taken place at
all five sites and that it was either unlikely or unclear that the
sites would qualify for listing on the NPL based on the current
conditions at the sites.
We provided a draft of this report to EPA and DOD for review and
comment. In general, EPA agreed with the findings and conclusions of
our report and supported our suggestion that Congress consider amending
CERCLA to expand the agency's enforcement authority. While EPA stated
that such authority would help assure timely and protective cleanup,
DOD disagreed stating that EPA has sufficient involvement at NPL sites
regardless of whether IAGs are in place and should strive to more
effectively implement its authority under existing law. Despite DOD's
position that EPA is sufficiently involved at DOD NPL sites without
IAGs, EPA disagrees. Statutory requirements provide for independent EPA
oversight, not a mere opportunity for EPA review and comment.
Therefore, we assert that expanding EPA's enforcement authority is
appropriate to ensure that cleanups are being done properly at federal
facility NPL sites.
Background:
Various environmental statutes, including CERCLA and RCRA, govern the
reporting and cleanup of hazardous substances and hazardous waste at
DOD sites. Specific provisions in these laws establish requirements for
addressing hazardous waste cleanup or management. Key aspects of these
requirements for federal facilities are described below:
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980 was passed to give the federal government the
authority to respond to actual and threatened releases of hazardous
substances, pollutants, and contaminants that may endanger public
health and the environment. The EPA program under CERCLA is better
known as "Superfund" because Congress established a large trust fund
that is used to pay for, among other things, remedial actions at
nonfederal sites on the NPL.[Footnote 6] Federal agencies are
prohibited from using the Superfund trust fund to finance their
cleanups and must, instead, use their own or other appropriations.
[Footnote 7]
Figure 2 depicts the number of NPL sites listed by EPA as of November
2008, which totals 1,587 sites. Of these, 140 were DOD NPL sites,
representing the majority of federal facility sites on the NPL.
According to EPA's 2007 annual report on Superfund, more than 75
percent of all sites on the NPL--both federal and private--were listed
before 1991. Since fiscal year 2000, EPA has added five DOD sites to
the NPL.
Figure 2: Private, Federal, and DOD Sites on the NPL:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Private sites: 1,415 (89%);
Defense sites: 140 (9%);
Other federal sites: 32 (2%).
Source: EPA‘s CERCLA database.
Note: As of November 2008, the total number of federal facilities and
private sites on the NPL was 1,587. The 32 other federal NPL sites
included 21 Department of Energy sites, 2 Department of Agriculture
sites, 1 Federal Aviation Administration site, 1 Coast Guard site, 2
National Aeronautics and Space Administration sites, 1 Small Business
Administration site, 2 Department of the Interior sites, 1 Department
of Transportation site, and 1 EPA site.
[End of figure]
CERCLA does not establish regulatory standards for the cleanup of
specific substances, but requires that long-term cleanups comply with
applicable or relevant, and appropriate requirements. These may include
a host of federal and state standards that generally regulate exposure
to contaminants. The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP) outlines procedures and standards for
implementing the Superfund program. The NCP designates DOD as the lead
agency at defense sites, though as described below, it must carry out
its responsibilities consistent with EPA's oversight role under Section
120 of CERCLA, including EPA's final authority to select a remedial
action if it disagrees with DOD regarding the remedy to be selected.
[Footnote 8]
In 1986, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) added
provisions to CERCLA specifically governing the cleanup of federal
facilities. Under Section 120 of CERCLA, as amended, EPA must take
steps that assure completion of a preliminary site assessment by the
responsible agency for each site in the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste
Compliance Docket.[Footnote 9] This preliminary assessment is reviewed
by EPA, together with additional information, to determine whether the
site poses little or no threat to human health and the environment or
requires further investigation or assessment for potential proposal to
the NPL. SARA also added Section 211 of CERCLA, which established DOD's
Defense Environmental Restoration Program providing legal authority
governing cleanup activities at DOD installations and properties.
CERCLA Section 120 also establishes specific requirements governing
IAGs between EPA and federal agencies. The contents of the IAGs must
include at least the following three items: (1) a review of the
alternative remedies considered and the selection of the remedy, known
as a remedial action; (2) the schedule for completing the remedial
action; and (3) arrangements for long-term operations and maintenance
at the site. DOD and EPA are required to enter into an IAG within 180
days of the completion of EPA's review of the remedial investigation
and feasibility study at a site.
SARA's legislative history explains that, while the law already
established that federal agencies are subject to and must comply with
CERCLA, the addition of Section 120 provides the public, states, and
EPA increased authority and a greater role in assuring the problems of
hazardous substance releases at federal facilities are dealt with by
expeditious and appropriate response actions.[Footnote 10] The relevant
congressional conference committee report establishes that IAGs provide
a mechanism for (1) EPA to independently evaluate the other federal
agency's selected cleanup remedy, and (2) states and citizens to
enforce federal agency cleanup obligations, memorialized in IAGs, in
court.[Footnote 11] Specifically, the report states that while EPA and
the other federal agency share remedy selection responsibilities, EPA
has the additional responsibility to make an independent determination
that the selected remedial action is consistent with the NCP and is the
most appropriate remedial action for the affected facility. The report
also observes that IAGs are enforceable documents just as
administrative orders under RCRA and, as such, are subject to SARA's
citizen suit and penalties provisions. Thus, penalties can be assessed
against federal agencies for violating terms of agreements with
EPA.[Footnote 12] However, at sites without IAGs, EPA has only a
limited number of enforcement tools to use in compelling compliance by
a recalcitrant agency; similarly, states and citizens also lack a
mechanism to enforce CERCLA.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In 1976, Congress passed the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) giving EPA the authority
to regulate the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal of hazardous waste. Under RCRA, EPA may authorize states to
carry out many of the functions of the statute in lieu of EPA under a
state's hazardous waste programs and laws. Almost all states are
authorized to implement some portion of the RCRA program. Forty-eight
states are currently authorized to implement the RCRA base program to
manage hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal. (Only Alaska
and Iowa are not authorized to implement the RCRA base program.) Forty-
three states are authorized to implement the RCRA corrective action
program which expands a state's RCRA authority to include managing the
cleanup of releases of hazardous waste and hazardous constituents.
EPA has a policy to defer sites, which are being managed under RCRA,
from placement on the NPL, known as the RCRA deferral policy. Where
this policy is applied, cleanup proceeds under RCRA, generally through
an authorized state corrective action program, rather than CERCLA. EPA
regions may defer a federal facility site to RCRA even if the site is
eligible for the NPL. In 1996, Congress amended CERCLA to authorize EPA
to consider non-CERCLA cleanup authorities when making a listing
determination for federal facility sites if the site is already subject
to an approved federal or state cleanup plan. According to EPA policy,
the criteria to defer a federal facility site from the NPL to RCRA are:
(1) the CERCLA site is currently being addressed by RCRA Subtitle C
corrective action authorities under an existing enforceable order or
permit containing corrective action provisions; (2) the response under
RCRA is progressing adequately; and (3) the state and community support
deferral of NPL listing. According to EPA, deferral from one program to
another is often the most efficient and desirable way to address
overlapping requirements, and deferrals to RCRA may free CERCLA
oversight resources for use in situations where another authority is
unavailable. In these instances, state agencies or another regulatory
authority, rather than EPA, oversee the cleanup of hazardous substance
releases.
Other non-CERCLA cleanup authorities EPA considers in deciding whether
to list a site include state cleanup programs (often referred to as
voluntary cleanup programs) and DOD's environmental response program.
See appendix II for a summary of these cleanup programs.
The NCP provides the methods and criteria for carrying out site
discovery, assessment, and cleanup activities under CERCLA. Figure 3
depicts the process by which EPA and federal agencies assess a site for
inclusion on the NPL and address contamination at federal NPL sites.
The CERCLA cleanup process is made up of a series of steps, during
which specific activities take place or decisions are made. The key
steps in this process are included in figure 3.
Figure 3: Key Stages of the CERCLA Process to Address and Clean Up
Hazardous Waste at Federal Facilities:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Site Assessment:
1) Federal agency discovers hazardous release site;
2) EPA places site in federal docket;
3) Preliminary Assessment (performed for every site in docket):
Is the preliminary HRS score greater than 28.5?
No: No further remedial action planned (defer site).
Yes: Proceed.
4) Site Inspection:
Is the preliminary HRS score greater than 28.5?
No: No further remedial action planned (defer site).
Yes: Proceed.
5) Are there other cleanup alternatives?
Yes:
* Pursue non-NPL cleanup alternatives;
* Provide information to states and other regulatory programs;
No: Proceed.
6) Seek governor concurrence; Complete HRS package; Propose site for
listing.
7) National Priorities List (NPL).
Remediation:
8) Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (conducted within 6 months
of listing on NPL);
9) Interagency Agreement (signed within6 months of RI/FS);
10) Record of Decision;
11) Remedial Design/Remedial Action.
Monitoring:
12) Long-term monitoring (if contamination left in place);
13) Are there contaminants left in place?
Yes: 5-year reviews must take place;
No: Long-term monitoring continues.
Source: EPA.
[End of figure]
Site discovery. When a federal agency identifies an actual or suspected
release or threatened release to the environment on a federal site, it
notifies EPA, which then lists the site on its Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket. The docket is a listing of all federal
facilities that have reported hazardous waste activities under three
provisions of RCRA or one provision of CERCLA. RCRA and CERCLA require
federal agencies to submit to EPA information on their facilities that
generate, transport, store, or dispose of hazardous waste or that have
had some type of hazardous substance release or spill. EPA updates the
docket periodically.
