Superfund
EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed Current Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the National Priorities List Gao ID: GAO-10-380 May 6, 2010At the end of fiscal year 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL) included 1,111 of the most seriously contaminated nonfederal hazardous waste sites. Of these sites, EPA had identified 75 with unacceptable human exposure, 164 with unknown exposure, and 872 with controlled exposure that may need additional cleanup work. EPA may fund remedial actions--long-term cleanup--from its trust fund, and compel responsible parties to perform or reimburse costs of the cleanup. GAO was asked to determine (1) the cleanup and funding status at currently listed nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable or unknown human exposure; (2) what is known about EPA's future cleanup costs at nonfederal NPL sites; (3) EPA's process for allocating remedial program funding; and (4) how many NPL sites some state and EPA officials expect to be added in the next 5 years, and their expected cleanup costs. GAO analyzed Superfund program data, surveyed and interviewed EPA officials, and interviewed state officials.
At over 60 percent of the 239 nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable or unknown human exposure, all or more than half of the work remains to complete the remedial construction phase of cleanup, according to EPA regional officials. By the end of fiscal year 2009, EPA had expended $3 billion on the 75 sites with unacceptable human exposure and $1.2 billion on the 164 sites with unknown exposure. Despite the relatively high level of expenditures at sites with unacceptable exposure, EPA officials told GAO that, in managing limited resources, some sites have not received sufficient funding for construction to be conducted in the most time and cost efficient manner. EPA's future costs to conduct remedial construction at nonfederal NPL sites will likely exceed recent funding levels. EPA officials estimate that EPA's costs will be from $335 to $681 million each year for fiscal years 2010 to 2014, which exceed the $220 to $267 million EPA allocated annually for remedial actions from fiscal years 2000 to 2009. In addition, these cost estimates are likely understated, since they do not include costs for sites that are early in the cleanup process or for sites where a responsible party is currently funding remedial construction but may be unable to do so in the future. Also, according to EPA officials, EPA's actual costs are often higher than its estimates because contamination is often greater than expected. EPA allocates funds separately for preconstruction activities--such as remedial investigation and remedial design--and remedial actions. EPA headquarters allocates funds for preconstruction activities to the regions for them to distribute among sites. For remedial actions, headquarters works in consultation with the regions to allocate funds to sites. EPA officials told GAO that EPA prioritized sites to receive the $582 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds in a manner similar to the way EPA prioritizes sites for remedial actions. Limited funding has delayed preconstruction activities and remedial actions at some sites, according to EPA officials. EPA regional officials estimated that from 101 to 125 sites--about 20 to 25 sites per year--will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years, which is higher than the average of about 16 sites per year listed for fiscal years 2005 to 2009. Most of the 10 states' officials GAO interviewed also expect an increase in the number of sites listed from their states. However, neither EPA regional officials nor state officials were able to provide cost estimates for cleaning up many of the sites. In addition, the number of sites eligible for listing could increase if EPA decides to assess the relative risk of vapor intrusion--contaminated air that seeps into buildings from underground sources--a pathway of concern among EPA regional officials and state officials interviewed. Although sites with vapor intrusion can pose considerable human health risks, EPA's Hazard Ranking System--the mechanism used to identify sites that qualify for NPL listing--does not recognize these risks; therefore, unless a site with vapor intrusion is listed on some other basis, EPA cannot clean up the site through its remedial program.
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: John B. Stephenson Team: Government Accountability Office: Natural Resources and Environment Phone: (202) 512-6225GAO-10-380, Superfund: EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed Current Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the National Priorities List
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-380
entitled 'Superfund: EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites
Exceed Current Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added
to the National Priorities List' which was released on Jue 22, 2010.
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:
May 2010:
Superfund:
EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed Current
Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to Be Added to the
National Priorities List:
GAO-10-380:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-380, a report to congressional requesters.
Why GAO Did This Study:
At the end of fiscal year 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency‘s
(EPA) National Priorities List (NPL) included 1,111 of the most
seriously contaminated nonfederal hazardous waste sites. Of these
sites, EPA had identified 75 with unacceptable human exposure, 164
with unknown exposure, and 872 with controlled exposure that may need
additional cleanup work. EPA may fund remedial actions”long-term
cleanup”from its trust fund, and compel responsible parties to perform
or reimburse costs of the cleanup. GAO was asked to determine (1) the
cleanup and funding status at currently listed nonfederal NPL sites
with unacceptable or unknown human exposure; (2) what is known about
EPA‘s future cleanup costs at nonfederal NPL sites; (3) EPA‘s process
for allocating remedial program funding; and (4) how many NPL sites
some state and EPA officials expect to be added in the next 5 years,
and their expected cleanup costs. GAO analyzed Superfund program data,
surveyed and interviewed EPA officials, and interviewed state
officials.
What GAO Found:
At over 60 percent of the 239 nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable
or unknown human exposure, all or more than half of the work remains
to complete the remedial construction phase of cleanup, according to
EPA regional officials. By the end of fiscal year 2009, EPA had
expended $3 billion on the 75 sites with unacceptable human exposure
and $1.2 billion on the 164 sites with unknown exposure. Despite the
relatively high level of expenditures at sites with unacceptable
exposure, EPA officials told GAO that, in managing limited resources,
some sites have not received sufficient funding for construction to be
conducted in the most time and cost efficient manner.
EPA‘s future costs to conduct remedial construction at nonfederal NPL
sites will likely exceed recent funding levels. EPA officials estimate
that EPA‘s costs will be from $335 to $681 million each year for
fiscal years 2010 to 2014, which exceed the $220 to $267 million EPA
allocated annually for remedial actions from fiscal years 2000 to
2009. In addition, these cost estimates are likely understated, since
they do not include costs for sites that are early in the cleanup
process or for sites where a responsible party is currently funding
remedial construction but may be unable to do so in the future. Also,
according to EPA officials, EPA‘s actual costs are often higher than
its estimates because contamination is often greater than expected.
EPA allocates funds separately for preconstruction activities-”such as
remedial investigation and remedial design-”and remedial actions. EPA
headquarters allocates funds for preconstruction activities to the
regions for them to distribute among sites. For remedial actions,
headquarters works in consultation with the regions to allocate funds
to sites. EPA officials told GAO that EPA prioritized sites to receive
the $582 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds in a
manner similar to the way EPA prioritizes sites for remedial actions.
Limited funding has delayed preconstruction activities and remedial
actions at some sites, according to EPA officials.
EPA regional officials estimated that from 101 to 125 sites-”about 20
to 25 sites per year-”will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years,
which is higher than the average of about 16 sites per year listed for
fiscal years 2005 to 2009. Most of the 10 states‘ officials GAO
interviewed also expect an increase in the number of sites listed from
their states. However, neither EPA regional officials nor state
officials were able to provide cost estimates for cleaning up many of
the sites. In addition, the number of sites eligible for listing could
increase if EPA decides to assess the relative risk of vapor intrusion”
contaminated air that seeps into buildings from underground sources”a
pathway of concern among EPA regional officials and state officials
interviewed. Although sites with vapor intrusion can pose considerable
human health risks, EPA‘s Hazard Ranking System”the mechanism used to
identify sites that qualify for NPL listing”does not recognize these
risks; therefore, unless a site with vapor intrusion is listed on some
other basis, EPA cannot clean up the site through its remedial program.
What GAO Recommends:
To better identify potential NPL sites, GAO recommends that the EPA
Administrator determine the extent to which EPA will consider vapor
intrusion in listing NPL sites and its effect on the number of sites
listed in the future. In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA
agreed with GAO‘s recommendation and noted that the report contains
substantial useful information.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-380] or key
components. For more information, contact John Stephenson at (202) 512-
3841 or Stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Considerable Work Remains at Most Nonfederal NPL Sites with
Unacceptable or Unknown Human Exposure, and Some Site Cleanups Have
Not Been Funded at the Most Efficient Level:
EPA's Costs for Conducting Remedial Construction at Nonfederal NPL
Sites Will Likely Exceed Recent Funding Levels for These Activities:
EPA Allocates Remedial Program Funding Separately for Preconstruction
Activities and Remedial Actions, and Limited Funding Has Caused Delays
at Some Sites:
Most EPA Regional and Selected State Officials Expect an Increase in
the Number of Sites Added to the NPL over the Next 5 Years but Cannot
Estimate the Cleanup Costs:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: GAO Survey of Superfund Sites:
Appendix III: Sites with Unacceptable Human Exposure:
Appendix IV: Sites Receiving Recovery Act Funding:
Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: EPA Regional Officials' Estimates of Costs to EPA to Conduct
Remedial Construction in the Most Efficient Manner at Nonfederal Sites
on the NPL, as of September 30, 2009:
Table 2: Comparison of the Number of Sites EPA Listed from Fiscal
Years 2005 through 2009 and the Number of Sites Projected to Be Listed
from Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014, by Region:
Table 3: Comparison of the Number of Sites EPA Listed from Each of the
10 States from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009 and the Number of Sites
State Officials Project May Be Listed from Fiscal Years 2010 through
2014, by State:
Table 4: Description of Human Exposure Risks, Fiscal Year Site was
Listed on the NPL, and the Expected Fiscal Year Human Exposure Will Be
Controlled at NPL Sites with Unacceptable Human Exposure, as of the
End of Fiscal Year 2009:
Table 5: Amount and Planned Use of Recovery Act Funds for Superfund
Sites:
Figures:
Figure 1: Balance of the Superfund Trust Fund at the Start of Each
Fiscal Year, Fiscal Years 1981 through 2009:
Figure 2: EPA's Superfund Program Appropriation, Fiscal Years 1981
through 2009:
Figure 3: Phases of the Remedial Process at NPL Sites:
Figure 4: Amount of Work Remaining to Complete Construction at the 75
Nonfederal NPL Sites with Unacceptable Human Exposure:
Figure 5: Amount of Work Remaining to Complete Construction at the 164
Nonfederal NPL Sites with Unknown Risks of Human Exposure:
Figure 6: Average Per-Site EPA Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1990 through
2009:
Figure 7: Media of Concern at the 75 Sites with Unacceptable Human
Exposure:
Abbreviations:
CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act:
CERCLIS: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
HRS: Hazard Ranking System:
NPL: National Priorities List:
PAHs: polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons:
PBB: polybrominated biphenyl:
PCB: polychlorinated biphenyl:
PCE: tetrachloroethylene:
PCP: pentachlorophenol:
ROD: record of decision:
TCE: trichloroethylene:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 6, 2010:
The Honorable Barbara Boxer:
Chairman:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Frank R. Lautenberg:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Superfund, Toxics and Environmental Health:
Committee on Environment and Public Works:
United States Senate:
To protect human health and the environment from the effects of
hazardous substances, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) in 1980, which
established the Superfund program.[Footnote 1] The Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), the principal agency responsible for
administering the Superfund program, has since identified more than
47,000 hazardous waste sites potentially requiring cleanup. As of the
end of fiscal year 2009, 1,269 of the most seriously contaminated
sites were included on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL):[Footnote
2] 1,111 nonfederal sites and 158 federal facilities.[Footnote 3] At
the time of listing, EPA had determined that these sites posed
relatively high risks to human health or the environment from releases
or threatened releases of hazardous substances, such as lead and
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB). These substances can cause a variety
of health issues--such as birth defects, cancer, and developmental
disorders--in people exposed to them. Of the nonfederal sites listed
on the NPL at the end of fiscal year 2009, EPA identified 75 that have
"unacceptable human exposure"--actual or reasonably expected exposures
of an individual to hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants
at levels that present an unacceptable risk--to contaminants for
people living, recreating, and/or working in the surrounding areas. In
addition, another 164 of the sites listed on the NPL at the end of
fiscal year 2009 may potentially pose serious risks since EPA does not
yet know if there is unacceptable human exposure at these sites.
[Footnote 4] At the remaining 872 sites, EPA has determined that human
exposure has been controlled, but additional work to clean up the
sites may still be needed.
Cleanup efforts at NPL sites are typically expensive and can take many
years. The cleanup process begins with site discovery or notification
to EPA of the possible release of hazardous substances posing a threat
to human health or the environment. Once a site is discovered, EPA,
sometimes in conjunction with the state, conducts initial
investigations to assess the potential threat. EPA then decides if it
will list a site on the NPL based on a number of factors, usually
including the site's score on the Hazard Ranking System (HRS), which
is a tool used to determine a site's relative threat to human health
and the environment based on potential pathways of contamination; the
availability of alternative state or federal programs that could clean
up the site; and state concurrence with the listing. Sites listed on
the NPL are typically cleaned up through the Superfund remedial
program.[Footnote 5] As part of this program, EPA conducts or arranges
for a remedial investigation and feasibility study to (1) identify the
nature and extent of contamination, (2) quantify the potential risks
to human health and the environment, and (3) evaluate the potential
remedies to achieve cleanup goals. EPA then selects a remedy and
documents this decision in a record of decision (ROD). EPA then plans
the selected remedy in the remedial design phase and implements it
with construction activities in the remedial action phase. EPA
designates a site as "construction complete" when all physical
construction activities at a site are finished, all immediate threats
have been addressed, and all long-term threats are under control. Of
the 1,111 nonfederal sites listed on the NPL as of the end of fiscal
year 2009, 695 had reached EPA's construction complete milestone,
while the remaining 416 had not. However, even after sites have
reached EPA's construction complete milestone, final cleanup at a site
may not be achieved for many years, because it may take decades to
clean up contamination to the selected standards.
Responsible parties are liable for conducting or paying for site
cleanup of hazardous substances.[Footnote 6] EPA is responsible for
identifying potentially responsible parties and may take enforcement
actions against these parties to compel them to clean up sites. In
some cases, however, parties cannot be identified or may be unwilling
or financially unable to perform the cleanup. In addition, federal
agencies are responsible for funding the cleanup at the sites that
they own. CERCLA also authorizes EPA to pay for remedial cleanups at
sites on the NPL, as well as to seek reimbursement from the
potentially responsible parties. To fund EPA-led cleanups at
nonfederal NPL sites, among other Superfund program activities, CERCLA
established the Hazardous Substance Superfund (trust fund).