[Text box: Docket Reporting Categories:
The categories for listing a facility on the docket provide an initial
basis for assessing hazardous waste contamination. The four reporting
categories are:
* RCRA Section 3005: facilities for which agencies have applied for an
EPA permit for hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal.
* RCRA Section 3010: facilities where hazardous materials are
generated, transported, treated, stored, or disposed.
* RCRA Section 3016: facilities with hazardous waste activities that
federal agencies have reported in their inventories.
* CERCLA Section 103: facilities for which agencies have reported any
releases or spills of a hazardous substance.
Every 6 months, EPA is also required to publish in the Federal Register
a list of the federal facilities that were added to the docket during
the preceding 6-month period and notify regions of any actual or
threatened hazardous substance release. At about the same time, EPA
also lists these sites in its computerized CERCLA information database,
an inventory of actual and potential hazardous releases at federal and
private sites. As of October 2008, EPA‘s CERCLA information database
listed 12,621 federal and private sites. End of text box]
Preliminary assessment. The lead agency (DOD, in this case) conducts a
preliminary assessment of the site by reviewing existing information,
such as facility records, to determine whether hazardous substance
contamination is present and poses a potential threat to public health
or the environment. EPA regions review preliminary assessments to
determine whether the information is sufficient to assess the
likelihood of a hazardous substance release, a contamination pathway,
and potential receptors. EPA regions are encouraged to complete their
review of preliminary assessments of federal facility sites listed in
EPA's CERCLA database within 18 months of the date the site was listed
on the federal docket. EPA may determine the site does not pose a
significant threat to human health or the environment and no further
action is required. If the preliminary assessment indicates that a long-
term response may be needed, EPA may request that DOD perform a site
inspection to gather more detailed information.
Site inspection. The lead agency (DOD, in this case) samples soil,
groundwater, surface water, and sediment, as appropriate, and analyzes
the results to prepare a report that describes the contaminants at the
site, past waste handling practices, migration pathways for
contaminants, and receptors at or near the site. EPA reviews the site
inspection report and, if it determines the release poses no
significant threat, EPA may eliminate it from further consideration. If
EPA determines that hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
have been released at the site, EPA will use the information collected
during the preliminary assessment and site inspection to calculate a
preliminary HRS score.
HRS scoring. If EPA determines that a significant hazardous substance
release has occurred, the EPA region prepares an HRS scoring package.
EPA's HRS assesses the potential of a release to threaten human health
or the environment by assigning a value to factors related to the
release such as (1) the likelihood that a hazardous release has
occurred; (2) the characteristics of the waste, such as toxicity and
the amount; and (3) people or sensitive environments affected by the
release.
National Priorities List. If the release scores an HRS score of 28.50
or higher, EPA determines whether to propose the site for placement on
the NPL. CERCLA requires EPA to update the NPL at least once a year.
Governor's concurrence. Before placing a site on the NPL, the EPA
Regional Administrator sends a written inquiry to the governor seeking
a written response from the state addressing whether it will support a
listing decision. According to EPA regional officials, EPA usually
contacts the governor before calculating the HRS score due to the high
cost and length of time required to prepare a scoring package. If EPA
calculates an HRS score of 28.50 or higher and the governor agrees with
EPA to list the site, the site is eligible for inclusion on the NPL.
However, where the governor does not support listing, but the EPA
region firmly believes listing is necessary, a process, involving OMB
for federal facilities, is followed before a listing decision is made.
Following the decision to place a site on the NPL, several steps lead
to the selection of a cleanup remedy and its long-term operation and
maintenance. These steps are described below:
Remedial investigation and feasibility study. Within 6 months after EPA
places a site on the NPL, the lead agency (DOD, in this case) is
required to begin a remedial investigation and feasibility study to
assess the nature and extent of the contamination. The remedial
investigation and feasibility study process includes the collection of
data on site conditions, waste characteristics, and risks to human
health and the environment; the development of remedial alternatives;
and testing and analysis of alternative cleanup methods to evaluate
their potential effectiveness and relative cost. EPA, and frequently
the state, provide oversight during the remedial investigation and
feasibility study and the development of a proposed plan, which
outlines a preferred cleanup alternative. After a public comment period
on the proposed plan, EPA and the federal facility sign a record of
decision that documents the selected remedial action cleanup
objectives, the technologies to be used during cleanup, and the
analysis supporting the remedy selection.
Interagency agreement. Within 6 months of EPA's review of DOD's
remedial investigation and feasibility study, CERCLA, as amended,
requires that DOD enter into an IAG with EPA for the expeditious
completion of all remedial action at the facility. (EPA's policy
however, is for federal facilities to enter into an IAG after EPA
places the site on the NPL.) The IAG is an enforceable document that
must contain, at a minimum, three provisions: (1) a review of remedial
alternatives and the selection of the remedy by DOD and EPA, or remedy
selection by EPA if agreement is not reached; (2) schedules for
completion of each remedy; and (3) arrangements for the long-term
operation and maintenance of the facility.
Remedial design and remedial action. During the remedial design and
remedial action process, the lead agency (DOD, in this case) develops
and implements a permanent remedy on the site as outlined in the record
of decision and IAG.
Monitoring. Long-term monitoring occurs at every site following
construction of the remedial action. This includes the collection and
analysis of data related to chemical, physical, and biological
characteristics at the site to determine whether the selected remedy
meets CERCLA objectives to protect human health and the environment.
For NPL or non-NPL sites where hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants were left in place above levels that do not allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, every 5 years following the
initiation of the remedy, the lead agency (DOD, in this case) must
review its sites. The purpose of a 5-year review, similar to long-term
monitoring, is to assure that the remedy continues to meet the
requirements contained in the record of decision and is protective of
human health and the environment.
Federal Facility Compliance Act. The Federal Facility Compliance Act of
1992, which amended RCRA, authorizes EPA to order the cleanup of
contaminated sites by initiating administrative enforcement actions
against a federal agency under RCRA, including the imposition of fines
and penalties. The act authorizes EPA to initiate administrative
enforcement actions against federal agencies in the same manner and
under the same circumstances as actions would be initiated against a
person.
Enforcement. Several factors hinder the enforcement of cleanup
requirements at federal facilities. DOJ has taken the position that EPA
may not sue another federal agency to enforce cleanup requirements. EPA
may not issue cleanup orders under CERCLA to other federal agencies
without DOJ's concurrence. EPA may issue cleanup orders to other
federal agencies under RCRA and the Safe Drinking Water Act, but not
all RCRA orders can provide for administrative penalties. IAGs also
generally contain administrative penalty provisions. Third parties,
such as states and citizens groups, may sue to enforce IAGs and
administrative orders under the "citizen suit" and other public
participation provisions of CERCLA, RCRA, and Safe Drinking Water Act,
but such litigation can be time consuming.[Footnote 13]
[Text box: DERP:
Under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, DOD must ensure
that EPA and appropriate state and local officials have notice and an
adequate opportunity to comment on (1) the discovery of releases or
threatened releases of hazardous substances at a facility; (2) the
extent of the threat to public health and the environment which may be
associated with any such release or threatened release; (3) DOD
proposals to carry out response actions with respect to any such
release or threatened release; and (4) the initiation of any response
action with respect to such release or threatened release and the
commencement of each distinct phase of such activities. The Defense
Environmental Restoration Program does not require DOD to respond to
the comments or provide a mechanism for EPA or other officials to
compel a response or other action if they believe DOD's proposed
activities are inadequate. End of text box]
EPA Evaluates All Potentially Contaminated DOD Sites for Listing, but
Does Not Oversee Cleanup at Most Hazardous Waste DOD Sites:
While EPA oversees and evaluates DOD's preliminary assessments of all
DOD sites suspected of having a hazardous release, the agency has
little to no oversight of the cleanup of most of these sites because
most are not on the NPL. EPA reviews DOD sites to determine whether to
propose placement on the NPL. However, only 140 of the 985 current DOD
sites with hazardous waste appear on the NPL. EPA and DOD have not
finalized IAGs for the remaining 11 sites, which impedes EPA's ability
to enforce cleanup, such as approving detailed cleanup schedules and
applying administrative penalties. EPA only recently began using
enforcement action at DOD NPL sites where an IAG is not in place. State
agencies, rather than EPA, oversee the cleanup of hazardous waste at
most DOD sites.
EPA Reviews DOD Sites to Determine whether to Propose NPL Listing:
DOD performs preliminary assessments of all federal DOD sites on the
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket. EPA regions review
the assessments to determine whether releases pose a threat to human
health and the environment and if so, whether hazardous substances are
being released into the environment. DOD's preliminary assessments are
based on readily available and historical data of suspected releases on
DOD sites. DOD reports the results of preliminary assessments to EPA,
which often requests additional information such as data on site
geography, prior activities at the site, and the source and destination
of the hazardous release. According to EPA guidance, EPA regions should
complete their review of preliminary assessments within 18 months of
when the site was listed on the federal docket; however, EPA officials
from two regions told us that DOD may take 2 to 3 years to complete a
preliminary assessment because EPA does not have an independent
authority under CERCLA to enforce a time line for completion of the
preliminary assessment. Based on their review of the preliminary
assessment, EPA regional officials may determine that no further action
is needed at the site or request that DOD perform a more comprehensive
site inspection by sampling groundwater and other media on site.