Historically, the trust fund was financed primarily by taxes on crude
oil and certain chemicals, as well as an environmental tax on
corporations based on their taxable income; however, the authority for
these taxes expired in 1995, and shortly thereafter the balance in the
trust fund started diminishing. Since 2001, appropriations from
general revenues have been the largest source of funding for the trust
fund. Superfund program appropriations have averaged about $1.2
billion annually since 1981, although the annual level of these
appropriated funds has generally declined in recent years when
adjusted for inflation. By the start of fiscal year 2009, the balance
of the trust fund had decreased in value from its peak of $5.0 billion
in 1997 to $137 million. As part of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act),[Footnote 7] EPA's Superfund
remedial program received an additional $600 million.[Footnote 8]
In this context, you asked us to determine (1) the cleanup and funding
status at currently listed nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable or
unknown human exposure; (2) what is known about the future costs to
EPA to conduct remedial actions at nonfederal NPL sites that are not
construction complete; (3) the process EPA uses to allocate remedial
program funding; and (4) the number of sites EPA and selected state
officials expect will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years, and
what they expect the costs of cleaning up those sites will be.
To determine the status of cleanup and funding at nonfederal NPL sites
with unacceptable or unknown human exposure and what is known about
future EPA costs to conduct remedial construction at nonfederal sites,
we conducted an electronic survey of branch chiefs from the 10 EPA
regions to collect information about NPL sites relevant to these two
objectives. We also interviewed these officials to obtain
clarification and additional information regarding their responses,
and we analyzed data on cleanup status and expenditures at these sites
from EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System and Integrated Financial Management
System. To describe EPA's process for allocating remedial program
funding, we analyzed EPA guidance and planning documents and
interviewed EPA headquarters and regional officials. To determine the
number of sites that EPA and selected state officials expect will be
added to the NPL over the next 5 years, and what they expect the costs
of cleaning up those sites will be, we interviewed officials from
EPA's 10 regions, 10 selected states--chosen to include one from each
of EPA's regions and varying numbers of sites listed over the past 10
years; as well as officials from the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials.[Footnote 9] In addition,
we discussed all of these issues with officials from EPA headquarters.
To assess the reliability of the data from EPA's databases used in
this report, we analyzed related documentation, examined the data to
identify obvious errors or inconsistencies, and worked with agency
officials to identify data problems. We determined the data to be
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. A detailed
description of our objectives, scope, and methodology is presented in
appendix I. The questions from our electronic survey of branch chiefs
from the 10 EPA regions are listed in appendix II.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2009 to May 2010, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
CERCLA was passed in late 1980, in the wake of the discovery of toxic
waste sites such as Love Canal,[Footnote 10] and it created a
mechanism for responding to existing contamination. CERCLA established
a trust fund from which EPA receives annual appropriations for
Superfund program activities. The Superfund trust fund has received
revenue from four major sources: taxes on crude oil and certain
chemicals, as well as an environmental tax assessed on corporations
based on the taxable income; appropriations from the general fund;
fines, penalties, and recoveries from responsible parties; and
interest accrued on the balance of the fund. In the program's early
years, dedicated taxes provided the majority of revenue to the
Superfund trust fund. However, in 1995, the authority for these taxes
expired and has not been reinstated.[Footnote 11] Since 2001,
appropriations from the general fund have constituted the largest
source of revenue for the trust fund. After the expiration of the tax
authority, at the start of fiscal year 1997, the trust fund balance
reached its peak of $5.0 billion; in 1998, the trust fund balance
began decreasing. Figure 1 shows changes in the balance of the
Superfund trust fund from fiscal years 1981 through 2009. At the start
of fiscal year 2009, the trust fund had a balance of $137 million.
Figure 1: Balance of the Superfund Trust Fund at the Start of Each
Fiscal Year, Fiscal Years 1981 through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Constant 2009 dollars in millions:
Fiscal year: 1981;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $0.
Fiscal year: 1982;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $157.3.
Fiscal year: 1983;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $440.7.
Fiscal year: 1984;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $650.5.
Fiscal year: 1985;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $498.2.
Fiscal year: 1986;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $0.
Fiscal year: 1987;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $15.5.
Fiscal year: 1988;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $0.
Fiscal year: 1989;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $382.8.
Fiscal year: 1990;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $523.9.
Fiscal year: 1991;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $495.5.
Fiscal year: 1992;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $,1816.4.
Fiscal year: 1993;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $2,404.9.
Fiscal year: 1994;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $2,961.7.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $3,681.5.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $4,862.2.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $5,001.9.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $3,449.2.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $2,742.1.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $1,871.3.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $1,539.1.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $1,031.8.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $662.9.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $0.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $0.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $101.9.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $180.4.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $278.2.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Superfund Trust Fund balance: $137.
Source: GAO analysis of data from the President‘s Budget Appendixes.
[End of figure]
EPA's Superfund program receives annual appropriations from the trust
fund, which is in turn supported by payments from the general fund.
Since fiscal year 1981, the annual appropriation to EPA's Superfund
program has averaged approximately $1.2 billion in noninflation
adjusted (nominal) dollars. Since fiscal year 1998, however,
congressional appropriations have generally declined when adjusted for
inflation. Figure 2 shows appropriation levels in nominal and constant
2009 dollars since fiscal year 1981.
Figure 2: EPA's Superfund Program Appropriation, Fiscal Years 1981
through 2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Dollars in millions:
Fiscal year: 1981;
Nominal Appropriation: $68;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $77.94.
Fiscal year: 1982;
Nominal Appropriation: $200;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $201.7.
Fiscal year: 1983;
Nominal Appropriation: $219;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $202.4.
Fiscal year: 1984;
Nominal Appropriation: $410;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $350.6.
Fiscal year: 1985;
Nominal Appropriation: $620;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $494.2.
Fiscal year: 1986;
Nominal Appropriation: $900;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $680.8.
Fiscal year: 1987;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,411.3;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $1,003.2.
Fiscal year: 1988;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,128;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $741.8.
Fiscal year: 1989;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,410;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $839.9.
Fiscal year: 1990;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,575;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $849.1.
Fiscal year: 1991;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,616.2;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $780.4.
Fiscal year: 1992;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,600.1;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $712.3.
Fiscal year: 1993;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,573.5;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $651.4.
Fiscal year: 1994;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,465.9;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $564.0.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,435;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $510.8.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,313.4;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $433.8.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,394.3;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $427.1.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,500;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $434.8.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,492;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $407.3.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,400;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $347.7.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,272.8;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $279.4.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,309.3;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $261.6.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,264.9;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $221.7.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,258;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $183.5.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,247.5;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $136.8.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,253.6;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $91.5.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,251.6;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $53.4.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Nominal Appropriation: $1,273.9;
Difference between Nominal Appropriation and Appropriation in constant
2009 dollars: $24.2.
Fiscal year: 2009[A];
Nominal Appropriation: $1,285.
Source: GAO analysis of appropriations laws and data from the
President‘s Budget Appendixes.
[A] The fiscal year 2009 appropriation does not include the $600
million in Recovery Act funds that the program received.
[End of figure]
The Superfund cleanup process begins with the discovery of a
potentially hazardous site or the notification to EPA of possible
releases of hazardous substances that may threaten human health or the
environment. Citizens, state agencies, EPA regional officials, and
others may alert EPA to such threats. EPA regional offices use a
screening system, called the HRS, to numerically assess the potential
of sites to pose a threat to human health and the environment. The HRS
scores sites on four possible pathways of exposure: groundwater,
surface water, soil, and air. Those sites with sufficiently high
scores are eligible for proposal to the NPL. EPA regions submit sites
to EPA headquarters for possible listing on the NPL on the basis of a
variety of factors, including the availability of alternative state or
federal programs that may be used to clean up the site. EPA has
considered the NPL the "tool of last resort"; thus, EPA has looked to
alternative EPA and individual state programs for hazardous waste
cleanup before listing a site on the NPL. However, according to EPA
headquarters officials, EPA's use of the NPL as a tool of last resort
has recently changed, and EPA now views the NPL as one of a number of
cleanup options and uses whichever option is most appropriate for site
cleanup. In addition, EPA officials noted that, as a matter of policy,
EPA seeks concurrence from the Governor of the state or environmental
agency head in which the site is located before listing the site.
Sites that EPA decides that it would like to list on the NPL are
proposed for listing in the Federal Register. After a period of public
comment, EPA reviews the comments and decides whether to formally list
the sites as "final" on the NPL.
Once EPA lists a site, it initiates a process to investigate the
extent of the contamination, decide on the actions that will be taken
to address contamination, and implement those actions. This process
can take many years--or even decades. Figure 3 outlines the process
EPA typically follows, from listing a site on the NPL through deleting
it from the NPL.
Figure 3: Phases of the Remedial Process at NPL Sites:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Milestone: NPL Listing;
Phases:
* Remedial Investigation;
* Feasibility study.
Milestone: Record of Decision;
Phases:
* Remedial design;
* Remedial action.
Milestone: Construction complete;
Phases:
* Postconstruction completion[A].
Milestone: Deletion from NPL.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Note: Phases of the remedial process may overlap, and multiple phases
may be concurrently under way at a site.
[A] Postconstruction completion includes activities such as operation
and maintenance, long-term response actions, and 5-year reviews, which
ensure that Superfund cleanup actions provide for the long-term
protection of human health and the environment.
[End of figure]
Specifically, after a site is listed, EPA or a responsible party will
begin the remedial process by conducting a two-part study of the site:
(1) a remedial investigation to characterize site conditions and
assess the risks to human health and the environment, among other
actions, and (2) a feasibility study to evaluate various options to
address the problems identified through the remedial investigation.
The culmination of these studies is a ROD, which identifies EPA's
selected remedy for addressing the site's contamination. Cleanup at a
site is often divided into smaller units (operable units) by
geography, pathways of contamination, or type of remedy. A ROD
typically lays out the remedy for one operable unit at a site, and it
contains the cost estimate for implementing the remedy. According to
EPA guidance, EPA develops the cost estimate in the ROD to be within
an accuracy range of minus 30 to plus 50 percent of the actual costs.
[Footnote 12] EPA may develop earlier estimates of construction costs,
but as the site moves from the study phase into the remedial action
phase, the level of project definition increases, thus allowing for a
more accurate cost estimate. EPA may develop more refined cost
estimates after the ROD. Because more information is available during
remedial design and remedial action, the accuracy of these estimates
is expected to be greater than the accuracy of the ROD estimates.
According to GAO's cost estimating and assessment guide, every cost
estimate is uncertain because of assumptions that must be made about
future projections, and cost estimates tend to become more certain as
actual costs begin to replace earlier estimates.[Footnote 13]
The selected remedy is then designed during remedial design and
implemented with remedial actions, when actual cleanup of the site
begins. When all physical construction at a site is complete, all
immediate threats have been addressed, and all long-term threats are
under control, EPA generally considers the site to be construction
complete. Most sites then enter into the operation and maintenance
phase when the responsible party or the state maintains the remedy,
and EPA ensures that the remedy continues to protect human health and
the environment. However, for certain remedial actions, additional
work at a site may be required after construction is completed, such
as continuing groundwater restoration efforts or monitoring the site
to ensure that the remedy remains protective. For EPA-lead remedial
actions that have a groundwater or surface water restoration
component, EPA funds the necessary activities--known as long-term
response actions--for up to 10 years before turning over these
responsibilities to the state. Eventually, when EPA and the state
determine that no further site response is needed, EPA may delete the
site from the NPL. Although most sites progress through the cleanup
process in roughly the same way, EPA may take different approaches
based on site-specific conditions.
In fiscal year 2009, EPA received about $1.29 billion for the
Superfund program, of which $605 million was for the remedial program.
Of this amount, EPA allocated $125 million for preconstruction
activities--remedial investigation, feasibility study, and remedial
design activities--as well as other nonconstruction activities,
including conducting prelisting activities through cooperative
agreements with states, oversight of all responsible party-lead
activities, and providing general support and management. In addition,
EPA allocated $267 million for remedial actions. EPA allocated the
remaining $213 million for headquarters and regional personnel to
implement and oversee the overall program; for site management; and
for providing technical and analytical support for all non-NPL sites
as well as proposed, final, and deleted NPL sites.
In addition to remedial actions, the Superfund program conducts
removal actions at both NPL and non-NPL sites that are usually short-
term cleanups for sites that pose immediate threats to human health or
the environment. Examples of removal actions include excavating
contaminated soil, erecting a security fence, or taking abandoned
drums to a proper disposal facility to prevent the release of
hazardous substances into the environment. CERCLA limits EPA removal
actions paid for with trust fund money to actions lasting 12 months or
less and costing $2 million or less, although these limits can be
exceeded if EPA determines that conditions for such an exemption are
met.
To document and communicate environmental progress toward cleaning up
Superfund sites, EPA adopted a human exposure indicator in fiscal year
2002. The indicator was applied to Superfund to communicate progress
made in protecting human health through site cleanup activities. In
addition, EPA uses the indicator in its annual Government Performance
and Results Act reporting. Specifically, on an annual basis, EPA
reports the number of Superfund sites at which human exposure was
controlled during the most recent fiscal year. EPA identifies a site
as having unacceptable human exposure when data indicate that the
level of contamination and the frequency or duration of human exposure
associated with certain pathways--or routes of exposure--at the site
present unacceptable risks to humans. EPA assesses human exposure on a
site-wide basis; therefore, if any part of a Superfund site has
unacceptable human exposure, EPA classifies the whole site as such. If
sufficient and reliable information is not yet available to determine
whether a site has unacceptable human exposure, the site is classified
as having insufficient data to determine whether there is unacceptable
human exposure, or "unknown."
Threats to human health and the environment may be present in the four
pathways scored on the HRS--groundwater, surface water, soil, and
(outdoor) air; however, contaminants may also migrate from groundwater
or soil and seep into the air of homes or commercial buildings. This
movement of contaminants--typically from petroleum or chlorinated
solvents--to indoor air is known as vapor intrusion and has been the
subject of increasing research and scientific discussion since the
1980s. Intrusion of contaminated gases into indoor air may lead to
fire; explosion; and acute, intermediate, and chronic health effects.