Following DOD's investigation, EPA regional officials may: determine
that no further action is needed at the site; defer the site to another
regulatory authority, such as a state agency, for cleanup; or begin the
process to propose the site for placement on the NPL.
Few Hazardous Waste DOD Sites Considered for Listing Are Ultimately
Placed on the NPL:
Of the 985 DOD sites contaminated with hazardous substances, EPA placed
140 sites--about 15 percent--on the NPL; the remaining 845 sites are
generally overseen by a cleanup authority other than EPA. Sites on the
NPL are considered among the most dangerous of all hazardous substance
sites, based on the evaluation criteria used by EPA. EPA may propose to
list sites that (1) have an HRS score of 28.50 or higher; (2) a state
designates as its top priority, regardless of the HRS score; or (3) are
subject to a health advisory issued by the Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry and meet certain other criteria.[Footnote 14] In
practice, however, few sites meet these criteria. Further, even if a
site is eligible for placement on the NPL based on the HRS score, EPA
may choose to defer the site to RCRA. As we discuss later in this
report, our review of non-NPL DOD sites in four EPA regions
demonstrated that available data supporting these decisions is limited.
EPA regional officials were unable to provide a rationale for EPA's
decision to not list almost one-half of the 389 sites that we reviewed
because site file documentation was inconclusive or missing. For the
remaining sites, EPA did not propose listing because officials
determined the sites did not satisfy the criteria to score a high HRS
score or deferred them to another regulatory authority.
More than a Decade after Listing, 11 DOD NPL Sites Do Not Have IAGs,
Impeding EPA's Ability to Enforce Cleanup Actions at Those Sites:
Although EPA has IAGs in place with DOD for 129 of the 140 DOD sites on
the NPL, IAGs have not been finalized at the remaining 11 sites
remaining. According to an EPA headquarters official, EPA is generally
satisfied with the cleanup of DOD NPL sites where DOD has signed IAGs.
EPA has encountered few problems at these sites, the EPA official said,
because DOD is held accountable for compliance with the provisions of
the IAGs and if differences arise, the agreements provide EPA with an
enforceable process to address the issue. EPA and DOD have not
finalized IAGs for the remaining 11 DOD NPL sites, however. As a
result, DOD has been cleaning up 11 sites without IAGs, inhibiting
EPA's ability to seek enforcement actions that compel attention to
schedules and milestones. Under CERCLA, as amended, EPA and DOD must
enter into negotiated IAGs for the expeditious completion of all
necessary remedial action at each DOD site on the NPL. IAGs must
include, at a minimum, the alternative remedies and the selected
remedy, a schedule for completing the remedial action, and arrangements
for long-term operation and maintenance of the facility. According to
EPA, the schedule is enforceable and often found in a site management
plan that documents and provides for re-evaluation of schedules and
priorities for cleanup. In addition, EPA officials indicated that IAGs
generally also include consultative provisions that document time
frames for review and comment on documents by each agency as well as
administrative penalties for DOD's failure to comply with the agreed-
upon cleanup tasks and milestones. The IAG therefore documents EPA's
expectations of DOD, and provides for administrative penalties against
the department when it does not comply with the activities agreed to in
the document. Without the IAG, EPA does not have the needed criteria,
or a foundation upon which an enforcement action may be taken, and has
limited ability to sanction DOD without going to court, which DOJ does
not allow it to do. The 11 DOD NPL sites--2 Army, 2 Navy, and 7 Air
Force facilities--were placed on the NPL at least a decade ago, between
1994 and 1999, except for 1 of the Air Force sites, which was listed in
1983.[Footnote 15] As of early March 2009, however, DOD has not
finalized IAGs for any of these sites.[Footnote 16] In its most recent
report to Congress for fiscal year 2007, EPA indicated the number of
NPL sites with IAGs and facilities where EPA had issued enforcement
orders. However, EPA's report did not clearly indicate that there were
11 DOD NPL sites without IAGs and the reasons why.
There is a long history of EPA and DOD efforts to negotiate IAGs,
beginning in 1988. Key actions taken by these agencies are listed in
table 1.
Table 1: Chronology of Events to Negotiate IAGs for DOD NPL Sites:
Date: 1987-1988;
Event: Following the passage of SARA in 1986, DOD finalized IAGs with
EPA at 4 NPL sites.
Date: June 1988;
Event: To facilitate negotiation of additional IAGs, EPA and DOD
approved a model agreement that included:
* Standard language for 11 provisions--such as dispute resolution,
enforcement, and stipulated penalties--to address fines for failure to
submit certain documents or comply with the terms and conditions of the
agreement;
* A list of 27 other provisions--such as remedial action, site access,
and transfer of property--where the specific terms were left to be
negotiated for each site.
Date: 1989-1998;
Event: One hundred-three DOD NPL sites finalized IAGs with EPA.
Date: February 1999;
Event: EPA and DOD agreed to modify the model agreement in light of
changes to DOD's budget and increasing costs of operations to include:
* Modified provisions for deadlines (near-term milestones) and funding;
* New provisions for a site management plan, budget development, and
scheduling.
Date: 1999-2003;
Event: Twelve DOD NPL sites finalized IAGs with EPA.
Date: October 2003;
Event: EPA and DOD agreed to the following:
* Modified the model agreement to add provisions for institutional and
engineering controls to ensure that contaminants do not pose an
unacceptable risk to human health or the environment at sites where
contamination is left in place;
* Established a "dual-track" approach whereby EPA and DOD allow the
military services to negotiate land use control provisions for sites
with EPA following one of two approaches[A].
Date: 2004-2008;
Event: Ten DOD NPL sites finalized IAGs with EPA.
Date: July-November 2007;
Event: EPA issued administrative cleanup orders to four DOD NPL sites
that did not have IAGs.
Date: December 2007;
Event: While the military services were allowed to continue to
negotiate IAGs with EPA, the Office of the Secretary of Defense
directed that they must follow the model agreement, and any additional
provisions added to the IAG must first be approved by OSD and the other
services. Further, any changes to the provisions of the model IAG would
be allowed only through negotiations between OSD and EPA.
Date: May 2008;
Event: DOD asked DOJ and OMB to resolve a dispute between DOD and EPA
over the terms of the IAGs and the circumstances under which EPA may
issue administrative orders.
Date: December 2008;
Event: DOJ issued a letter upholding EPA's authority to issue
administrative cleanup orders at DOD NPL sites in appropriate
circumstances, and to include in IAGs certain provisions other than
those specifically enumerated in CERCLA.
Date: January 2009;
Event: Eleven DOD NPL sites do not have IAGs.
Date: February 2009;
Event: The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense notifies EPA that DOD is
willing to accept the latest IAG for Fort Eustis in Virginia as the new
model for the remaining DOD NPL sites without IAGs and instructs the
military services to begin negotiations with EPA.
Date: March 2009;
Event: On March 4, the Navy signed IAGs for the Naval Air Station
Whiting Field in Florida and the Naval Computer Telecommunication Area
Administrative Master Station in Hawaii. Since EPA also signed these
IAGs, the next steps required before the agreements are effective
include acquiring the states' signatures and completing a public
comment period and EPA review.
Source: DOD and GAO's analysis of relevant documents and interviews
with agency personnel.
[A] The dual-track approach is a set of two principles for negotiating
land use control provisions. Based on Navy and Air Force principles,
the Navy's approach was to negotiate terms beyond the model agreement
while the Air Force's approach was to add language to a record of
decision without changing the language of the provision in the
agreement.
[End of table]
Although CERCLA requires that federal agencies enter into IAGs with EPA
to govern the cleanup of NPL sites within 180 days of EPA's review of
the remedial investigation and feasibility study, DOD officials told us
they have not finalized IAGs for 11 NPL sites because DOD disagreed
with some of the terms of the provisions contained in the agreements.
DOD also indicated they feel that EPA has adequate authority through
its remedy selection process and that the IAG serves primarily as an
administrative roadmap.[Footnote 17] Although the Defense Environmental
Restoration Program statute requires DOD to take actions that provide
EPA with adequate opportunity to review and comment at key phases of
cleanup, there are no formal ramifications when DOD does not comply.
Without an IAG, EPA lacks a documentation roadmap that demonstrates
review and comment on key decisions. An IAG would identify areas of
concern at a site and the process being used to address them. At DOD
NPL sites without IAGs, such as at Langley Air Force Base in Maryland,
DOD did not obtain EPA concurrence before signing a unilateral record
of decision that identifies the remedial action. As a result, according
to EPA, the agency cannot confirm whether all areas of contamination
have been identified or whether they are being addressed properly. In
1988 and supplemented in 1999 and 2003, DOD and EPA developed model
language for specific provisions representing the most contentious
issues encountered in earlier negotiations. Although DOD agreed to the
model language, it has disagreed with some of the specific terms
contained in the provisions of agreements based on these models, such
as those that, in DOD's opinion, conflict with or go beyond CERCLA or
its regulatory requirements. DOD officials also stated that EPA has
been unwilling to negotiate the terms of these provisions with DOD.