Though EPA conducts investigations of vapor intrusion for some sites
on the NPL, the HRS does not include a separate pathway for scoring
vapor intrusion threats.
Considerable Work Remains at Most Nonfederal NPL Sites with
Unacceptable or Unknown Human Exposure, and Some Site Cleanups Have
Not Been Funded at the Most Efficient Level:
At over 60 percent of the 75 nonfederal NPL sites with unacceptable
human exposure, all or more than half of the work remains to complete
remedial construction, as is the case with over 60 percent of the 164
nonfederal NPL sites with unknown human exposure, according to EPA
regional officials' responses to our survey. Moreover, while EPA has
expended a total of $3 billion on the 75 sites with unacceptable
exposure, EPA headquarters and regional officials told us that some of
these sites have not received sufficient funding for cleanup to
proceed in the most efficient manner.
At Most Sites with Unacceptable Human Exposure, Less than Half of the
Remedial Construction Work Has Been Completed:
At 49 of the 75 nonfederal NPL sites that EPA has identified as having
unacceptable human exposure, all or more than half of the work remains
to complete remedial construction, according to EPA regional
officials' responses to our survey (see figure 4).[Footnote 14] At
each of the 15 sites where none of the remedial construction work has
been completed, EPA or a responsible party has conducted at least one
interim cleanup action, such as a removal, and has initiated or
completed a remedial investigation; however, all of the construction
work remains, and EPA has determined that human exposure risks
continue at these sites. In addition, at the remaining 60 sites where
some construction actions have been taken, EPA has determined that
human exposure risks have not yet been controlled. For example, at the
Lava Cap Mine site in California, EPA has eliminated the exposure to
mine tailings--finely ground waste created in the ore extraction
process--in the mine area by capping it; however, recreational users
of the area downstream of the mine can be exposed to mine tailings in
that area, potentially leading to incidental ingestion of arsenic in
soil, inhalation of contaminated airborne particulates, or skin
contact with contaminated sediments along the shoreline. According to
EPA Region 9 officials, EPA is currently investigating methods to
stabilize and cover these mine tailings to eliminate the risk of human
exposure.
Figure 4: Amount of Work Remaining to Complete Construction at the 75
Nonfederal NPL Sites with Unacceptable Human Exposure:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
All work remains: 15 (20%);
More than half the work remains: 34 (45%);
About half the work remains: 13 (17%);
Less than half the work remains: 9 (12%);
No work remains: 4 (5%).
Source: GAO analysis of EPA regional officials‘ responses to our
survey.
Note: EPA reported that four sites have no work remaining because
these sites have already met EPA's construction completion milestone;
however, EPA subsequently identified that these sites require
additional work to reduce the level of contamination, and/or control
the migration of contaminants. For example, the Commencement Bay,
South Tacoma Channel site in Washington state reached construction
completion status in 1999, but a 5-year review conducted in 2008
indicated that the initial remedy was not protective and further risks
remain from contaminated drinking water. Percentages do not add due to
rounding.
[End of figure]
According to EPA regional officials' responses to our survey, EPA has
plans to control human exposure at all of the 75 sites with
unacceptable human exposure; however, our survey results also show
that EPA regional officials expect 41 of the sites to continue to have
unacceptable exposure until fiscal year 2015 or later.[Footnote 15]
According to an EPA headquarters official responsible for overseeing
the human exposure indicator, some sites will continue to pose
unacceptable human exposure for a long time because of the type of
contamination and cleanup required. For example, it may take several
years for the risk of human exposure to be eliminated at the Sheboygan
Harbor & River site in Wisconsin--which was listed on the NPL in
fiscal year 1986--because of high PCB levels in fish. The site
currently poses a risk of human ingestion of PCB and heavy metals,
including arsenic, chromium, copper, lead, and zinc, in contaminated
fish, which can cause health problems including cancer, liver disease,
and problems with the immune and endocrine systems. There is a fish
advisory in place, signs are posted in the area warning against fish
consumption, and, for the last several years, there has been ongoing
removal of sediment and soil contaminated with PCB and heavy metals.
However, according to EPA, exposure to PCB may continue even after a
significant amount of PCB is removed from the river, because it takes
several years for PCB levels in fish to decline, and people continue
to consume fish from the area. According to EPA headquarters
officials, approximately one-third of the sites with unacceptable
human exposure have been identified as such because of ongoing
consumption of contaminated fish despite actions having been taken to
prevent exposure. Appendix III contains a detailed description of the
risks present at the 75 sites.
Most Sites with Unknown Risks of Human Exposure Require Considerable
Work to Complete Remedial Construction:
Like the sites with unacceptable human exposure, over 60 percent, or
105, of the 164 sites with unknown human exposure have all or most of
the work to complete remedial construction remaining, according to EPA
regional officials' responses to our survey (see figure 5). The
majority of the 83 sites with unknown human exposure that have all of
the work remaining to complete construction are in the remedial
investigation phase, which is when EPA usually determines a site's
human exposure status, according to EPA guidance. EPA may also
designate a site as having unknown human exposure during the
construction phase of work, or after a site has met the construction
complete milestone, if new information suggests that there may be risk
at the site, or if an investigation is under way to assess a potential
exposure pathway not previously analyzed, such as vapor intrusion. For
example, the Waite Park Wells site in Minnesota reached construction
complete status in 1999 but, during a review of the continuing
effectiveness of the remedy performed in 2005, EPA found potential
exposure from vapor intrusion to businesses from trichloroethylene
(TCE) in groundwater.[Footnote 16] EPA Region 5 officials told us that
EPA designated this site as having an unknown risk of human exposure
until it evaluates a vapor intrusion assessment conducted by
responsible parties. EPA expects to determine whether there is
unacceptable human exposure at most of the 164 sites by fiscal year
2012.
Figure 5: Amount of Work Remaining to Complete Construction at the 164
Nonfederal NPL Sites with Unknown Risks of Human Exposure:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
All work remains: 83 (51%);
More than half the work remains: 22 (14%);
About half the work remains: 13 (8%);
Less than half the work remains: 12 (7%);
No work remains: 32 (20%).
Source: GAO analysis of EPA regional officials‘ responses to our
survey.
Note: Two sites are not included in the figure because EPA officials
indicated that they did not know how much work remained to complete
remedial construction.
[End of figure]
According to EPA regional officials' responses to our survey, human
exposure risks at the 164 sites may be posed by a variety of
contaminants in various media, including soil, sediment, and fish.
Beginning around 2003, EPA regions began performing investigations for
vapor intrusion, which they saw as an emerging problem, according to
EPA officials. Currently, according to EPA regional officials'
responses to our survey, 60 of the 164 sites may pose risks because of
vapor intrusion. At the Lusher Street Groundwater Contamination site
in Indiana, for example, EPA has not yet evaluated the vapor intrusion
pathway, but officials said that they know the site could pose a vapor
intrusion risk to human health because a contaminated groundwater
plume is present in a mixed residential and industrial area.
Some Sites Have Not Been Funded at the Most Time and Cost Efficient
Levels, According to EPA Officials:
From the inception of the Superfund program through the end of fiscal
year 2009, EPA expended a total of $3 billion in constant 2009 dollars
on the 75 sites with unacceptable exposure;[Footnote 17] however, in
managing limited resources, EPA regional officials noted that some of
these sites did not receive funding to clean up the sites in the most
time and cost efficient manner. According to EPA regional officials'
responses to our survey, the estimated cost of completing construction
at 36 of the 75 sites with unacceptable exposure at which EPA is
funding remedial actions will be about $3.9 billion.[Footnote 18] EPA
regional officials said that they could not provide cost estimates for
an additional 7 sites because the sites are too early in the cleanup
phase. For the remaining 32 sites, these officials do not expect EPA
to incur remedial construction costs because they expect responsible
parties to fully fund the remedial actions at 26 sites, have
identified 4 sites as construction complete, and EPA has already fully
funded the remedial actions with Recovery Act funds at 2 sites. In
addition, EPA expended $1.2 billion in constant 2009 dollars on the
164 sites where exposure is unknown. At 48 of the 164 sites with
unknown human exposure, EPA regional officials estimated that the cost
to complete construction will be about $601 million. These officials
were not able to provide cost estimates for an additional 32 sites
because the sites are too early in the cleanup phase. For the
remaining 84 sites, these officials do not expect EPA to incur
remedial construction costs because they expect responsible parties to
fully fund the remedial actions at 52 sites and have identified 32
sites as construction complete.
Even though EPA officials noted that EPA does not use the human
exposure indicator to determine risk or to prioritize sites for
cleanup, average annual per-site expenditures for sites with
unacceptable exposure have been considerably higher than for sites
with unknown exposure or for sites where EPA has determined that human
exposure is under control. For example, in fiscal year 2009, the
average per-site expenditure for sites with unacceptable human
exposure was $3.0 million, compared with $0.5 million for sites with
unknown exposure and $0.2 million for sites where EPA has determined
that human exposure is under control. Furthermore, this difference has
been increasing over time, as shown in figure 6. One reason that
average per-site expenditures are higher for sites with unacceptable
human exposure than for other sites is that a larger percentage of
these sites are megasites--sites with actual or expected total cleanup
costs, including removal and remedial action costs, that are expected
to amount to $50 million or more.[Footnote 19] While 47 percent of the
sites with unacceptable human exposure are megasites, 13 percent of
sites with unknown human exposure are megasites, and 8 percent of
sites where human exposure is controlled are megasites.
Figure 6: Average Per-Site EPA Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1990 through
2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph]
Constant 2009 dollars in millions:
Fiscal year: 1990;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $0.84;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.74;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.58.
Fiscal year: 1991;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $0.90;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.56;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.71.
Fiscal year: 1992;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $1.37;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.60;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.69.
Fiscal year: 1993;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $1.14;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.63;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.64.
Fiscal year: 1994;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $1.41;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.61;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.67.
Fiscal year: 1995;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $1.89;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.60;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.63.
Fiscal year: 1996;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $2.64;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.31;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.55.
Fiscal year: 1997;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $2.28;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.35;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.43.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $2.40;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.49;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.43.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $2.40;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.41;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.56.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $2.71;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.60;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.46.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $2.84;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.58;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.36.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $2.46;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.56;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.33.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $2.58;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.50;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.36.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $2.76;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.50;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.34.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $2.67;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.34;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.29.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $3.06;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.33;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.24.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $3.00;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.40;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.22.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $2.54;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.51;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.16.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unacceptable human
exposure: $3.04;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with unknown human exposure:
$0.53;
Average per-site expenditures for sites with human exposure under
control: $0.26.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
Note: These data exclude reimbursable and homeland security
supplemental resources, but these data include Recovery Act resources.
EPA provided these data in nominal dollars, and we used inflation
adjusters to modify the data to fiscal year 2009 dollars.
[End of figure]
Despite the relatively high level of expenditures at sites with
unacceptable human exposure, EPA regional and headquarters officials
told us that construction has not been conducted in the most time and
cost efficient manner at some of these sites because EPA had to
balance annual resources among various program activities. For
example, EPA officials told us that at the Bunker Hill Mining site in
Idaho--where people can be exposed to metals in soil and sediments and
where children's blood lead levels have been found to be above Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention levels of concern--the pace of the
cleanup had to be slowed down because of preconstruction and remedial
action funding limitations. The site received between $13 million and
$19 million per year from fiscal years 2003 to 2009, when, according
to an EPA regional official, it could have used $30 million per year
to clean up the site and control human exposure in the most efficient
manner. Similarly, at the Eureka Mills site in Utah, people who are in
contact with soil and dust contaminated with lead from mining
activities face human health risks. From 2003 to 2008, the site
received $6.6 million to $10 million a year for construction, even
though regional officials said that an additional $3 to $5 million per
year would have allowed them to complete construction at the site 3 to
4 years earlier at a reduced overall cost. However, with the addition
of $26.5 million for the Eureka Mills site in fiscal year 2009 from
Recovery Act funding, officials said that they will be able to
complete construction at least 1 year earlier than planned and control
human exposure at the site. In response to our survey, EPA regional
officials noted that they are using Recovery Act funding to partially
or completely control the unacceptable human exposure at 20 NPL sites.
However, despite EPA's use of Recovery Act funds to control human
exposure at these sites, EPA officials noted that EPA's constrained
funding had delayed the control of human exposure at some sites.
EPA's Costs for Conducting Remedial Construction at Nonfederal NPL
Sites Will Likely Exceed Recent Funding Levels for These Activities:
EPA's annual costs for conducting remedial construction at nonfederal
NPL sites that are not yet construction complete from fiscal years
2010 through 2014--as estimated by EPA regional officials--exceed
recent annual funding allocations for these activities. In addition,
these estimates do not include costs for all remedial actions at all
sites or costs for sites that have a responsible party who is
currently funding remedial actions but may be unable to do so in the
future. Furthermore, according to EPA officials, experience has shown
that EPA's actual costs are almost always higher than its cost
estimates.
Estimated Costs for Conducting Future Remedial Actions Exceed Past
Funding Levels:
EPA's annual costs to conduct remedial construction in the most
efficient manner at nonfederal NPL sites for fiscal years 2010 through
2014 may range from $335 million to $681 million, according to EPA
regional officials' estimates (see table 1).[Footnote 20] These
estimates include EPA's costs to conduct remedial actions at 142 of
the 416 nonfederal sites that are not construction complete. Of the
remaining 274 sites, EPA regional officials were unable to provide
cost estimates for 57 sites, expect responsible parties to fully fund
remedial actions at 206 sites, and do not expect to incur additional
costs to complete construction at 11 sites because these sites are
already fully funded.
Table 1: Table 1: EPA Regional Officials' Estimates of Costs to EPA to
Conduct Remedial Construction in the Most Efficient Manner at
Nonfederal Sites on the NPL, as of September 30, 2009:
Dollars in millions:
Fiscal year: 2010;
Cost to conduct remedial construction: $412.
Fiscal year: 2011;
Cost to conduct remedial construction: $681.