Although EPA has some oversight of the cleanup of NPL sites where DOD
has not entered into an IAG, EPA officials told us the agency has only
limited ability to carry out cleanup enforcement actions at federal
facilities. For example, at sites where DOD has entered into an IAG,
EPA has the authority to approve and modify a sites' sampling plan. In
contrast, at NPL sites without an IAG, although DOD may send copies of
draft plans and reports to EPA, it is often without regard to schedule
or a process for vetting issues back and forth as defined in IAG
provisions. Therefore, EPA's role is limited to reviewing many plans
after they are finalized without the opportunity to provide input to
the cleanup process. According to EPA headquarters officials, EPA is
not seeking excessive enforcement authority at DOD NPL sites but
intends to hold DOD to the same enforceable oversight it has at private
sites. In fact, federal agencies are more often subject to much less
stringent enforcement provisions. DOJ has taken the position that EPA
may not sue another federal agency to enforce cleanup requirements,
which effectively restricts EPA's ability to compel compliance through
civil judicial litigation. According to EPA, enforcement provisions
contained in the agreements, such as stipulated penalties, are
generally less onerous for federal facilities than they are for private
parties. The terms of the provisions, regardless of whether they are
based on model language agreed upon between DOD and EPA, are necessary
for EPA to carry out its role to enforce the cleanup process, EPA
officials said. The IAG is not simply an administrative document but an
essential tool, without which EPA and the states cannot assure the
public that DOD is properly identifying and addressing hazardous waste
at contaminated DOD sites.[Footnote 18]
EPA Only Recently Used Enforcement Action at DOD NPL Sites Without
IAGs:
Although EPA may initiate enforcement actions to compel the cleanup of
contaminated sites, EPA only recently began to use this authority at
DOD NPL sites without IAGs. In 2007, EPA issued four administrative
cleanup orders--three under RCRA and one under the Safe Drinking Water
Act[Footnote 19]--to four DOD NPL sites--Tyndall Air Force Base in
Florida, McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey, Air Force Plant 44 in
Arizona, and Fort Meade in Maryland--that do not have IAGs. The orders
stated that an imminent and substantial endangerment from contamination
may be present on the sites and required DOD to notify EPA of its
intent to comply with the orders and clean up. The Air Force did not
agree with EPA's assertion that an imminent and substantial
endangerment existed at Air Force Plant 44, but agreed to perform the
work required by the order. At the remaining two Air Force sites and
one Army site, the services disagreed with EPA's assertion that an
imminent and substantial endangerment existed and indicated that the
failure to enter into an IAG at the site was an inappropriate basis for
issuing an order. The Air Force also argued that compliance with the
orders would not accelerate study and cleanup but, rather, that the
additional paperwork required for compliance would delay implementation
of ongoing investigation and cleanup. The Air Force and Army did not
notify EPA of their intent to comply with the orders within the time
frame required and stated they would continue to clean up these sites
under their CERCLA removal and lead agency authority. According to DOD,
some of these sites are nearly cleaned up. For example, as of July
2008, DOD estimated that three of the four sites had cleaned up about
two-thirds or more of the contamination on site. According to EPA
headquarters officials, DOD's estimation of the cleanup at these sites
is inconsistent with EPA's assessment and there is still much work to
be performed at each of these sites. For example, according to EPA
headquarters officials, Tyndall Air Force Base has not completed a
single record of decision for work to be performed and McGuire Air
Force Base has not completed a single investigation.
In May 2008, DOD requested that DOJ and OMB resolve the disagreement
between DOD and EPA as to the basis upon which EPA may issue imminent
and substantial endangerment orders under RCRA and the Safe Drinking
Water Act, and the terms of federal facility agreements regarding
cleanup at DOD NPL sites. As of November 2008, OMB was noncommittal
regarding its involvement. On December 1, 2008, DOJ issued a letter
upholding EPA's authority to issue administrative cleanup orders at DOD
NPL sites in appropriate circumstances. Specifically, the letter
stated, among other things, that:
* EPA may issue imminent and substantial endangerment orders to DOD in
accordance with RCRA and the Safe Drinking Water Act;
* EPA may issue such orders at a site even if it would not have done so
had there been an IAG under CERCLA for the site; and:
* while IAGs are consensual undertakings, and DOD is not necessarily
required to agree to all IAG terms EPA seeks beyond those enumerated in
CERCLA, EPA may require DOD to agree in an IAG to follow EPA
guidelines, rules, and criteria in the same manner, and to the same
extent as these apply to private parties.[Footnote 20]
As of early March 2009, the Air Force and Army did not have IAGs for
these four sites, including the site being cleaned up under the Safe
Drinking Water Act order. [Footnote 21]
State Agencies Oversee the Cleanup of Hazardous Waste at Most DOD
Sites:
Because the majority of contaminated DOD sites are not on the NPL, most
DOD site cleanups are overseen by state agencies rather than EPA, as
allowed by CERCLA. CERCLA provides that state cleanup and enforcement
laws apply to federal facilities not included on the NPL. Under CERCLA,
EPA may choose to defer a federal facility site to another cleanup
authority, such as RCRA, even though the site is eligible for placement
on the NPL. Of the 845 DOD sites not on the NPL, EPA generally
determined that no further action was needed at the sites either
because (1) the sites did not have hazards that would score high enough
for NPL listing or (2) EPA deferred oversight of DOD's response at the
sites to the states or other regulatory authorities. Most states have
their own cleanup programs to address hazardous waste sites and RCRA
corrective action authority to clean up RCRA sites. While EPA regions
have some oversight of states' RCRA programs by reviewing site files
and providing technical advice to the state, EPA defers oversight
authority to states for the cleanup of non-NPL RCRA sites. EPA does not
exercise day-to-day oversight of state cleanup programs but has entered
into memorandums of understanding or agreement with some states. For
example, EPA and the state of Ohio entered into a memorandum of
agreement that defined the roles and responsibilities of EPA and the
state for non-RCRA cleanups.
EPA Proposes Few Contaminated DOD Sites Based on EPA Policy and DOD's
Maturing Inventory of Hazardous Waste Sites:
Since the 1990s, EPA has proposed fewer DOD sites for the NPL than in
previous years for three key reasons. First, EPA defers the majority of
DOD sites to other statutory authorities for cleanup under state
oversight, and to avoid duplicating efforts, it does not list these
sites. Second, over the years, DOD has discovered fewer hazardous
substance releases, resulting in fewer sites for assessment and
potential proposal for the NPL. Third, state officials or other federal
agencies may, on occasion, object to EPA's proposal to list
contaminated DOD sites, and while EPA can still propose listing the
site, it usually does not. Based on our review of 389 unlisted DOD
sites from four EPA regions, we found EPA did not list about half of
these sites because EPA determined that little to no hazardous release
had occurred or it deferred the site to a state for oversight, often
because a contamination response was already underway.
EPA Does Not List DOD Sites That Are Cleaned Up under RCRA or Other
Programs:
In 1996, Congress amended CERCLA to specify that a response under
another cleanup authority is an appropriate factor to consider when
making a determination whether to list a federal site.[Footnote 22]
Since then, EPA has generally not proposed listing contaminated DOD
sites that are being cleaned up under other federal or state programs.
Under EPA's deferral policy, it may choose to defer sites to RCRA, even
if sites are eligible for the NPL, where (1) the CERCLA site is
currently being addressed by RCRA Subtitle C corrective action
authorities under an existing enforceable order or permit containing
corrective action provisions, (2) the response is progressing
adequately, and (3) the state supports deferral of placement on the
NPL. According to EPA headquarters officials, during the early years of
CERCLA, the Superfund program was the primary means by which EPA
assured that contamination at federal facilities was assessed and
cleaned up. In recent years, however, other cleanup programs such as
RCRA have evolved and matured so that placement on the NPL is just one
of several tools available to address contamination. EPA policy allows
regions to defer a federal facility site to RCRA even though the site
is eligible for the NPL. Officials from two EPA regions said that
almost all of the region's DOD sites were being cleaned up under RCRA
at the time they were assessed and to avoid adding unnecessary and
redundant regulatory oversight, the regions chose to leave them under
RCRA for cleanup. EPA regions also defer sites from the NPL that are
being cleaned up under a state cleanup program. EPA headquarters
officials said that many sites proposed for placement on the NPL were
referred to EPA by the states but that, over the years, states
developed their own cleanup programs and did not refer as many sites to
EPA. As a result, EPA headquarters officials said that EPA is not
proposing to list as many sites based on states' referrals.
DOD Is Identifying Fewer Contaminated Sites:
DOD is discovering and reporting fewer new or additional hazardous
substance releases because, over the years, many potentially
contaminated waste sites have been identified and cleaned up and waste
management practices have changed. Discovery of new DOD sites has been
infrequent, making fewer sites available to EPA for assessment and
proposal for inclusion on the NPL. According to Army officials,
beginning in the early 1980s, the Army conducted initial assessments to
identify potentially contaminated sites. As a result, Army officials
said, the Army's installation restoration program inventory is mature
and, for the most part, complete. According to a Navy official, during
the 1980s and 1990s, the Navy also conducted assessments to identify
and catalog the majority of contaminated Navy sites. DOD officials also
stated that because of controls placed on the management of hazardous
materials and wastes as a result of well-established laws, there are
relatively fewer releases or threats of release, and operational
releases are immediately addressed. EPA officials generally agreed that
DOD has identified fewer contaminated DOD sites in recent years
because, EPA officials said, the services have a fairly well-
inventoried universe of sites, and old or abandoned DOD sites are no
longer being discovered. Further, EPA headquarters officials said, DOD
has cleaned up hazardous waste sites over the years, has tremendous
cleanup efforts underway, and has the budgets to fund them.