Fiscal year: 2012;
Cost to conduct remedial construction: $520.
Fiscal year: 2013;
Cost to conduct remedial construction: $420.
Fiscal year: 2014;
Cost to conduct remedial construction: $335.
Fiscal year: 2015 and beyond;
Cost to conduct remedial construction: $3,036.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA regional officials' responses to our
survey.
Note: These data include EPA's cost estimates for 142 of the 416
nonfederal sites that are not construction complete. For the remaining
274 sites, EPA was unable to provide annual cost estimates for 57
sites, EPA indicated that responsible parties are fully funding
remedial actions at 206 sites, and EPA does not expect to incur
additional costs to complete construction at 11 sites. Unless
otherwise specified, these numbers are as reported by EPA, and are not
adjusted for inflation by GAO.
[End of table]
These annual cost estimates for remedial construction at these sites
exceed past annual funding allocations for such actions. For example,
EPA regional officials' cost estimates for remedial construction for
the next 2 years--fiscal years 2011 to 2012--are $253 million to $414
million greater than the $267 million in annual funding that EPA
allocated for remedial actions in fiscal year 2009. From fiscal years
2000 to 2009, EPA allocated $220 million to $267 million in annual
funding for remedial actions. According to EPA headquarters officials,
however, funds from additional sources--such as prior year funds,
settlements with responsible parties, and state cost share agreements-
-may also be available to fund remedial construction from year to
year. While the amount of funding available through these sources may
vary substantially from year to year, according to EPA headquarters
officials, approximately $123 to $199 million was available from
additional sources for remedial actions in fiscal years 2007 to 2009.
Our analysis indicates that, even if this level of funding was
available in future years, it would not supplement EPA's annual
funding allocation enough to cover the estimated costs for conducting
remedial construction in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Therefore,
despite funding from additional sources, EPA's estimated costs to
conduct remedial construction will exceed available funds if funding
for remedial construction remains constant.
Cost Estimates Are Likely Understated:
EPA regional officials' cost estimates are likely understated. These
officials were not able to provide annual construction cost estimates
for 57 of the 416 nonfederal sites that are not yet construction
complete because they are in the early stages of the remedial process,
and EPA does not yet know the extent of the contamination and/or has
not chosen a cleanup remedy for them.[Footnote 21] For example, EPA
Region 9 officials said that, as of October 2009, the feasibility
study for the Alark Hard Chrome site in California was just beginning
and that no cost estimates were available for possible remedies. For
some additional sites, EPA regional officials were unable to provide
cost estimates for construction at some of the operable units at the
site. For example, EPA Region 3 officials were able to provide a
partial cost estimate for the Crossley Farm site in Pennsylvania and
noted that this estimate did not include additional remedial
construction funding that will be necessary for operable units that
have construction work remaining. Finally, EPA regional officials'
estimates did not include costs for conducting long-term response
actions--such as operating groundwater treatment facilities--that are
considered part of the remedial action or for performing 5-year site
reviews, both of which EPA funds from its remedial action allocation
and which would, therefore, increase the cost estimate for remedial
actions.
EPA's estimates also do not include construction costs for sites that
currently have a potentially responsible party that may be unable to
fund the cleanup. EPA officials told us that EPA has identified one or
more potentially responsible parties at 206 of the 416 nonfederal NPL
sites that are not yet construction complete. However, officials also
said that they were slightly or not at all confident that a
responsible party would fund future remedial actions at 27 of these
sites. For example, EPA officials explained that the responsible
parties at one site in EPA Region 4 entered into bankruptcy and that
EPA is not at all confident that the responsible parties will be able
to fund future remedial actions. While in some cases funds from a
settlement agreement may be available for site cleanup,[Footnote 22]
in several instances, EPA officials reported that responsible parties
may be financially unable to perform the remedy or fund future
cleanup. Without responsible parties to fund remediation costs at
these sites, EPA is likely to bear the costs of future remedial
actions.
EPA headquarters and regional officials also told us that EPA's actual
costs for construction are typically higher than its cost estimates
because of a number of uncertainties they may encounter. Most
importantly, according to EPA officials, the extent of contamination
at a site may be greater than EPA expected when it developed the cost
estimate, which can expand the scope of work and remedies needed and
increase overall construction costs. For example, we recently reported
that at the Federal Creosote Superfund site in New Jersey, the greater-
than-expected quantities of contaminated material contributed to a
$111 million increase in construction costs over EPA's estimates.
[Footnote 23] According to EPA officials, it is common for EPA to
remove more soil than originally estimated at Superfund sites because
of the uncertainty inherent in using soil samples to estimate the
extent of underground contamination. Another factor that can increase
construction costs is change in acceptable contaminant levels. For
example, at the Arsenic Trioxide site in North Dakota, additional
cleanup was necessary after the site had already been deleted from the
NPL because EPA subsequently reduced the maximum contaminant level for
arsenic in drinking water, which had the effect of changing the level
at which the cleanup was considered protective of public health. In
addition, according to an EPA official, the actual costs of goods and
services--such as energy, construction materials, and labor--may
increase above estimated prices, causing an increase in the actual
construction cost. At the Escambia Woods site in Florida, for example,
inclement weather, identification of additional contamination, and
other unforeseen occurrences all contributed to increased cleanup
costs of about $2.2 million. EPA officials noted that there may be
some instances when construction costs are overestimated because, for
example, there is less contamination at a site than previously thought
or the prices of goods and services decrease; however, the officials
commented that this is rare.
Because of the many uncertainties in cost estimating, EPA officials
told us that actual construction costs never equal the cost estimated
in the ROD. According to EPA guidance, because of the inherent
uncertainty in estimating the extent of site contamination from early
investigation data, cost estimates prepared during the remedial
investigation/feasibility phase are based on a conceptual rather than
detailed idea of the remedial action under consideration. The guidance
states that these estimates are, therefore, intended to provide
sufficient information for EPA to compare alternatives on an "order of
magnitude" basis, rather than an exact estimate of a particular
remedy's costs. According to EPA headquarters officials, these
estimates could vary by 100 percent from the actual costs of
implementing a remedy. As EPA's estimates become more refined during
the remedial design phase, estimates that vary from actual costs by
100 percent are not common; however, variation by 20 to 40 percent is
common, according to EPA headquarters officials. The frequent
occurrence of additional unexpected costs further enhances the
likelihood that EPA's costs for remedial actions over the next several
years will exceed recent funding levels for these activities, and EPA
may be forced to choose between funding construction at some sites in
the most efficient manner or funding construction at more sites less
efficiently.
EPA Allocates Remedial Program Funding Separately for Preconstruction
Activities and Remedial Actions, and Limited Funding Has Caused Delays
at Some Sites:
EPA headquarters allocates funds to the regions for preconstruction
activities--remedial investigations, feasibility studies, and remedial
design activities--which the regions then distribute among sites. For
remedial action funding, headquarters works with the regions to
allocate funds to sites. According to EPA headquarters and regional
officials, the funds for both types of activities have not been
sufficient to clean up some sites in the most time and cost efficient
manner.
EPA Headquarters Allocates Funding to the Regions for Preconstruction
Activities for Distribution Among Sites and, in Consultation with the
Regions, Allocates Remedial Action Funding on a Site-by-Site Basis:
EPA headquarters determines the amount of resources that the Superfund
program will allocate to the regions for preconstruction activities by
using a model that distributes available funding based on a
combination of historical allocations and a work-based scoring system
that scores each region based on projects planned for the upcoming
year.[Footnote 24] Regions then prioritize sites to receive funding
for preconstruction activities primarily by considering the human
exposure risks present at sites while, at the same time, attempting to
provide some funding for all their sites to keep them progressing
toward the construction phase, according to EPA regional officials.
According to EPA's Superfund Program Implementation Manual, at the
initiation of the planning process, headquarters provides general
projections of funding for preconstruction activities that will be
available to the regions. On the basis of these projections, each
region then develops a plan for allocating these funds to sites.
Before finalizing this plan, each region holds planning discussions
with headquarters to discuss actions that can be accomplished during
the year and alters its plans, as needed, based on refined projections
of available funding from headquarters.
To allocate funding for remedial actions, EPA headquarters, in
consultation with the regions, determines funding priorities on a site-
by-site basis. EPA's Superfund Program Implementation Manual states
that sites with ongoing construction receive priority for funding over
new construction work. Headquarters develops the initial plan for
ongoing construction based on regional funding requests, projections
of available funding, and discussions with regional officials. As part
of these discussions, EPA headquarters and regional officials
determine whether and how to incrementally fund remedial actions,
according to EPA headquarters officials. According to an EPA
headquarters official, headquarters' goal in allocating funds is to
ensure that all sites with ongoing construction continue to progress
toward construction completion while also funding some new
construction projects. EPA officials explained that demobilizing and
remobilizing equipment and infrastructure at a site once construction
has begun is costly and an inefficient use of resources. Therefore, if
EPA cannot fully fund ongoing construction at a site, the agency
attempts to fund the site at a level that maintains at least a minimal
level of construction to avoid demobilizing equipment and
infrastructure. In addition, EPA headquarters works with the regions
to adjust the amount of funding provided to sites throughout the year
as cleanup circumstances change.
For new construction, EPA's National Risk-Based Priority Panel--
comprising EPA regional and headquarters program experts--evaluates
the risk with respect to human health and the environment to establish
funding priorities for all new construction projects in the remedial
program. To evaluate sites, the panel uses five criteria and
associated weighting factors to compare projects. These criteria are
the extent of risks to the exposed human population; contaminant
stability; contaminant characteristics; threat to a significant
environment; and program management considerations, such as state
involvement and high-profile projects. Using the priority ranking
process ensures that funding decisions for new projects are based on
the use of common evaluation criteria that emphasize risk to human
health and the environment.
In addition to annual funding, EPA's Superfund program received $600
million in Recovery Act funds in fiscal year 2009 and allocated $582
million for remedial cleanup activities. EPA officials explained that
EPA prioritized these Recovery Act funds in a manner similar to that
for annual remedial action funding, with funds targeted first toward
sites with ongoing construction and then toward new projects that were
construction-ready. According to EPA officials, when identifying sites
to receive Recovery Act funding, EPA also considered additional
factors, such as the jobs that could be created. However, EPA
officials noted that identifying the number of jobs created was
difficult and that the criteria in the Office of Management and
Budget's initial guidance for disbursing Recovery Act funds were not
clear on how to calculate the number of jobs created. Therefore, EPA
officials said that they used the ability to spend funds quickly as a
surrogate for creating and retaining jobs when prioritizing sites to
receive Recovery Act funds. Furthermore, EPA officials noted that it
is difficult to quantify the number of jobs created because, while
contractors involved in site remediation reported data on jobs
created, subcontractors did not.
EPA ultimately chose 51 sites to receive Recovery Act funding.
According to EPA, 25 of these sites received funding for ongoing
construction, 24 received funding for new construction, and 2 received
funding for both ongoing and new construction. EPA officials reported
that the use of Recovery Act funding will decrease the overall cleanup
costs at some sites and accelerate the pace of cleanup at a majority
of the sites receiving this funding. At the Gilt Edge Mine site in
South Dakota, for example, EPA officials noted that construction for a
portion of the cleanup project should be completed 1 year ahead of
schedule because EPA allocated $3.5 million in Recovery Act funds to
the site. Appendix IV provides additional details about sites that
received Recovery Act funding.
Limited Funding Has Delayed Preconstruction Activities and Remedial
Actions at Some Sites and Can Impact State Cleanup Programs:
EPA officials from several regions told us that their regions
currently receive about half or less than half of the funding they
could use for preconstruction activities. For example, Region 2
officials said that their region currently receives about half the
preconstruction funding it could use and that officials try to be
flexible and creative in using the funding the region does receive to
conduct work in the most efficient manner possible. Several EPA
officials noted that limited funding available for preconstruction
activities not only extends the length of time it takes to prepare a
site for construction, but it can ultimately increase the overall
costs for cleaning up the site as well. According to our survey, which
collected data on fiscal years 2000 through 2009, most regions have
sites that have experienced delays in the preconstruction phase
because of insufficient funding. For example, officials in Region 3
noted that the Jackson Ceramics site located in Pennsylvania was
delayed in fiscal year 2005 because, when prioritizing sites to
receive funding for preconstruction activities, the Jackson Ceramics
site was considered lower risk compared with other sites in the region
and, therefore, received no funds. Instead, Region 3 funded other
sites that posed a higher risk or were farther along in the
preconstruction phase. In addition, Region 10 did not fully fund
preconstruction activities at the Bunker Hill Mining site in Idaho
from fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2009--which extended work
schedules and stopped some design work--because of a lack of funding
for preconstruction activities. Region 10 officials explained that the
region reduced funding for preconstruction activities at this site so
that the region could allocate funding across more sites in the region.
As previously discussed for sites with unacceptable human exposure,
sites with ongoing construction have experienced delays caused by
limited funding, according to EPA officials. Since fiscal year 2000,
most regions have experienced delays because of insufficient funding
at one or more sites with ongoing construction, according to responses
to our survey. For example, the Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt site in
Missouri received $10 million a year in fiscal years 2008 and 2009
instead of the $15 million that regional officials said they could
have used to clean up the site in the most efficient manner. These
officials reported that the limited funding has delayed the completion
of the remedial action and resulted in significant cost increases. In
addition, the New Bedford Harbor site in Massachusetts has received
$15 million per year instead of the $50 to $80 million per year that a
regional official said the region could use to complete construction
in the most efficient manner. According to several EPA regional
officials, delays in funding for sites with ongoing construction
increase the length of time it takes to clean up a site; the total
cost of cleanup; and, in some cases, the length of time populations
are exposed to contaminants.
In addition, funding limitations have caused delays at sites that were
ready to begin new construction. According to EPA Superfund
Accomplishment Reports, between fiscal years 2004 and 2008, 54 sites,
or over one-third of all sites ready for new construction funding,
were not funded in the year that they were ready to begin
construction, and some sites were not funded for several years after
they were construction-ready. For example, in Region 4, funding
limitations caused a 2-year delay at the Sigmon's Septic Tank Service
site in North Carolina--a site with potential exposure risks to
residents and trespassers from contaminated soil--even though it was
ready to begin construction in October 2007. EPA allocated Recovery
Act funding to this site in September 2009, which allowed EPA to
remove the contaminated soil, eliminating the threat of direct contact
to nearby residents and trespassers at the site. According to EPA
headquarters officials, 25 sites needing new construction funding in
fiscal year 2009 would most likely not have received funding had
Recovery Act funding not been available. A representative from the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
pointed to the Superfund program's ability to quickly absorb about
$582 million in Recovery Act funds as evidence of limited funding for
construction activities.
Limited funding can also impact state cleanup programs, which
sometimes take the lead in cleaning up seriously contaminated sites
that are not listed on the NPL, according to EPA and state officials.
A study conducted by the Association of State and Territorial Solid
Waste Management Officials found that funding for prelisting
activities offers benefits beyond the Superfund program by providing
valuable data, such as the data obtained during prelisting site
assessments and investigations, which help state cleanup programs
remediate sites that are not listed on the NPL. Several state
officials said that, because their states have received less funding
from EPA for these investigations than in the past, the number of
assessments they have been able to perform has been limited.
Most EPA Regional and Selected State Officials Expect an Increase in
the Number of Sites Added to the NPL over the Next 5 Years but Cannot
Estimate the Cleanup Costs:
Most of the EPA regional officials and state officials we interviewed
told us they expect the number of sites listed on the NPL over the
next 5 years will be greater than the number listed in the past 5
years. However, neither EPA regional officials nor state officials
were able to provide cost estimates for many of the sites they expect
will be added to the NPL.
EPA and State Officials Expect an Increase in the Number of Sites
Listed over the Next 5 Years:
EPA regional officials estimate that from 101 to 125 sites--an average
of 20 to 25 sites per year--will be added to the NPL over the next 5
years. This is higher than the 79 sites--an average of about 16 sites
per year--added from fiscal years 2005 to 2009. Overall, our analysis
of these estimates shows that listings could increase by 28 to 58
percent. As table 2 shows, all EPA regions expect that the number of
sites added to the NPL over the next 5 years from their region could
increase. According to EPA headquarters officials, the number of sites
proposed for listing over time has decreased as a result of the
expanded use of other cleanup programs, including state programs. Most
of the officials who expect an increase in listings noted that current
economic conditions--which can limit states' abilities to clean up
sites under their own programs and responsible parties' abilities to
pay for cleanup--are a contributing factor to the expected increase in
listed sites.
Table 2: Comparison of the Number of Sites EPA Listed from Fiscal
Years 2005 through 2009 and the Number of Sites Projected to Be Listed
from Fiscal Years 2010 through 2014, by Region:
EPA region: 1;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 3;
Number of sites EPA regional officials project will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years: 3 to 5;
Change in the number of sites listed: 0 to +2.
EPA region: 2;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 12;
Number of sites EPA regional officials project will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years: 15 to 20;
Change in the number of sites listed: +3 to 8.
EPA region: 3;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 8;
Number of sites EPA regional officials project will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years: 10 to 15;
Change in the number of sites listed: +2 to 7.
EPA region: 4;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 14;
Number of sites EPA regional officials project will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years: 20 to 25;
Change in the number of sites listed: +6 to 11.
EPA region: 5;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 14;
Number of sites EPA regional officials project will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years: 20;
Change in the number of sites listed: +6.
EPA region: 6;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 9;
Number of sites EPA regional officials project will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years: 10 to 15;
Change in the number of sites listed: +1 to 6.
EPA region: 7;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 8;
Number of sites EPA regional officials project will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years: 10;
Change in the number of sites listed: +2.
EPA region: 8;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 4;
Number of sites EPA regional officials project will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years: 5;
Change in the number of sites listed: +1.
EPA region: 9;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 4;
Number of sites EPA regional officials project will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years: 3 to 5;
Change in the number of sites listed: -1 to +1.
EPA region: 10;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 3;
Number of sites EPA regional officials project will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years: 5;
Change in the number of sites listed: +2.
EPA region: All regions;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 79;
Number of sites EPA regional officials project will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years: 101 to 125;
Change in the number of sites listed: +22 to 46.
Sources: GAO analysis based upon EPA data and regional officials'
projections.
[End of table]
Most of the officials we spoke with in the 10 selected states also
expect that the number of sites listed from their states over the next
5 years could increase above the number of sites listed over the past
5 years, as table 3 shows. For example, officials from the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources and Environment said that they expect
EPA to list five sites from Michigan to the NPL over the next 5 years,
even though no sites have been listed from their state since 1996.
These officials noted that the Superfund program has traditionally
been a program of last resort, but declining resources in their
state's cleanup program have renewed Michigan's interest in cleaning
sites up through the federal program. Similarly, while EPA did not
list any sites from Maine over the past 5 years, officials from the
Maine Department of Environmental Protection expect that one to two
sites may be added to the NPL over the next 5 years. An official
explained that potential bankruptcies by responsible parties at one
site may require that the state seek assistance in cleaning up the
site through the federal Superfund program.
Table 3: Comparison of the Number of Sites EPA Listed from Each of the
10 States from Fiscal Years 2005 through 2009 and the Number of Sites
State Officials Project May Be Listed from Fiscal Years 2010 through
2014, by State:
State: Maine;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 0;
Number of sites state officials project will be added from their
states to the NPL over the next 5 years: 1 to 2;
Change in the number of sites listed: +1 to 2.
State: New Jersey;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 6;
Number of sites state officials project will be added from their
states to the NPL over the next 5 years: 15 to 25;
Change in the number of sites listed: +9 to 19.
State: Virginia;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 1;
Number of sites state officials project will be added from their
states to the NPL over the next 5 years: 1;
Change in the number of sites listed: 0.
State: Kentucky;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 0;
Number of sites state officials project will be added from their
states to the NPL over the next 5 years: 0 to 1;
Change in the number of sites listed: 0 to +1.
State: Michigan;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 0;
Number of sites state officials project will be added from their
states to the NPL over the next 5 years: 5;
Change in the number of sites listed: +5.
State: Louisiana;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 0;
Number of sites state officials project will be added from their
states to the NPL over the next 5 years: 1;
Change in the number of sites listed: +1.
State: Iowa;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 0;
Number of sites state officials project will be added from their
states to the NPL over the next 5 years: 0;
Change in the number of sites listed: 0.
State: Montana;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 1;
Number of sites state officials project will be added from their
states to the NPL over the next 5 years: 1 to 2;
Change in the number of sites listed: 0 to +1.
State: California;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 3;
Number of sites state officials project will be added from their
states to the NPL over the next 5 years: 5;
Change in the number of sites listed: +2.
State: Washington;
Number of sites EPA listed from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
2009: 2;
Number of sites state officials project will be added from their
states to the NPL over the next 5 years: 1 to 4;
Change in the number of sites listed: -1 to +2.
Sources: GAO analysis based upon EPA data and state agency officials'
projections.
[End of table]
EPA and state officials noted that the number of sites actually listed
over the next 5 years could vary from their projections because of a
number of uncertainties. For example, all the EPA regional officials
we spoke with told us that economic conditions can affect the number
of sites added to the NPL, and several of these officials told us that
the number of sites listed from their region could increase above
their projection if economic conditions do not improve. Many EPA
regional officials noted that sites currently being cleaned up under
state programs and by responsible parties may require assistance
through the federal Superfund program if these groups face financial
hardship, such as bankruptcy. In addition, some EPA and state
officials identified EPA's policy for obtaining state concurrence for
listing as a factor that could limit the number of sites added to the
NPL if EPA is unable to obtain this concurrence. Officials from
several EPA regions noted that particular states are resistant to
listing because of financial or political concerns, and a few EPA
regional officials and state officials mentioned difficulty in
obtaining state concurrence for some sites.[Footnote 25]
In addition to the number of sites that could be listed, the number of
sites eligible for the NPL could increase if EPA begins to assess, as
a part of its listing process, the risk of vapor intrusion caused by
subsurface hazardous substances that have migrated via the air into
homes and commercial properties. Although sites with vapor intrusion
can pose considerable human health risks, EPA's HRS--the mechanism
used to identify sites that qualify for NPL listing--does not
currently recognize these risks; therefore, unless a site with vapor
intrusion is listed on some other basis--such as groundwater
contamination, EPA cannot clean up the site using remedial program
funding. Many EPA regional officials and state officials noted that
vapor intrusion is a concern, and several of these officials told us
that they believe additional sites would be eligible for listing if
assessments of vapor intrusion are included as part of the listing
process. According to an EPA headquarters official, based on recent
discussions with regional officials, up to 37 sites could be eligible
for NPL listing if EPA includes vapor intrusion assessments as part of
the listing process. However, according to EPA headquarters officials,
EPA must first determine whether or not it can consider the vapor
intrusion pathway under its existing HRS regulations, and it has not
yet made such a determination. While these sites are not currently
eligible for NPL listing, the EPA headquarters official noted that EPA
is addressing vapor intrusion at 13 of these sites through its
Superfund removal program; however, this official also told us that,
when conducting removal actions, EPA is limited in its ability to
fully remediate the source of contamination. For example, according to
an official from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality,
preliminary data collected at the Billings PCE site--which the
official noted is not eligible for NPL listing--indicated vapor
intrusion in buildings, and EPA conducted a removal action at this
site. However, according to this official, it is unclear whether the
removal action was effective in mitigating the vapor intrusion
contamination, and people may continue to be exposed. In addition,
this official noted that Montana has many sites with vapor intrusion
from contaminants such as chlorinated solvents, which can cause
cancer. If EPA cannot list these sites on the NPL on another basis,
EPA will not be able to fund remedial actions at these sites, and
continued exposure to carcinogens is possible if other cleanup
programs do not remove the risks at these sites.
In November 2002, EPA issued draft guidance on evaluating vapor
intrusion at NPL sites.[Footnote 26] However, a December 2009 EPA
Inspector General's report found that EPA had not updated this
guidance to reflect current science and recommended that EPA issue
final guidance to establish current agency policy on the evaluation
and mitigation of vapor intrusion risks.[Footnote 27] EPA headquarters
officials told us that, in response to this report, EPA is beginning
discussions to update the vapor intrusion guidance.
EPA and State Officials Could Not Provide Cost Estimates for Many of
the Sites They Expect Will Be Added to the NPL over the Next 5 Years:
Neither EPA regional officials nor state officials we contacted were
able to provide cost estimates for many of the sites they expect to be
added to the NPL over the next 5 years. Furthermore, when these
officials were able to provide cost estimates, most of them were
imprecise figures based on limited knowledge and best professional
judgment. For example, while New Jersey officials expect 15 to 25
sites to be added to the NPL from their state over the next 5 years,
these officials noted that most of these sites are not expected to be
megasites and the average cost of cleaning up most of the sites will
probably be around $10 to $25 million. Officials also explained that
they could not provide cost estimates for some of the sites, because
the type and extent of contamination is not yet known. In addition,
some officials based their 5-year projection on past listings and have
not identified the actual sites that may be listed. For example,
officials with the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality noted
that one site in Virginia could be listed over the next 5 years, but
the officials could not provide an estimated cost for cleaning up this
site because it has not yet been identified. Therefore, it is
impossible to accurately estimate what the cost may be to clean up
these unknown sites. While EPA regional officials and state officials
were not able to provide cost estimates for many of the sites they
expect to be added to the NPL, we reported in July 2009 that the
average amount EPA spent to clean up individual sites has increased in
recent years.[Footnote 28] In that report, we found that individual
site costs may have increased because the sites on the NPL now are
more complex than in the past, construction costs have been rising,
and EPA has not been able to identify as many responsible parties to
fund site cleanups as in the past, leaving a higher share for EPA to
fund.
Conclusions:
Congress enacted CERCLA to decrease the risk to human health and the
environment posed by hazardous waste sites. However, some sites that
EPA has identified as among the most seriously contaminated have
involved long and costly cleanups, leading to protracted risks of
human exposure to hazardous substances. Not long after the authority
for the taxes that served as its main source of revenue expired in
1995, the Superfund trust fund started to diminish. Further,
appropriated funding for cleanups has declined over time in real
dollars, and the limited funding has caused delays in cleaning up some
sites in recent years. The limited funding, coupled with increasing
costs of cleanup, has forced EPA to choose between cleaning up a
greater number of sites in a less time and cost efficient manner or
cleaning up fewer sites more efficiently.
Compounding these challenges, EPA may not be listing some sites that
pose health risks that are serious enough that the sites should be
considered for inclusion on the NPL. While EPA is assessing vapor
intrusion contamination at listed NPL sites, EPA does not assess the
relative risks posed by vapor intrusion when deciding which sites to
include on the NPL. By not including these risks, states may be left
to remediate those sites without federal assistance, and given states'
constrained budgets, some states may not have the ability to clean up
these sites on their own. Ultimately, assessing the relative risk of
vapor intrusion could lead to an increase in the number of sites
listed on the NPL and thereby place additional demands on already
limited funds in the Superfund program. However, if these sites are
not assessed and, if needed, listed on the NPL, some seriously
contaminated hazardous waste sites with unacceptable human exposure
may not otherwise be cleaned up.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To better identify sites that may be added to the NPL, we recommend
that the Administrator of EPA determine the extent to which EPA will
consider vapor intrusion as part of the NPL listing process and how
this will affect the number of sites listed in the future.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft copy of this report to EPA for review and comment.
We received a written response from the Assistant Administrator for
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response that also included
comments from EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and
Office of the Chief Financial Officer. EPA agreed with our
recommendation and noted that, while the agency currently considers
vapor intrusion impacts in both the remedial and removal programs, EPA
is evaluating whether vapor intrusion needs to be more specifically
addressed in the HRS model. EPA also noted that our report contains
substantial useful information on very important subjects relating to
the Superfund Program.