States May Object to EPA's Proposal to List Contaminated DOD Sites:
EPA policy recommends states' governors to be included in the decision
whether to list sites on the NPL and, in cases where a state does not
agree that EPA should list a site, EPA's policy recommends that a
region work closely with the state to resolve the state's concerns. If
the region is unable to resolve the state's concerns and EPA believes
it has sufficient reasons to proceed with listing, EPA may list the
site on the NPL without the state's concurrence; however, according to
EPA headquarters officials, EPA will not list a site without agreement
from the state.[Footnote 23]
On rare occasions, EPA proposed but ultimately did not list some
contaminated DOD sites. Four sites were not listed because the states'
governors did not support listing. EPA did not list a fifth site
because OMB recommended against listing. Although these five sites were
not listed, EPA regional officials said that all five sites are being
cleaned up, have a remedy in place that is protective of human health
and the environment, or the site has been cleaned up to the point that
it no longer meets the requirements for placement on the NPL.
Specifically:
Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base. In 1994, DOD closed the remaining
portions of the Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base in Lockbourne,
Ohio, which had been in use since 1942 providing aircraft refueling
operations. Fuel contamination and chemical releases were found around
underground fuel lines and tanks and near former storage areas and
buildings. Trichloroethylene (TCE) has been found in soil and near
groundwater.[Footnote 24] In January 1994, EPA proposed placing the
site on the NPL but did not do so because the governor did not agree,
citing the stigma that NPL listing would have on current, planned, and
future economic development as well as the potential to adversely
affect the economic development of adjacent sites. The governor also
proposed that the Ohio EPA oversee investigation and cleanup activities
at the site under the state's cleanup program. Today, portions of the
site are being cleaned up under RCRA while other portions are being
cleaned up under CERCLA and DOD's Base Realignment and Closure program,
with state oversight. According to EPA headquarters officials, EPA and
the Air Force agreed the site should be cleaned up for commercial-
industrial use. The Air Force transferred portions of the facility to
another state agency for cleanup and signed an agreement with the state
to clean up the remaining lands, in accordance with CERCLA. However,
the Air Force has refused to include land use restrictions in its
selected remedy, as EPA would normally do for sites on the NPL.
Nonetheless, cleanup at the site is proceeding, EPA regional officials
said, and the site no longer meets the requirements for the NPL.
Air Force Plant 85. Air Force Plant 85 in Columbus, Ohio, manufactured
and tested aircraft and missile systems between 1941 and 1994. Wastes
produced from these operations included acids from metal cleaning and
electroplating, cyanide wastes, and paint strippers. From 1984 to 1990,
the Air Force identified multiple sources of potential hazardous waste
contamination, including two nearby streams and a creek. TCE and other
chlorinated solvents were found in groundwater; polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCB),[Footnote 25] solvents, and metals were found in soil;
and various metals and solvents were found in sediment. In January
1994, EPA proposed placing the site on the NPL but did not do so
because the governor objected, again citing the stigma of listing and
its potential effects on economic development. The governor also
proposed that the Ohio EPA oversee investigation and cleanup activities
at the site under the state's cleanup program. Air Force Plant 85 is
being cleaned up under Ohio's Voluntary Cleanup Program which,
according to EPA officials, follows the CERCLA process. According to
EPA regional and Air Force officials, the Air Force has cleaned up or
has a remedy in place at 11 of the 13 sources of hazardous substances
releases at the site and is expected to have all remedies in place by
2011.
Arnold Engineering Development Center. The Arnold Engineering
Development Center near Tullahoma and Manchester, Tennessee, is an Air
Force test and research organization that simulates flight conditions
in ground-test facilities. The site contains contaminated landfills,
leaching pits, and testing areas. Jet and rocket fuels, solvents, and
other shop wastes have been detected in the main testing area. PCBs
also have been detected in soil samples collected in the main testing
area and in wastewater and surface water runoff in a retention
reservoir. In August 1994, EPA proposed placing the site on the NPL but
did not do so because the governor did not concur. EPA regional
officials said that state officials told them Tennessee preferred to
clean up the site under a state cleanup program and speculated that
many states may prefer this arrangement because of the perception of a
stigma associated the NPL. Further, the Arnold Engineering Development
Center was competing with a DOD facility in another state to install a
wind tunnel and the Tennessee governor's office was concerned that NPL
listing would hurt the site's chances. The Air Force is cleaning up the
Arnold Engineering Development Center under RCRA with EPA and state
oversight. EPA regional officials said that Air Force actions to date
on the site are protective of human health and control the migration of
contaminated groundwater. While Air Force officials said they expect
all remedies to be in place by the end of fiscal year 2011, EPA
regional officials indicated the goal for final construction of the
remedy is 2020.[Footnote 26]
Wurtsmith Air Force Base. Wurtsmith Air Force Base, a 5,000-acre site
near Oscoda, Michigan, has performed various air support missions since
it was established in the early 1920s, such as aircraft and vehicle
maintenance and air refueling. In 1977, the Air Force sampled drinking
water and monitoring wells on the site and found solvents, including
TCE. The U.S. Geological Survey also sampled and found TCE in the
groundwater. The base closed in June 1993 and in January 1994, EPA
proposed placing the site on the NPL. However, EPA did not list the
site because the state did not support listing after DOD placed the
site in the Base Realignment and Closure program and progressed with
cleanup under state oversight. Although TCE is still present in
groundwater plumes, EPA regional officials said the site has been
cleaned up to the point that it would no longer meet the requirements
for the NPL.
Chanute Air Force Base. Chanute Air Force Base in Rantoul, Illinois,
provided military and technical training for Air Force and civilian
personnel on the operation and maintenance of military aircraft and
ground support equipment until DOD closed the base in 1990. The primary
sources of hazardous waste on the site include various landfills, fire
training areas and buildings that contained oil-water separators,
underground storage tanks, and sludge pits. The primary concern was the
potential for this contamination to migrate into a nearby creek. In
April 2000, the governor wrote to the EPA region to express his support
for placing Chanute Air Force Base on the NPL, citing the state's
concern about past operation and disposal practices at the site and
because the state was unable to reach an agreement with the Air Force
on how the site should be cleaned up. In December 2000, EPA proposed
placing the site on the NPL but the Air Force objected, citing a
perception that listing was a stigma and argued it could clean up the
site by 2005 and on schedule if it did not have to suspend cleanup to
negotiate the provisions of an IAG. The Air Force asked OMB to mediate
the dispute. EPA presented its case for listing the site to OMB,
pointing out that the site's HRS score supported a proposal for
listing, the governor of the state concurred, and listing would help to
assure that DOD would enter into an IAG with EPA to clean up. In 2003,
OMB determined that EPA should not proceed with listing. OMB encouraged
EPA to defer listing the site for 6 months to provide DOD with time to
address personnel and contractor changes and demonstrate remediation
progress. If, after that time, progress was not forthcoming, then
listing was to be pursued, but in fact, never was. Although EPA
officials told us that cleanup at Chanute has progressed slowly,
milestones were met and EPA did not list the site. The Air Force
estimates that it will have all remedies in place by the end of fiscal
year 2012 and all property transferred from Air Force control by the
end of fiscal year 2014. Although cleanup is behind schedule, according
to EPA regional officials, the site has been cleaned up to the point
that it is unclear whether the site would score for the NPL if the
listing process was started today. For example, three of the four
landfills have been capped and are no longer active. Remedial
investigation reports of the creek do not show the levels of
contamination detected when EPA proposed listing the site. Despite the
slow progress to clean up, EPA regional officials said they believe
that proposing the site for listing ultimately helped to start the
cleanup process.
Four EPA Regions Did not List Sites Due to a Lack of Contamination or
Hazardous Release or Because Sites Were Deferred to Another Cleanup
Authority:
As part of our review, we asked officials from four EPA regions to
provide the primary basis for their decision to not propose placing 389
DOD sites under their jurisdiction on the NPL. (See figure 4.) Based on
a review of site records and interviews with EPA regional officials, we
found EPA did not propose listing almost one-third of these sites (121
of 389, or 31 percent) because site assessments found little to no
contamination or hazardous release on the site or no contamination
exposure pathway or receptor. In instances where EPA scored these
sites, the HRS score was below the minimum hazard ranking threshold for
the NPL. One-quarter of these sites (96 of 389, or 25 percent) were not
proposed for the NPL because EPA deferred them to another authority,
such as a state agency under its RCRA authority. We were unable to
determine the rationale for EPA's decision to not list less than half
of these sites (172 of 389, or 44 percent) because site file records
were missing, inconclusive, or not up to date. For example, some site
files showed that EPA had not yet determined whether to propose
listing, even though the site assessment was conducted decades ago.
According to EPA region officials, record-keeping practices have varied
over the years so that, in some cases, site files and the basis for
EPA's decisions were not well documented or maintained.
Figure 4: Findings from GAO's Review of 389 DOD Sites:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Site file documentation was missing, inconclusive or not up-to-date
(172 sites): 44%;
EPA determined there was no hazardous release or little to no
contamination found on site (121 sites): 31%;
EPA deferred the site to another cleanup authority (96 sites): 25%.
Source: GAO analysis.
[End of figure]
Conclusions:
While the number of DOD sites considered for placement on the NPL has
declined over the past decade, DOD sites still account for 9 percent of
all NPL sites. Despite years of negotiations, DOD and EPA have not
finalized IAGs to clean up 11 of the 140 DOD NPL sites. Most are more
than a decade overdue, yet EPA has made few efforts to use its
enforcement authority under CERCLA to compel parties to enter into
IAGs, and to select remedies at sites without agreements. While the
Federal Facility Compliance Act authorizes EPA to apply the same RCRA
enforcement policies to federal facilities as it does to nonfederal
facilities, EPA has not taken enforcement action at most federal sites.