In its comments, EPA also noted two issues that it believed require
additional clarification. First, regarding its human exposure measure,
EPA stated that it is important to highlight that people are not
typically in danger of immediate harm at sites with unacceptable human
exposure. EPA explained that, when acute health threats are
identified, the agency takes immediate action to address the threats
using its removal authority and, in other situations, works to
characterize the risks at these sites. We agree with EPA and note in
our report that EPA conducts removal actions at sites that pose
immediate threats to human health or the environment. We also note
that EPA has plans to control human exposure at all sites with
unacceptable human exposure. EPA also commented that it does not use
the term "unknown" when referring to sites that it has identified as
having "insufficient data to determine human exposure control status."
EPA noted that this term does not reflect EPA's efforts in
characterizing a site to determine whether people are exposed at
unsafe levels at a site. While we recognize that EPA may have
collected and analyzed some data regarding a site's human exposure
status, EPA's determination of insufficient data to determine human
exposure control status shows that it has not yet made a determination
about a site's status. For this reason--and for ease of reporting--in
this report we refer to EPA's determination of "insufficient data to
determine human exposure control status" as "unknown" human exposure.
Second, EPA recognized our report's finding that regional cost
estimates are likely understated, since the estimates do not include
funding for sites where a responsible party is currently funding
remedial construction but may be unable to do so in the future. While
EPA does not dispute that the regional cost estimates are likely
understated, EPA believes that we should recognize that, in cases
where responsible parties are conducting remedial construction under
existing settlement agreements, those agreements require those parties
to maintain financial assurance mechanisms to ensure that response
actions are completed. In addition, EPA noted that it has made
considerable efforts to ensure that these mechanisms are in place for
existing and new response settlements, and these financial assurances
would provide funding for cleanup under existing settlements. EPA also
acknowledged, however, that for sites where potentially responsible
parties are experiencing financial difficulty and have not yet reached
a settlement with EPA, the parties may be unable to complete cleanups
in the future, which would increase the burden on EPA's Superfund
trust fund. We agree with EPA's assessment; however, in response to
our survey, EPA regional officials told us that they were slightly or
not at all confident that a responsible party would fund future
remedial actions at 27 sites. We also state in our report that funds
from a settlement agreement may be available for site cleanup at some
sites, but regional officials told us that responsible parties may be
financially unable to perform the remedy or fund future cleanup at
other sites and, in those situations, EPA's trust fund may have to
fund future cleanup. EPA's comments are presented in appendix V of
this report. EPA also provided technical comments on the draft report,
which we incorporated, as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the
appropriate congressional committees, Administrator of EPA, Director
of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties.
The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This appendix provides information on the scope of work and the
methodology used to determine (1) the cleanup and funding status at
currently listed nonfederal National Priorities List (NPL) sites with
unacceptable or unknown human exposure; (2) what is known about the
future costs to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to complete
remedial actions at nonfederal NPL sites that are not construction
complete; (3) the process EPA uses to allocate remedial program
funding; and (4) how many sites EPA and selected state officials
expect will be added to the NPL over the next 5 years, and what they
expect the future costs of cleaning up those sites will be.
To determine the cleanup and funding status at the 75 sites with
unacceptable human exposure and the 164 sites with unknown human
exposure, we surveyed branch chiefs from each of the 10 EPA regions
and received responses from October 2009 through November 2009.
Through our survey, we obtained and analyzed information from each of
the regions on the cleanup work that remains, human exposure risks,
short-term planned actions to reduce exposure, long-term actions
needed to eliminate exposure, expected time until human exposure risks
will be under control or known, future estimated costs of remedial
actions, whether American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act)
funding will be used to control human exposure, delays due to
constrained funding, and the impact of any limited funding at these
sites. In addition, we obtained some limited documentation to support
regional officials' cost estimates provided in the survey. We also
analyzed data from EPA's Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) to determine
when sites were listed, what cleanup actions have been taken at sites,
which sites are construction complete, and which sites are megasites.
We analyzed expenditure (outlay) data from EPA's Integrated Financial
Management System for all final and deleted nonfederal NPL sites to
determine how much EPA has spent on these sites. Moreover, to obtain
additional information on human exposure risks, we searched EPA's
Superfund Site Information System. We analyzed data on exposure risks
from our survey and the Superfund Site Information System to determine
the types of contaminants present, the types of contaminated media
present, and the exposed populations at the sites. We also discussed
the human exposure indicator with EPA headquarters and regional
officials and reviewed EPA guidance on this indicator.
To determine what is known about future costs to EPA to complete
remedial actions at nonfederal NPL sites, we collected data through
our survey of all EPA regions to obtain information about the 416
nonfederal sites that are not construction complete. Through our
survey, we obtained and analyzed data on annual and total estimated
costs to EPA to conduct remedial actions in the most efficient manner,
the entity responsible for funding cleanup, and EPA's confidence in
responsible parties' ability to fund future remedial actions. In
addition, we obtained information on total funding amounts that EPA
provided for remedial actions for fiscal years 2000 to 2009 from EPA's
Office of Solid Waste and Environmental Response. Finally, we
discussed the cost estimating process with EPA headquarters and
regional officials and reviewed EPA's guidance on cost estimating.
To determine how EPA allocates remedial program funding, we
interviewed EPA headquarters officials and regional officials from
each of the 10 EPA regions about the process they use to prioritize
sites to receive funding. We also discussed the process EPA used to
allocate Recovery Act funding for the Superfund program with
headquarters officials. Additionally, we reviewed EPA guidance and
planning documents to identify the process for assigning annual and
Recovery Act funding. In addition, through our survey, we obtained and
analyzed information from each of the 10 EPA regions on the 51 sites
receiving Recovery Act funding to determine how much funding each site
received and whether the use of the funding is decreasing costs of
cleanup and/or accelerating cleanup. We also obtained data through our
survey on delays at sites with ongoing construction. Moreover, to
identify sites that were delayed when ready to begin construction, we
reviewed Superfund Accomplishment Reports from 2004 through 2008. In
addition, we spoke with representatives from the Association of State
and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials to obtain their
perspectives on delays in cleanup.
To determine how many sites EPA officials expect will be added to the
NPL over the next 5 years and what they expect the cost of cleaning up
those sites to be, we conducted semistructured telephone interviews of
NPL coordinators in each EPA region. In addition, through these
interviews, we obtained information about factors that have affected
the number of listings in the past and factors that may affect the
number of listings in the future. We also interviewed EPA headquarters
officials to obtain their perspectives on future listings and factors--
including vapor intrusion--that may affect listings. Finally, to
compare the projected numbers of future listings with past listings,
we analyzed data from EPA's CERCLIS database on sites that have been
listed to the NPL from each region.
To determine how many sites selected state officials expect will be
added to the NPL over the next 5 years and what they expect the cost
of cleaning up those sites to be, we interviewed state hazardous waste
agency officials from 10 states: California, Iowa, Kentucky,
Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New Jersey, Virginia, and
Washington. We selected these states using a nonprobability sample,
consisting of one state from each of EPA's 10 regions and selected to
ensure that we would obtain information from states that vary in the
total number of sites listed over the past 10 years. We conducted
telephone interviews with officials from each of these states to
obtain information about potential site listings from their state, the
costs to clean up those sites, and factors that may affect the number
of sites actually listed over the next 5 years. We also discussed the
site assessment process, listing process, and potential future
listings with an official from the Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. Finally, we compared the
projected numbers of future listings with past listings by analyzing
data from EPA's CERCLIS database on sites that have been listed to the
NPL from each of the 10 states.
To assess the reliability of the data from EPA's databases used in
this report, we analyzed related documentation, examined the data to
identify obvious errors or inconsistencies, and worked with agency
officials to identify data problems. To ensure the reliability of the
data collected through our survey of the 10 EPA regions, we took a
number of steps to reduce measurement error, nonresponse error, and
respondent bias. These steps included conducting three pretests prior
to distributing the survey to ensure that our questions were clear,
precise, and consistently interpreted; reviewing responses to identify
obvious errors or inconsistencies; and conducting follow-up interviews
with officials to review and clarify responses. We determined the data
to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
We conducted this performance audit from March 2009 to May 2010, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Survey of Superfund Sites:
We surveyed regional officials from EPA's 10 regions using all of the
questions below as stated here. We provided these questions to the
regions in an Excel spreadsheet that identified the sites pertaining
to each question. We have grouped the questions below to list all
questions that pertain to a particular universe of sites.
A. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites that were
not construction complete, as of September 30, 2009.
1. Who is currently leading remedial actions at this site? If the site
has not yet had a remedial action, who is anticipated to lead remedial
actions at this site?
a. Potentially Responsible Party(s):
b. EPA (Fund-lead):
c. State:
d. Federal Facility:
e. Mixed (Potentially Responsible Party & Fund-lead):
f. Mixed (Potentially Responsible Party & State):
g. Mixed (Potentially Responsible Party & Federal):
2. How confident are you that a viable Potentially Responsible
Party(s) will fund future remedial actions at this site?
a. Very confident:
b. Moderately confident:
c. Slightly confident:
d. Not at all confident/No viable Potentially Responsible Party(s):
e. Don't know:
3. What is the projected fiscal year the site will be construction
complete?
a. FY 2009;
b. FY 2010;
c. FY 2011;
d. FY 2012;
e. FY 2013;
f. FY 2014;
g. FY 2015;
h. FY 2016;
i. FY 2017;
j. FY 2018;
k. FY 2019;
l. FY 2020;
m. FY 2021;
n. FY 2022;
o. FY 2023;
p. After FY 2023.
4. Given what is currently known about contamination at this site, how
much work remains to complete construction?
a. No work remains:
b. Less than half the work remains:
c. About half the work remains:
d. More than half the work remains:
e. All work remains:
f. Unknown:
5. Given what is currently known about contamination at this site,
what is the approximate projected cost to EPA to complete construction
in the most efficient manner? (in millions of dollars) If there is no
cost to EPA because a Potentially Responsible Party is funding ALL
remedial actions at a site, please check the box for No Cost to EPA.
No Cost to EPA:
FY 2010:
FY 2011:
FY 2012:
FY 2013:
FY 2014:
FY 2015 and beyond:
Total Projected Cost:
6. What information are you using to make these cost projections?
7. If you cannot provide cost projections for one or more years,
please explain why they are not available.
8. Is a Long Term Remedial Action planned at this site? If yes, please
provide the estimated total cost to EPA of the LTRA (in millions).
B. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites with
unacceptable human exposure, as of September 30, 2009.
1. In what fiscal year did EPA determine that there was an
unacceptable risk of human exposure at this site?
a. Prior to FY 1999;
b. FY 1999;
c. FY 2000;
d. FY 2001;
e. FY 2002;
f. FY 2003;
g. FY 2004;
h. FY 2005;
i. FY 2006;
j. FY 2007;
k. FY 2008;
l. FY 2009;
m. Unknown.
2. In what fiscal year do you expect human exposure to be controlled
at this site?
a. FY 2009:
b. FY 2010;
c. FY 2011;
d. FY 2012;
e. FY 2013;
f. FY 2013;
g. FY 2013;
h. After FY 2015.
i. Unknown.
3. Please provide a description of the actual or potential for human
exposure. For each site, please describe the actual or potential for
current human exposure, including the physical setting, populations
affected, exposure pathways, contaminants, and health risks, if known.
4. What are EPA or other parties doing in the short-term to contain
the risk of exposure or the actual human exposure?
5. What will EPA or other parties do in the long-term to eliminate the
risk of exposure or the actual human exposure?
C. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites with
unknown human exposure, as of September 30, 2009.
1. In what fiscal year did EPA determine that there was insufficient
data to assess if there was an unacceptable risk of human exposure at
this site?
a. Prior to FY 1999.
b. FY 1999;
c. FY 2000;
d. FY 2001;
e. FY 2002;
f. FY 2003;
g. FY 2004;
h. FY 2005;
i. FY 2006;
j. FY 2007;
k. FY 2008;
l. FY 2009;
m. Unknown.
2. In what fiscal year do you expect to know whether human exposure is
under control at this site?
a. FY 2009:
b. FY 2010;
c. FY 2011;
d. FY 2012;
e. FY 2013;
f. FY 2013;
g. FY 2013;
h. After FY 2015.
i. Unknown.
3. Why is there insufficient data to determine whether human exposure
is under control?
4. Please describe the potential for human exposure at this site.
D. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites (1) with
unacceptable human exposure, (2) with unknown human exposure, and/or
(3) that were not construction complete, as of September 30, 2009.
1. From FY 2000 to FY 2009, for which years, if any, were pipeline
activities delayed at this site due to constrained funding?
2. Did this site receive funding to begin construction in the fiscal
year when it was ready? If not, for how many years did the site not
receive construction funding?
a. Yes - site received funding when construction ready:
b. No - construction delayed 1 year:
c. No - construction delayed 2 years:
d. No - construction delayed 3 years:
e. No - construction delayed 4 years:
f. No - construction delayed 5 years:
g. No - construction delayed more than 5 years:
h. N/A - Site has not reached construction phase:
i. N/A - Construction funded by Potentially Responsible Party(s):
If cleanup was not funded when the site was construction-ready, please
describe the impacts, if any, of the delay.
3. From FY 2000 to FY 2009, for which years, if any, were ongoing
remedial actions delayed at the site due to constrained funding?
a. For years in which ongoing remedial actions were delayed, how much
funding was needed to clean up the site in the most efficient manner?
(in millions).
b. For years in which ongoing remedial actions were delayed, how much
funding was received? (in millions).
c. Please explain the source of the funding numbers in your responses
for parts (a) and (b).
d. What was the impact, if any, of the delay in cleanup?
e. Have delays increased the total cost of construction at this site?
Please briefly explain your response.
E. The following questions pertained to nonfederal NPL sites which EPA
designated to receive Recovery Act funds.
1. How much Recovery Act, or stimulus funding, has or will this site
receive? Please respond in millions of dollars.
2. Will stimulus funds be used at this site for (1) beginning new
construction at a site with no previous remedial actions, (2)
beginning new construction at an operable unit at a site with previous
remedial actions, and/or (3) supporting ongoing remedial actions?