In light of prolonged disagreements between DOD and EPA over the terms
of the IAGs, and the absence of any statutory consequences for failing
to enter into an IAG, now may be the time to reconsider the provisions
required by CERCLA for effective EPA oversight. While the law offers
accountability through citizen suits, transparency through public
participation provisions, legal recourse through enforceable schedules,
and mechanisms for addressing conflicts through dispute resolution
provisions, at sites without IAGs EPA lacks the leverage needed to
provide strong environmental stewardship. Bringing the parties together
for further discussions with relevant oversight committees may
facilitate resolution at the sites without IAGs. While the pattern of
delays in DOD's preliminary assessment process appeared to go
unchallenged by EPA, we believe EPA's failure to enforce a time line
for completion further exacerbated this process. These conditions
suggest a need for stronger enforcement and reporting as well as a
serious commitment to address ongoing challenges.
We believe Congress should be kept apprised of the situations where
agreements are lacking. However, EPA has not used its annual report to
Congress to provide this information.[Footnote 27] Moreover, because
EPA was unable to make available documentation of the basis for its
decisions whether to list or not list DOD sites, it is impossible for
EPA to provide a justification for its decisions for many of the sites
placed on or left off of the NPL.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Given the critical nature of Superfund cleanup for protecting public
health, and the long-term commitment necessary to maintain strong
environmental stewardship at federal facilities, we encourage Congress
to ensure accountability by DOD and EPA by raising concerns about the
impasse between these federal agencies, if IAGS are not finalized
within 60 days following issuance of this report. Specifically,
Congress should consider amending CERCLA Section 120 to authorize EPA
to impose administrative penalties at federal facilities placed on the
NPL that lack IAGs within the CERCLA-imposed deadline of 6 months after
completion of the remedial investigation and feasibility study. This
leverage could help EPA better satisfy its statutory responsibilities
with agencies that are unwilling to enter into agreements where
required under CERCLA Section 120. In addition, Congress may wish to
consider amending Section 120 to authorize EPA to require agencies to
complete preliminary assessments within specified time frames.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To facilitate congressional oversight of the Superfund program and
provide greater transparency to the public on the cleanup of DOD sites,
we recommend that the Administrator of EPA improve its record keeping
in the following manner. Consistent with good management practices
defined in EPA's Superfund program implementation manual and to ensure
that meaningful data are available for the agency's reports to
Congress, EPA should establish a record-keeping system, consistent
across all regions, to accurately document EPA decisions regarding the
proposal of DOD sites for inclusion or exclusion on the NPL and the
basis for each decision.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to EPA and DOD for review and
comment. In its letter, EPA agreed with our recommendation that
Congress should provide greater enforcement authority under CERCLA to
impose administrative penalties at federal facilities placed on the
NPL, stating that greater authority would help to assure timely and
protective cleanup of NPL sites. EPA did not comment specifically on
our recommendation that EPA improve its record keeping but acknowledged
that some file data supporting EPA's decisions regarding the proposal
of DOD sites for NPL listing are missing or otherwise insufficient. In
general, EPA agreed with the findings and conclusions of our report.
EPA also provided general comments related to the declining number of
DOD sites proposed for listing; specifically, whether state objections
and the declining number of newly discovered hazardous substance
releases in recent years has caused a reduction in the number of DOD
sites proposed. In addition, while EPA agrees with GAO that typical
sources of contamination on DOD sites have been fairly well
characterized, it adds that other areas have not been evaluated, and
there may still be sites with undiscovered sources of contamination,
such as military munitions sites. GAO has made changes to the report to
respond to these comments. We also addressed EPA's technical changes,
throughout the report, as appropriate. See appendix III for EPA's
letter.
In its letter commenting on the findings and conclusions of our report,
DOD disagreed with our assertion that additional EPA oversight or
enforcement authority was needed and, if provided, would help assure
that NPL sites are cleaned up. According to DOD, EPA is actively
involved in reviewing response actions at DOD NPL sites, regardless of
whether an IAG is in place. Further, DOD stated that GAO's report
provides no evidence that the lack of an IAG at any DOD NPL site has
delayed, diminished, or reduced the timeliness or quality of DOD's
response and that EPA does not need additional oversight enforcement
authority but, rather, should strive to more effectively implement its
authority under existing law.
We continue to assert that an expansion in EPA's enforcement authority
is warranted. According to recent discussions with EPA officials, the
agency cannot confirm whether all areas of contamination have been
identified or whether they are being addressed properly at NPL sites
without IAGs, particularly where DOD signed unilateral records of
decision without EPA concurrence, such as at Langley Air Force Base in
Maryland. Further, we believe our report demonstrates that EPA has
experienced considerable difficulty employing its existing enforcement
authorities, and that DOD has resisted EPA's decision to use its
existing authority to require that DOD enter into IAGs at NPL sites.
DOD's comments notwithstanding, the issue is DOD's refusal for more
than a decade to enter into IAGs required by CERCLA Section 120 to
clean up DOD NPL sites. As EPA officials have noted, without an IAG,
the agency does not have the enforcement authority to assure that DOD
cleans up according to an agreed-upon remedy. Further, the question is
not whether DOD believes that EPA is sufficiently involved at DOD NPL
sites, but whether the statutory requirements for EPA's involvement
have been satisfied. CERCLA Section 120 provides for independent EPA
oversight, not mere opportunity for EPA review and comment. The
procedures in Section 120 may not be disregarded simply because some
cleanup progress is occurring. As mentioned in our report, Maryland's
December 2008 suit against the Army seeking to compel compliance with
EPA's administrative order at Fort Meade is evidence that at least one
state disagrees with DOD's assertion that the progress of cleanup is
unaffected by the lack of an IAG. Therefore, we continue to believe
that additional EPA enforcement authority is needed to ensure that
cleanup is being pursued properly at federal facility NPL sites.
DOD's letter also provided some technical comments which we
incorporated throughout the report along with DOD's technical changes,
as appropriate. See appendix IV for DOD's letter.
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
Administrator of EPA, the Secretary of DOD, and interested
congressional committees. The report will also be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staffs 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 V.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
We were asked to determine (1) the extent of the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) oversight during assessment and cleanup at
Department of Defense (DOD) National Priority List (NPL) and non-NPL
sites and (2) why EPA has proposed fewer DOD sites for inclusion on the
NPL since the early 1990s.
To examine the extent of EPA's oversight during assessment and cleanup
of DOD NPL and non-NPL sites, we reviewed the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and
other legislation governing the cleanup of federal hazardous waste
sites, as well as EPA Superfund program policy and guidance, to
determine the roles and responsibilities of EPA and federal agencies,
such as DOD, to implement the CERCLA process and assess and clean up
hazardous waste. We reviewed EPA and DOD reports to the Congress on the
Superfund and Defense Environmental programs, respectively. We reviewed
EPA and DOD policy and guidance on interagency agreements (IAG),
including the model agreements, and correspondence relating to the
negotiation of IAGs for selected DOD sites. We conducted several
interviews with EPA and DOD headquarters officials on issues related to
IAGs and enforcement. At GAO's request, EPA provided data from its
computerized CERCLA information database of actual and potential
hazardous releases at federal and private sites. Based on these data,
we worked with EPA to identify the universe of DOD sites and obtain
certain information on these sites, such as NPL status. To determine
the reliability of the CERCLA information database, an EPA headquarters
official contacted each EPA region and asked them to verify selected
information, such as the number of DOD sites and their NPL status.
During site visits to selected EPA regions, we also confirmed certain
information in the CERCLA information database by reviewing site file
documentation, where available, and interviewing EPA region officials.
Based on this work, we determined that these data were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report. We interviewed EPA
headquarters officials on the agency's policies and processes under the
Superfund program to ensure that contaminated federal DOD sites, both
NPL and non-NPL, are assessed and cleaned up. We interviewed DOD
headquarters officials on DOD's role and responsibilities to identify,
report, assess, and clean up, as necessary, hazardous releases at NPL
and non-NPL DOD sites. We also interviewed officials at four EPA
regions on their oversight of contaminated federal DOD sites, both NPL
and non-NPL, to assure that sites are assessed and cleaned up. We
conducted our work at four EPA regions--Atlanta, Chicago, Dallas, and
San Francisco--which, taken together, were responsible for about half
of the 845 non-NPL DOD sites. We selected the Atlanta and Chicago
regions because they were responsible for five DOD sites that EPA
proposed for NPL inclusion but which were not listed. We selected the
San Francisco region because it had the largest number of non-NPL DOD
sites. We selected the Dallas region to pretest our review methodology
because it was geographically convenient.
To determine why EPA has proposed fewer DOD sites for NPL inclusion
since the early 1990s, we reviewed EPA policy and guidance on proposing
sites for the NPL and interviewed EPA headquarters and regional
officials on the reasons why EPA has proposed fewer sites. We
interviewed DOD headquarters officials on its progress to identify and
assess potentially contaminated DOD sites and the reasons why fewer
hazardous releases have been identified. We interviewed EPA and DOD
officials on contaminated DOD sites that EPA proposed for the NPL, why
some were not listed, and the status of cleanup at these sites.