3. Would construction have been delayed in the absence of this
stimulus funding? Please choose an option below and briefly explain
your response.
a. Yes:
b. No:
c. Unknown:
4. Will stimulus funds accelerate the pace of construction? Please
choose an option below and briefly explain your response.
a. Yes:
b. No:
c. Unknown:
5. Will the stimulus funds decrease the total cost of construction at
this site? Please choose an option below and briefly explain your
response.
a. Yes:
b. No:
c. Unknown:
6. Will the use of stimulus funding control human exposure at this
site? Please choose an option below and briefly explain your response.
a. Yes, completely:
b. Yes, partially:
c. No:
d. Not applicable:
e. Unknown:
7. Please describe your region's involvement, if any, in identifying
sites to receive stimulus funding.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Sites with Unacceptable Human Exposure:
As of the end of fiscal year 2009, EPA identified 75 nonfederal sites
on the NPL as having unacceptable human exposure. The human exposure
at these 75 sites is due to a variety of contaminants that may be
present in soil, groundwater, sediments, or other media at the site
and may impact areas where people live, work, and recreate. As figure
7 shows, the most common medium of concern at sites with unacceptable
human exposure is soil, with 42 sites containing this medium of
concern. The next most common media are fish or shellfish, sediment,
and groundwater. Many sites had more than one medium of concern. For
example, the Caldwell Trucking Co. site in New Jersey has four media
of concern: soil, groundwater, surface water, and indoor air. At this
site, groundwater contaminated with solvents is seeping onto surface
soils and discharging into surface-water streams in a residential
area, and the solvents may have potentially migrated from groundwater
to indoor air, posing a risk of vapor intrusion.
Figure 7: Media of Concern at the 75 Sites with Unacceptable Human
Exposure:
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Media of concern: Soil;
Number of sites: 42.
Media of concern: Fish;
Number of sites: 28.
Media of concern: Sediment;
Number of sites: 15.
Media of concern: Groundwater;
Number of sites: 14.
Media of concern: Surface water;
Number of sites: 11.
Media of concern: Dust;
Number of sites: 9.
Media of concern: Indoor air;
Number of sites: 6.
Source: GAO analysis of EPA regional officials' responses to our
survey.
Note: Sites with more than one medium of concern were counted in each
applicable category. In addition to the categories above, there are
other media of concern which were less common, including mine waste,
debris, and plants.
[End of figure]
The contaminants that most commonly cause unacceptable human exposure
are lead, polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), arsenic, and metals other
than lead. Some sites contained several contaminants, present in
different media. For example, the Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc. site
in Virginia contains polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs),
pentachlorophenol (PCP), dioxins, and heavy metals present in soil and
shellfish, as well as creosote present in sediments. As a result of
the variety of contaminants and contaminated media, there are multiple
risks at the site, including risks to (1) recreational users of the
river who could come into direct contact with sediments contaminated
with creosote, (2) consumers of large quantities of shellfish exposed
to unacceptably high levels of contaminants, and (3) workers at the
Atlantic Wood Industries concrete manufacturing business who are
exposed to surface soils at the site.
Residents of contaminated areas are the population most commonly
exposed to unacceptable exposures at the 75 sites, with over half of
the sites posing a contaminant risk to residents on or nearby the
site, according to the data collected through our survey. In addition,
contaminated waterways, including rivers, lakes, and harbors, pose
unacceptable risks to those who consume contaminated fish caught from
these areas. Risks to workers and other commercial tenants and those
who recreate at contaminated sites are present at fewer sites. The
exposed populations face different health risks based on the
contaminants present at the site. For example, consuming PCB in fish
may cause liver disease, problems with the immune and endocrine
system, developmental problems, and cancer, while human health threats
from arsenic include irritation of the stomach and intestines, blood
vessel damage, reduced nerve function, and increased mortality rates
in young adults.
According to an EPA headquarters official responsible for overseeing
the human exposure indicator, the indicator demonstrates a high
potential for human exposure, but it does not always indicate that
documented human exposure is occurring at a site. The official
explained that it can be difficult to obtain evidence of actual human
exposure; however, EPA has been able to document exposure at some
sites. For example, the Big River Mine Tailings site contains lead-
contaminated soils on residential properties, and blood tests have
shown elevated lead levels in children. For some risks, however, such
as consumption of contaminated fish, EPA may not have evidence of
actual ingestion of contaminated fish but does have information
suggesting that people are fishing in the area of concern.
Table 4 provides a description of the human exposure risks at the 75
sites, as well as the fiscal year that EPA estimates human exposure
will be under control at those sites.
Table 4: Description of Human Exposure Risks, Fiscal Year Site was
Listed on the NPL, and the Expected Fiscal Year Human Exposure Will Be
Controlled at NPL Sites with Unacceptable Human Exposure, as of the
End of Fiscal Year 2009:
State: CA;
Site name: Lava Cap Mine;
Description of human exposure risk: Recreational users of the area
downstream of the mine (Lost Lake area) can be exposed to mine
tailings, leading to incidental ingestion of arsenic in soil,
inhalation of contaminated airborne particulates, or skin contact with
contaminated sediments along the shoreline;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1999;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2013.
State: CA;
Site name: McCormick & Baxter Creosoting Co;
Description of human exposure risk: The potential for human exposure
stems from the consumption of contaminated fish affected by
contaminated sediments in the slough adjacent to the McCormick &
Baxter property. The fishing population includes local recreational
anglers and subsistence fishermen. Contaminants include dioxins and
PAHs that entered the slough via runoff and seep from the site. The
sediment remedy was completed in 2006 but it will take several years
for fish tissue concentrations to decline to acceptable levels;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1993;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: CA;
Site name: Modesto Groundwater Contamination;
Description of human exposure risk: Humans are exposed to
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) in indoor air in a building that houses two
businesses: an operating dry cleaner and an auto parts dealership. Two
sources of vapors are: (1) the operating dry cleaner and (2) subslab
soil gas from historical leaks of PCE into soil and groundwater. EPA
is primarily addressing indoor air risks to the auto parts dealer,
since the dry cleaning business is subject to Occupational Safety and
Health Administration regulations. EPA plans to install a subslab
ventilation system in 2010 to address the vapor intrusion problem;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1989;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2010.
State: CA;
Site name: Montrose Chemical Corp;
Description of human exposure risk: Primarily Palos Verdes Shelf,
operable unit 5, is the cause of the uncontrolled human exposure due
to the potential for people to consume contaminated fish. EPA's
institutional controls program is actively working to reduce this
risk, but until the fish population is cleaner, it is not possible to
completely control human exposure;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1990;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: CA;
Site name: Omega Chemical Corp;
Description of human exposure risk: Exposure occurs as a result of
vapor intrusion at commercial buildings adjacent to the site. The
initial vapor intrusion problem was identified in a public roller
skating rink adjacent to the site (potential exposed population
included children, adults and workers at the site);
however, the skating rink has since been demolished. Office workers in
two buildings adjacent to the site are the current exposed population.
The primary contaminant of concern is PCE, for which current levels
exceed long-term exposure criteria for industrial/commercial exposure.
The installation of a soil vapor extraction system adjacent to the
affected buildings in 2010 is expected to eliminate the vapor
intrusion problem;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1999;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2010.
State: CA;
Site name: Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine;
Description of human exposure risk: Residents near the mine may be
exposed to mine tailings or soils contaminated with mercury, arsenic,
or antimony. In addition, residents and recreational users of Clear
Lake may be exposed to fish and other biota contaminated with mercury,
although fish advisories are in place, warning of the risks of eating
fish;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1990;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: CA;
Site name: United Heckathorn Co;
Description of human exposure risk: The human health exposure is from
subsistence fishing in the site area. The fishing and consumption
pattern of the local Laotian communities is documented in "A Seafood
Consumption Survey of the Laotian Community of West Contra Costa
County, California" by Asian Pacific Environmental Network. The
fishing pattern is catching all available fish and consuming whole
fish. There is currently a state fish advisory for the area for
certain fish species;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1990;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: CO;
Site name: California Gulch;
Description of human exposure risk: People can come in contact with
historic mine waste. Mine waste is located across the site and is
readily accessible to community members and recreational users. A
potential exposure pathway exists for individuals interacting with
mine waste or affected surface or groundwater. The site is composed of
approximately 18 square miles of mountainous terrain. Historic mining,
milling, and smelting activities resulted in the placement of mine
wastes across the entire area. At the present time, warning signs are
not posted in mine waste piles due to the large number of piles and
community concerns associated with the signage. The primary
contaminants of concern include lead and other metals;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2013.
State: CO;
Site name: Central City, Clear Creek;
Description of human exposure risk: Recreational users may come in
contact with soil and water contaminated with heavy metals from
historic mining activities. Contact with these source areas presents
an unacceptable risk to recreational users and to ecological
receptors. The Clear Creek watershed is a large area used widely by
the community. The waste piles and the river are not posted due to the
sprawling nature of the site;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2013.
State: CO;
Site name: Standard Mine;
Description of human exposure risk: The site is situated in a remote
area outside of Crested Butte, CO. Recreational users, including
hikers, snowmobile riders, and all-terrain vehicle riders, are known
to visit the site throughout the year. This risk is primarily focused
on children who ride all-terrain vehicles inhaling manganese dust at
the site. EPA is currently studying the nature of contamination at the
site and is developing a cleanup plan to address all human health
risks;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2005;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2013.
State: CT;
Site name: Raymark Industries, Inc;
Description of human exposure risk: Unacceptable exposure pathways
exist for individuals who come in contact with soil contaminated with
lead, asbestos, PCBs, and other contaminants above acceptable levels
at approximately 30 locations throughout the town of Stratford;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1995;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2012.
State: DE;
Site name: Koppers Co., Inc. (Newport Plant);
Description of human exposure risk: Trespassers come into contact with
soils and sediments contaminated with creosote. Due to the presence of
creosote nonaqueous phase liquid at the surface in both soils and
sediments, there exists the potential for acute toxicity were a
trespasser to be exposed to that material, as PAHs are a dermal
irritant on contact;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1990;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2013.
State: ID;
Site name: Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical Complex;
Description of human exposure risk: The Bunker Hill Superfund site in
northern Idaho and eastern Washington has been severely affected by
more than 100 years of mining activities. Mining contamination has
affected more than 166 river miles of the Coeur d'Alene River
corridor, adjacent floodplains, downstream water bodies, tributaries,
and fill areas. The risks are not hypothetical or potential future
risks. Significant measurable risks currently exist to humans (e.g.,
children with blood lead levels above the national Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) standards). The contaminants are
primarily metals, and the affected media are soil, sediment, surface
water, and groundwater. Direct exposure to metals in soil and
sediments is a source of risk for people, including recreational and
subsistence users;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: IL;
Site name: Kerr-McGee (Kress Creek/West Branch of DuPage River);
Description of human exposure risk: The current unacceptable human
exposure is from gamma radiation from thorium-contaminated soils and
sediments in some areas of the bank of Kress Creek and the West Branch
of the DuPage River. In some areas, there is residential property
along the river bank with contamination above health-based limits.
Studies on thorium workers have shown that breathing thorium dust may
cause an increased chance of developing lung disease and cancer of the
lung or pancreas many years after being exposed. Changes in the
genetic material of body cells have also been shown to occur in
workers who breathed thorium dust. Since thorium is radioactive and
may be stored in bone for a long time, bone cancer is also a potential
concern for people exposed to thorium. The presence of large amounts
of thorium in one's environment could result in exposure to more
hazardous radioactive decay products of thorium, such as radium and
thoron, which is an isotope of radon;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1991;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2013.
State: IL;
Site name: Ottawa Radiation Areas;
Description of human exposure risk: The site includes 16 areas of
concerns;
some are adjacent to the original facility, and others are in the City
of Ottawa where, in the past, site-contaminated materials were used as
fill. Removal actions were completed at nine of the areas, and
remedial actions were completed at two of the areas, but three of the
five remaining areas are designated as "current human exposures not
under control" because of potential exposure via direct contact,
ingestion, and/or inhalation by trespassers, construction workers,
and/or commercial/industrial workers to radium-contaminated soils.
These three sites include a gravel parking lot, auto storage garage,
and construction company. There is no clear evidence that long-term
exposure to radium at the levels that are normally present in the
environment (for example, 1 pico curie of radium per gram of soil) is
likely to result in harmful health effects. However, exposure to
higher levels of radium over a long period of time may result in
harmful effects including anemia, cataracts, fractured teeth, cancer
(especially bone cancer), and death. Some of these effects may take
years to develop and are mostly due to gamma radiation. Radium gives
off gamma radiation, which can travel fairly long distances through
air. Therefore, just being near radium at the high levels that may be
found at some hazardous waste sites may be dangerous to one's health;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1993;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: IL;
Site name: Outboard Marine Corp;
Description of human exposure risk: At Waukegan Harbor, the PCB levels
in harbor-caught fish are too high to be protective of human health.
EPA and others have observed both subsistence and sport fishing in the
harbor area. The higher than recommended PCB levels in fish are caused
by PCBs in the harbor sediment. People who eat PCB-contaminated fish
can experience health problems, including cancer, liver disease, and
problems with the immune and endocrine systems. During pregnancy and
lactation, mothers can pass PCBs and other chemicals to their infants.
Because these chemicals affect development, children through
adolescence and women of childbearing age are more sensitive to their
harmful effects and should be especially careful. At Outboard Marine
Corp., Plant 2, the abandoned facility and some of the on-site soil,
beach sand, and sediment are contaminated with PCBs above the levels
recommended in the PCB spill cleanup policy. Although the grounds are
generally secured by fencing and are sometimes patrolled by the City
of Waukegan, there is ongoing evidence of trespassing and vandalism on
the property;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: IL;
Site name: Southeast Rockford Groundwater Contamination;
Description of human exposure risk: Residents in the contaminated
plume area are drawing drinking water from private wells contaminated
with volatile organic compounds, such as trichloroethylene (TCE).