Finally, for selected DOD sites, we evaluated the basis for EPA's
decision to not propose listing certain contaminated DOD sites by
reviewing site file documentation and interviewing EPA regional
officials regarding all non-NPL DOD sites at four EPA regions. We
excluded from our review sites under DOD's military munitions response
program because of the ongoing uncertainty concerning the degree to
which spent military munitions are subject to RCRA and CERCLA, and the
fact that GAO has ongoing work in this area. Based on our review of
contaminated DOD sites at four EPA regions, we attempted to determine
the primary basis for EPA's decision to not propose to list the site.
However, we were unable to confirm the basis for EPA's decision to not
propose listing less than one-half of the sites surveyed (172 of 389,
or 44 percent) because site file documentation, such as records of
EPA's decisions and recommendations concerning sites, was missing or
inconclusive. For example, officials at one EPA region told us they
could not determine how many sites required no further action after
either a preliminary assessment or site inspection because, prior to
1990, the region did not document the basis for determining that no
further action was required.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Other Cleanup Programs:
In addition to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), there are a number of other cleanup
authorities EPA considers in deciding whether to list a site include
state cleanup programs (often referred to as voluntary cleanup
programs) and the Defense Environmental Restoration program.
Specifically:
State Cleanup Programs. Over the years, most states have developed
their own cleanup programs, often referred to as voluntary state
cleanup programs. Some state cleanup programs address hazardous waste
sites independent of a state's Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) program. Often, state cleanup projects begin with a preliminary
site assessment and if contamination is suspected, an on-site
investigation is conducted. EPA does not have oversight of state
cleanup programs but has entered into memoranda of agreement or
understanding with some states, recognizing the use of the state's
cleanup program to address hazardous waste sites under a state's non-
RCRA authority.
Defense Environmental Restoration Program. In 1986, Congress amended
CERCLA and required that DOD establish an environmental restoration
program under which all response actions at hazardous waste
contaminated sites--such as site identification, investigation, and
cleanup--must be conducted consistent with Section 120 of CERCLA.
[Footnote 28] More than 15 years later, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 required that DOD also develop
an inventory of all DOD sites known or suspected to contain unexploded
ordnance, military munitions, or munitions constituents throughout the
United States and develop a methodology for prioritizing response
actions at these sites. Today, DOD's environmental response program
includes an installation restoration program, which in 1985 began
addressing hazardous releases resulting from past practices, and a
military munitions response program, established as a separate program
in 2001, to address safety and environmental hazards from unexploded
ordnance and munitions on other-than-operational ranges (ranges that
are closed, transferred or transferring). As of fiscal year 2007, DOD
reported there were 27,950 installation restoration program sites on
DOD facilities and former defense sites, of which 23,980, or 86
percent, had achieved "remedy in place" or "response complete" status
[Footnote 29]. At 3,537 munitions response sites at current DOD
facilities and former defense sites, a total of 940, or 27 percent, had
achieved "remedy in place" or "response complete" status. DOD completed
an initial inventory of munitions response sites in fiscal year 2002.
Since then, DOD has been working to reconcile its inventory which
includes conducting site assessments (preliminary assessments and, if
needed, site inspections) of all sites. DOD estimates it will complete
site assessments for all munitions response sites by the end of fiscal
year 2010 except for sites on former defense sites. Former defense
sites represent the majority of sites with suspected munitions response
sites and, according to DOD, site assessments for munitions sites on
former defense sites will not be completed until about 2013.
Under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, DOD cleans up
environmental hazards and contamination on active installations,
installations being closed under DOD's Base Realignment and Closure
program, and at formerly used defense sites. DOD is required to carry
out response cleanup actions under the program, subject to, and in a
manner consistent with, Section 120 of CERCLA. DOD is required to
report annually to Congress on its environmental restoration programs.
As of fiscal year 2007, DOD reported that its goal was to clean up all
known releases (or achieve a "remedy in place" status) on active
installations by the end of fiscal year 2014 and all sites on formerly
used defense sites by the end of fiscal year 2020.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Washington, D.C. 20460:
February 24, 2009:
Mr. John B. Stephenson Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: EPA comments on the Government Accountability Office's (GAO) draft
report to Congress entitled Greater EPA Oversight, Enforcement, and
Reporting Are Needed to Enhance Defense Site Cleanup (GAO-09-278):
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review GAO's draft report entitled
Greater EPA Oversight, Enforcement, and Reporting Are Needed to Enhance
Defense Site Cleanup (GAO-09-278). We appreciate GAO's review of EPA's
role in the clean up and restoration of contaminated Department of
Defense (DoD) properties.
EPA agrees that effective use of strong enforcement will help to assure
timely and protective clean up of federal facilities. As for GAO's
draft findings related to the National Priorities List (NPL), we offer
in this letter general comments on two of the key reasons cited in the
draft report for the slowing pace of DoD site listings: (1) States may
object to EPA's proposals to list sites; and (2) DoD has discovered
fewer hazardous substance releases (DoD's "mature inventory" of sites).
In addition to comments on these two issues, you will find detailed
comments in the enclosure to this letter.
Concerning the pace of NPL listings, GAO's draft report indicates that
State objections to NPL listing may be one of four causes for the
slowing pace of NPL listings of DoD sites. This conclusion was based on
an examination of four instances in which States opposed the placement
of DoD sites on the NPL during the period 1994-2001. It should be
noted, however, that 44 federal sites were placed on the NPL (without
State objection) during the same time period, including 37 DoD sites.
Subsequent to that time frame, only three DoD sites were proposed for
the NPL, and none of these were opposed by the States. In fact, of
these three sites, one was listed at the specific request of a
Governor, and the other two were listed with State support. We don't
believe, therefore, that one can conclude that formal State objections
have significantly contributed to the reduction in NPL listings.
GAO also cited "DoD's mature inventory" of contaminated properties and
the discovery of fewer sites to explain the reduction in NPL listings.
While typical sources of contamination on DoD bases have been fairly
well characterized, as noted in the draft report, other areas on these
bases have not been adequately characterized, and there are still some
newly discovered sources of contamination (e.g., munitions response
sites under DoD's Military Munitions Response Program). While some
slowing in the pace of DoD site listings is to be expected, the total
number of potential NPL sites in DoD's inventory, and hence, the degree
to which the pace of listing is explained by the "mature inventory" of
sites, cannot be determined while there remains insufficient or missing
site specific information to support decision making.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me if I
can be of assistance, or your staff may call Bobbie Trent in EPA's
Office of the Chief Financial Officer at 202.566.0983.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Barry N. Breen:
Acting Assistant Administrator, OSWER:
Enclosure (1):
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Acquisition Technology And Logistics:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
February 20, 2009:
Mr. John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, "Superfund: Greater EPA Oversight, Enforcement, and Reporting
Are Needed to Enhance Defense Site Cleanup," dated January 27, 2009
(GAO Code 360916/GAO-09-278).
The Department acknowledges receipt of the draft report. Even though
there are no recommendations directed at DoD, we have concerns with
some of GAO's factual statements, findings, conclusions and
recommendation. Detailed technical comments on the report were provided
separately.
In summary, DoD has major concerns with the following issues:
* The title of the report is misleading and not based on the facts
presented in the report. The facts presented in the report do not
support the conclusion that the DoD Cleanup program is not meeting the
requirements of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) or the Resource Conservation 'and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The report does not provide evidence that additional
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) oversight or enforcement
authorities is needed and if provided these authorities will speed up
cleanup or lead to better decision making. According to the findings of
the report EPA does not need more or new oversight enforcement
authorities, EPA needs to more effectively implement their authorities
they already have under existing law.
* Congress has defined the term "defense site" in 10 U.S.C. Section
2710(e)(1). The report definition of defense site conflicts with this
legal definition and implies Department of Energy sites are defense
sites. Recommend using the term DoD site or DoD facility.
* The number of DoD National Priorities List (NFL) sites and remaining
Federal Facilities Agreements (FFA) to be signed is inaccurate. DoD has
140 not 141 NPL site and 11 not 12 FFA remaining to be signed. The
Middlesex Sampling Plant is a site under the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action program (FUSRAP). It is assigned by law to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Civil Works Program, as the lead agency for the
conduct of remedial actions at certain sites associated with the former
Manhattan Engineer District and Atomic Energy Commission. It is not a
under the direction or control of DoD cleanup program. The Middlesex
Sampling Plant property is owned by the United States and under the
accountability of the Department of Energy.
The facts presented in the report do not support the conclusions and
recommendations. EPA is actively involved in review of response actions
at DoD NPL sites, regardless of whether an FFA has been signed. The
report indicates no evidence that the lack of an FFA at any of the
sites has delayed, diminished, or reduced the timeliness or quality of
the response actions taken by DoD with EPA, state and public
involvement, at any DoD NPL site. DoD has made significant progress
which is demonstrated in the report for the five sites EPA decided to
not list on the NPL.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Wayne Arny:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment):
CC:
OGC (E&I):
DASA (ESOH) DASN (E):
DASAF (EESOH):
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841, or stephensonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, Diane B. Raynes, Assistant
Director; Elizabeth Beardsley; Christine D. Frye; Richard Johnson; and
Alison O'Neill made major contributions to this report. Amy Ward-Meier
also made key contributions.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Executive Order 12580 directs the responsible federal agency to
carry out the preliminary assessment. This executive order also
delegates certain CERCLA authorities to the Department of Defense.
[2] The Hazard Ranking System (HRS) is the principal mechanism EPA uses
to place sites on the NPL. The HRS serves as a screening device to
evaluate the potential for releases of uncontrolled hazardous
substances to cause human health or environmental damage. The HRS
provides a measure of relative rather than absolute risk. It is
designed so that it can be consistently applied to a wide variety of
sites. [40 C.F.R. Pt. 300, appendix A, § 1.0]
[3] The NPL is composed of 157 final and 15 deleted federal sites and
1,100 final and 315 deleted private sites.
[4] For the purposes of this review, both NPL and non-NPL DOD sites are
federal facilities where DOD is the agency responsible for the cleanup
of hazardous waste resulting from past practices.
[5] The letter stated that "because an interagency 'agreement' denotes
a consensual undertaking, we do not think that DOD necessarily is
required to agree to all extra-statutory terms demanded by EPA. We
think that EPA nonetheless may require DOD to agree in the IAG to
follow, 'in the same manner and to the same extent' as they apply to
private parties, any 'guidelines, rules, regulations, and criteria'
established by EPA and made applicable to non-federal facilities under
CERCLA." The letter also noted that whether the facts identified in
each order present a sufficient basis to support EPA's finding of an
imminent and substantial endangerment is a factual issue that DOJ was
unable to address.
[6] This trust fund was financed primarily by taxes on crude oil and
certain chemicals, as well as an environmental tax assessed on
corporations based upon their taxable income. Although the authority
for these taxes expired in 1995, the trust fund continued to receive
revenue from various other sources, including appropriations from the
general fund. EPA receives annual appropriations from the trust fund
for program activities; since 1981, Superfund appropriations have
totaled over $32 billion in nominal dollars, or about $1.2 billion
annually.
[7] GAO, Superfund: Funding and Reported Costs of Enforcement and
Administration Activities, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-841R] (Washington, D.C.: July 18,
2008).
[8] Under the NCP, DOD maintains its lead agency responsibilities
whether the remedy is selected by DOD for non-NPL sites or by EPA and
the federal agency or by EPA alone for NPL sites under CERCLA Section
120. Executive Order 12580, Superfund Implementation (Jan. 23, 1987) as
amended delegates certain presidential authorities under CERCLA to the
Secretary of Defense. Specifically, the executive order provides that
CERCLA response authorities "are delegated to the Secretaries of
Defense and Energy, with respect to releases or threatened releases
where either the release is on or the sole source of the release is
from any facility or vessel under the jurisdiction, custody or control
of their departments, respectively, including vessels bare-boat
chartered and operated. These functions must be exercised consistent
with the requirements of Section 120 of the Act."
[9] Executive Order 12580 delegates to DOD the authority for carrying
out preliminary assessments and site inspections at DOD sites. CERCLA
imposes no deadlines for completing preliminary assessments.
[10] H.R. Rep. No. 99-253, pt. 1 at 95 (1985).
[11] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 99-962 at 242 (1986).
[12] In technical comments on our report, DOD asserted that sufficient
EPA oversight can occur without an IAG, so long as a signed record of
decision exists for a given site. This view is inconsistent with the
language in CERCLA Section 120 and the legislative history. First,
Section 120 uses the term "interagency agreement," not the term "record
of decision" which appears elsewhere in SARA; a reference in Section
120 to IAGs instead of records of decision is far more than a semantic
accident. Second, as indicated above, the IAG serves to provide a basis
for enhanced EPA cleanup oversight as well as enforcement by states and
citizens. DOD failed to explain how a record of decision would serve a
similar purpose, and in particular failed to address the IAG's role in
enhancing state and citizen enforcement activities. While the
conference committee report states that a record of decision signed by
both EPA and the other federal agency can serve as an IAG, H.R. Conf.
Rep. No. 99-962 at 242, we read this to mean that the terms of the
record of decision may also be used as the terms of the IAG if both
parties agree and are otherwise consistent with CERCLA. To the extent
the conference report can be read to suggest that an IAG is not
required at a DOD NPL site with a co-signed record of decision, this
reading is inconsistent with the language of the statute, which
provides for no such exception.
[13] DOD recently asserted that a state's decision to sue to enforce
compliance with a cleanup order could result in the state losing
certain DOD grant funds. Recently, an organization of state waste
management officials criticized DOD's position as being inconsistent
with statutes, such as RCRA, that authorize states to bring such
enforcement actions.
[14] The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, part of the
Department of Health and Human Services, performs specific functions
concerning the effect on public health of hazardous substances in the
environment such as public health assessments of waste sites, response
to emergency releases of hazardous substances, and education and
training concerning hazardous substances.
[15] The 11 DOD NPL sites without IAGs include (1) Air Force Plant 44,
Arizona; (2) Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland; (3) Brandywine Defense
Reutilization and Marketing Office Salvage Yard, Maryland; (4) Fort
Meade, Maryland; (5) Hanscom Field, Massachusetts; (6) Langley Air
Force Base, Virginia; (7) McGuire Air Force Base, New Jersey; (8) Naval
Air Station Whiting Field, Florida; (9) Naval Computer
Telecommunication Area Administrative Master Station, Hawaii; (10)
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama; and (11) Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida. A
twelfth NPL site, Middlesex Sampling Plant, New Jersey, also does not
have an IAG. Middlesex is listed in EPA's CERLCA information database
as a Department of Energy site even though the Fiscal Year 1998 Energy
and Water Appropriations Bill transferred management of the site to the
Army Corps of Engineers. While EPA officials said that the agency
considers Middlesex to be a DOD NPL site for the purposes of
enforcement and negotiation of IAGs, we excluded it from our list of
DOD sites without IAGs.
[16] On Mar. 4, 2009, the Navy began the process for finalizing IAGs at
two of its sites. The Navy signed IAGs for the Naval Air Station
Whiting Field in Florida and the Naval Computer Telecommunication Area
Administrative Master Station in Hawaii. Since EPA has also signed the
IAGs, the next steps will be to obtain the states' signatures followed
by a public comment period and EPA final review. At the conclusion of
this process, the IAGs will be considered effective.
[17] As discussed in the background section of this report, SARA's
legislative history suggests that IAGs serve primarily as a tool for
EPA oversight and as the primary cleanup enforcement mechanism at DOD
NPL sites.
[18] This view is consistent with the portions of SARA's legislative
history that discuss the IAG provision.
[19] The Safe Drinking Water Act and its amendments established
standards and treatment requirements for the nation's drinking water
supply and delegated primary implementation and enforcement authority
to the states.
[20] The letter is available at [hyperlink,
http://www.fedcenter.gov/_kd/go.cfm?destination=ShowItem&Item_ID=11085].
DOD has also asked OMB to review the terms of the IAGs regarding
cleanup at these sites. An executive order provision implementing
CERCLA Section 120 directs OMB to facilitate resolution of disputes
between EPA and DOD; Executive Order 12580, § 10(a). As of November
2008, OMB has been noncommittal regarding its role with DOD and EPA.
[21] On Dec. 12, 2008--almost 1 year after the effective date of the
administrative order--the Army submitted to EPA its notice to comply
with the order at Fort Meade, Maryland. On Dec. 23, 2008, the State of
Maryland filed suit against the Army seeking to compel the Army's
compliance with EPA's administrative order at Fort Meade.
[22] Pub. L. No. 104-201, Div. A, Title III, §§ 330, 110 Stat. 2484
(1996).
[23] According to EPA officials, in the history of the Superfund
program, EPA has not listed any site without a state's concurrence. In
1998, EPA proposed listing Fox River in Wisconsin, a private site,
without the governor's consent. However, EPA did not finalize the
listing because the state and EPA reached an agreement after which
cleanup began in 2000.
[24] TCE is a nonflammable, colorless liquid used mainly as a solvent
to remove grease from metal but which also is found in adhesives, paint
removers, typewriter correction fluids, and spot removers. TCE can
cause nervous system effects, liver and lung damage, abnormal
heartbeat, coma, and possibly death.
[25] PCBs are a family of chemicals that were used in hundreds of
industrial and commercial applications such as electric and hydraulic
equipment; as plasticizers in paints, plastics, and rubber products;
and in pigments and dyes. PCBs were banned in 1979 and have been
demonstrated to cause cancer and effect human immune, reproductive, and
nervous systems.
[26] DOD and EPA use different terminology to track cleanup status. DOD
tracks the status of cleanup in terms of a "remedy in place" (where the
selected remedy is in place and operating) followed by "response
complete" (where the required remedial action or operations have been
completed.) EPA tracks final construction, or "construction complete,"
which considers when all physical construction at a site is complete,
all immediate threats have been addressed, and all long-term threats
are under control. While long-term cleanup actions may still be
operating, the site is often ready for another use.
[27] Although a CERCLA requirement for reporting IAG status information
was repealed in 2002, DOD reports on the status of NPL sites without
IAGs in its annual report to Congress on the Defense Environmental
Restoration Program. DOD's report provides a list of the DOD sites
without IAGs; it does not provide information on the reasons why IAGs
have not been finalized.
[28] 10 U.S.C. § 2700 et seq. The program is known as the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program.
[29] DOD and EPA use different terminology to track cleanup status. DOD
tracks the status of cleanup in terms of a "remedy in place" (where the
selected remedy is in place and operating) followed by "response
complete" (where the required remedial action or operations have been
completed.) "Response complete" may also indicate a site was
administratively closed; that is, the site did not meet the eligibility
criteria for funding under the program, no information was found
suggesting that contamination was present, or the property was
transferred or is being cleaned up as part of another site. EPA tracks
final construction, or "construction complete," which considers when
all physical construction at a site is complete, all immediate threats
have been addressed, and all long-term threats are under control. While
long-term cleanup actions may still be operating, the site is often
ready for another use.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