Although the City of Rockford has provided municipal water service to
hundreds of residents and businesses, there are still residents who
will not voluntarily connect to the city water supply. EPA does not
have any clear evidence that TCE alone in drinking water can cause
leukemia or any other type of cancer in humans. However, in studies
using high doses of TCE in rats and mice, tumors in the lungs, liver,
and testes were found, providing some evidence that high doses of TCE
can cause cancer in experimental animals. Based on the limited data in
humans regarding TCE exposure and cancer, and evidence that high doses
of TCE can cause cancer in animals, the International Agency for
Research on Cancer has determined that TCE is probably carcinogenic to
humans;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1989;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2011.
State: IN;
Site name: Bennett Stone Quarry;
Description of human exposure risk: PCBs are discharging from on-site
springs into Stout's Creek, and recreational users of the creek can be
exposed to unacceptable PCB levels due to direct contact with the
surface water and/or through ingestion of fish. Although fish
consumption advisories for Stout's Creek are in place by the State of
Indiana, fishing has been observed in the creek. This is a rural
community, and EPA believes the fish are being consumed. There is
evidence of subsistence fishing from the river. People who eat PCB-
contaminated fish can experience health problems, including cancer,
liver disease, and problems with the immune and endocrine systems.
During pregnancy and lactation, mothers can pass PCBs and other
chemicals to their infants. Because these chemicals affect
development, children through adolescence and women of childbearing
age are more sensitive to their harmful effects and should be
especially careful;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1984;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: IN;
Site name: Himco Dump;
Description of human exposure risk: The current unacceptable human
exposure is from direct contact (via showering and bathing) to arsenic
and manganese in water from four private residential groundwater wells
located east of the dump. This water is slightly above the acceptable
risk range for direct contact exposure. Although low levels of
manganese intake are necessary for human health, exposure to high
manganese levels is toxic. Many reports indicate that oral exposure to
manganese, especially from contaminated water sources, can produce
significant health effects. These effects have been most prominently
observed in children and are similar to those observed from inhalation
exposure. The symptoms of manganese toxicity may appear slowly over
months and years. Manganese toxicity can result in a permanent
neurological disorder known as manganism with symptoms that include
tremors, difficulty walking, and facial muscle spasms. These symptoms
are often preceded by other lesser symptoms, including irritability,
aggressiveness, and hallucinations. Some studies suggest that
manganese inhalation can also result in adverse cognitive effects,
including difficulty with concentration and memory problems. Human
exposures to arsenic may cause irritation of the stomach and
intestines, blood vessel damage, skin changes, and reduced nerve
function. There is also some evidence that suggests that long-term
exposure to inorganic arsenic in children may result in lower IQ
scores. There is some evidence that exposure to arsenic in early life
(including gestation and early childhood) may increase mortality in
young adults and that inhaled or ingested inorganic arsenic can injure
pregnant women or their unborn babies, although the studies are not
definitive;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1990;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2015.
State: IN;
Site name: Jacobsville Neighborhood Soil Contamination;
Description of human exposure risk: The current unacceptable human
exposure is from lead and arsenic in residential surface soils and
soils at depth, greater than the site-specific, risk-based cleanup
goals of 400 and 30 parts per million, respectively. There is a long-
term threat to human health through direct contact to lead and arsenic
contaminated soils. Human exposures to arsenic may cause irritation of
the stomach and intestines, blood vessel damage, skin changes, and
reduced nerve function. There is also some evidence that suggests that
long-term exposure to inorganic arsenic in children may result in
lower IQ scores. There is some evidence that exposure to arsenic in
early life (including gestation and early childhood) may increase
mortality in young adults. There is some evidence that inhaled or
ingested inorganic arsenic can injure pregnant women or their unborn
babies, although the studies are not definitive. An enormous amount of
information is available on the health effects of lead on human
health. The most sensitive targets for lead toxicity are the
developing nervous system, the hematological and cardiovascular
systems, and the kidneys. However, due to the multimodes of action of
lead in biological systems, lead could potentially affect any system
or organs in the body. Studies of lead workers suggest that long-term
exposure to lead may be associated with increased mortality due to
cerebrovascular disease. Blood lead levels also have been associated
with small elevations in blood pressure;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2004;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: IN;
Site name: Lemon Lane Landfill;
Description of human exposure risk: There is a current unacceptable
human exposure because PCBs are discharging from off-site springs into
Clear Creek, and users of the creek can be exposed to unacceptable PCB
levels through ingestion of fish. Fishing has been observed in the
creek. This is a rural community, and EPA believes the fish are being
consumed. People who eat PCB-contaminated fish can experience health
problems, including cancer, liver disease, and problems with the
immune and endocrine systems. During pregnancy and lactation, mothers
can pass PCBs and other chemicals to their infants. Because these
chemicals affect development, children through adolescence and women
of childbearing age are more sensitive to their harmful effects and
should be especially careful;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: IN;
Site name: Neal's Landfill (Bloomington);
Description of human exposure risk: There is a current unacceptable
human exposure because PCBs are discharging from on-site springs into
Conard's Branch and Richland Creek. Users of the creek can be exposed
to unacceptable PCB levels through ingestion of fish. This is a rural
community, and EPA believes the fish are being consumed. People who
eat PCB-contaminated fish can experience health problems, including
cancer, liver disease, and problems with the immune and endocrine
systems. During pregnancy and lactation, mothers can pass PCBs and
other chemicals to their infants. Because these chemicals affect
development, children through adolescence and women of childbearing
age are more sensitive to their harmful effects and should be
especially careful;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: KS;
Site name: Cherokee County;
Description of human exposure risk: Human exposure is through contact
with, or ingestion of, contaminated soil, groundwater, and surface
water, in addition to consumption of affected fish and other
receptors. The site is a large mining megasite that spans 115 square
miles and has several million cubic yards of surficial mining wastes
that have not been remediated. The site also contains affected
sediments, surface water, and groundwater. The contaminants of concern
are lead, cadmium, and zinc;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2015.
State: MA;
Site name: Blackburn & Union Privileges;
Description of human exposure risk: Residents at a residential lot
near the site are reasonably anticipated to be exposed to lead and
asbestos in soil in the floodplain of the Neponset River and the
Former Mill Tailrace above acceptable levels. In addition, other
nearby residents may come in contact with asbestos above acceptable
levels in the sediment in Lewis Pond;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1994;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2011.
State: MA;
Site name: Iron Horse Park;
Description of human exposure risk: Exposure to lead contamination in
surface soils in the rail yard area of the site presents a current
unacceptable exposure. In addition, elevated blood lead levels are
predicted for women of childbearing age based on occupational indoor
exposures to dust from the outdoor lead-containing soil. Portions of
the site that present unacceptable exposure pathways cannot be further
controlled (by fencing, for example) prior to implementation of the
remedy since the site contains an active rail yard;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1984;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2011.
State: MA;
Site name: New Bedford;
Description of human exposure risk: Unacceptable exposure pathways
exist related to consumption of PCB-contaminated seafood. This Human
Exposure Control determination is based on site-specific risk
assessments that took the concentration of chemicals present and the
frequency/duration of exposure to these chemicals, among other things,
into account. EPA's full-scale dredging program began in 2004 and will
continue for a number of years. Regarding the seafood consumption
risk, signs are posted in multiple languages throughout the harbor
describing the existing fishing ban. In addition, EPA has led an
extensive outreach and education campaign called "Fish Smart." This
campaign includes a wide variety of elements to dissuade the
consumption of local PCB-contaminated seafood, including the education
community, the medical community, social service providers, fact
sheets, cable TV shows, newspaper notices, neighborhood meetings, and
monthly meetings with stakeholders and local officials. However, EPA
continues to receive reports that consumption of seafood from posted
areas is ongoing;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: MI;
Site name: Allied Paper, Inc./Portage Creek/Kalamazoo River;
Description of human exposure risk: The Allied Paper, Inc./Portage
Creek/Kalamazoo River site has fish in the river contaminated above
health-based levels for human consumption due to PCB contamination.
There is evidence of subsistence fishing from the river. People who
eat PCB-contaminated fish can experience health problems, including
cancer, liver disease, and problems with the immune and endocrine
systems. During pregnancy and lactation, mothers can pass PCBs and
other chemicals to their infants. Because these chemicals affect
development, children through adolescence and women of childbearing
age are more sensitive to their harmful effects and should be
especially careful;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1990;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: MI;
Site name: Velsicol Chemical Corp. (Michigan);
Description of human exposure risk: Residents are likely in contact
with soils contaminated with polybrominated biphenyls (PBB) in the
residential area adjacent to the former chemical plant. PBB levels in
the adjacent residential area show elevated risk and exceed the State
of Michigan's promulgated standard for direct human contact for PBB,
but not at levels which would require an emergency removal. The
Velsicol site is also considered "current human exposures not under
control" due to contaminants migrating from the site groundwater to
the adjacent Pine River. The fish are contaminated with
bioaccumulative compounds (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane and PBB) at
levels that present a risk to humans from fish ingestion. Although
fish consumption advisories are in place in the river by the State of
Michigan, and warning signs are posted, fishing has been observed in
the river, and EPA believes the fish are being consumed. In 1976, the
Michigan Department of Public Health recruited many Velsicol workers
for a PBB health study, which placed workers and their families in a
registry to study the long-term effects of PBB exposure. The study,
conducted in cooperation with the CDC, Food and Drug Administration,
and EPA, was in operation at the time of the 1988 health assessment.
Subsequent findings of this study included some evidence of an
association between high PBB exposure with an elevated risk of cancers
of the breast and the digestive system and of lymphomas. Because of
the small number of cases, no definitive conclusions may be drawn from
these findings. In addition, higher rates of neurologic, immunologic,
dermatologic, and musculoskeletal health effects have also been
observed in the registry cohort. However, no consistent pattern of an
association between these health effects and serum PBB levels have
been determined;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: MN;
Site name: South Minneapolis Residential Soil Contamination;
Description of human exposure risk: Residential soils are contaminated
with high levels of arsenic originally believed to have come from a
pesticide formulating plant. Human exposures to arsenic may cause
irritation of the stomach and intestines, blood vessel damage, skin
changes, and reduced nerve function. There is also some evidence that
suggests that long-term exposure to inorganic arsenic in children may
result in lower IQ scores. There is some evidence that exposure to
arsenic in early life (including gestation and early childhood) may
increase mortality in young adults. There is some evidence that
inhaled or ingested inorganic arsenic can injure pregnant women or
their unborn babies, although the studies are not definitive;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2007;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2011.
State: MO;
Site name: Big River Mine Tailings/St. Joe Minerals Corp;
Description of human exposure risk: The Big River Mine Tailings site
consists of seven large lead mine waste piles in St. Francois County,
Missouri. These piles have eroded into Big River and its tributaries.
Lead-contaminated dust has blown from the piles to nearby residential
areas. There is a risk of exposure to all age groups to lead in
residential and recreational soils, surface water, sediment, and fish
tissue;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1993;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: MO;
Site name: Madison County Mines;
Description of human exposure risk: Mine waste was used for fill and
grading in residential settings where direct exposure is highly
probable upon any disturbance of the soil. There are ongoing exposures
to heavy metals. Surficial mine and mill waste is the source of the
heavy metal contamination at the site, which has affected surface
soil, sediment, surface water, groundwater, and fish tissue. The heavy
metal of most urgent concern with regard to human health at the site
is lead;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2003;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2012.
State: MO;
Site name: Newton County Mine Tailings;
Description of human exposure risk: People can be exposed to lead
contamination through direct contact and ingestion of contaminated
soil and dust. Uncontrolled mine waste piles containing high
concentrations of lead and other heavy metals are located on
approximately 1,000 acres of land throughout this county-wide site.
These waste piles cause lead and other heavy metal contamination in
surrounding soils, groundwater, and surface water resulting in
potential exposure of people living on the site, drinking shallow
groundwater, or recreating on the piles. EPA identified unacceptable
levels of lead in the yard soil at approximately 300 residential
properties in the site. The cleanup of those contaminated yards has
been completed. However, many residences are located immediately
adjacent to the uncontrolled mine waste piles. These piles are used
for recreation by nearby residents including young children. The piles
are also a continual source of contamination to nearby soil, including
residential yards, and surface water through erosion and runoff;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2003;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2014.
State: MO;
Site name: Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt;
Description of human exposure risk: Uncontrolled mine waste piles
containing high levels of lead, and other heavy metals, are located on
approximately 7,000 acres of land throughout this county-wide site.
These waste piles cause lead and other heavy metal contamination in
surrounding soils, groundwater, and surface water resulting in
potential exposure to people living in the site, drinking the shallow
groundwater, or recreating on the waste piles. EPA identified
unacceptable levels of lead in the yard soil at 2,700 residential
properties in the site. The cleanup of those contaminated yards has
been completed. Also, alternate sources of drinking water have been
provided to homes with lead and cadmium-contaminated groundwater used
as drinking water throughout the site. However, many residential
properties are located immediately adjacent to lead contaminated mine
waste piles. These piles are used for recreation by nearby residents
including young children and are also a continual source of
contamination to nearby soil and surface water through runoff.
Significant development within the communities has also resulted in
encroachment of new housing into contaminated mine areas with new
homes being built very near mine waste piles;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1990;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: MO;
Site name: Southwest Jefferson County Mining;
Description of human exposure risk: Mine waste was used for fill and
grading in residential settings where direct exposure is highly
probable upon any disturbance of the soil. The lead contamination in
soil exceeds health-based criteria in hundreds of residential
properties. As of April 20, 2009, EPA has completed remediation of
soil at 129 residences. Residential soil remediation is ongoing as an
additional 294 properties have been identified with elevated lead
contamination that will need to be addressed;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2009;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: MO;
Site name: Washington County Lead District-Old Mines;
Description of human exposure risk: The primary risk at the site is
exposure to lead from contaminated soil and groundwater/drinking
water. The setting is both small town and rural with numerous
residential properties contaminated with lead in surface soil and/or
private well water caused by historical mining activity. The site
currently covers approximately 90 square miles;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2008;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: MO;
Site name: Washington County Lead District-Potosi;
Description of human exposure risk: The primary risk at the site is
exposure to lead from contaminated soil and groundwater/drinking
water. The setting is both small town and rural with numerous
residential properties contaminated with lead in surface soil and/or
private well water caused by historical mining activity. The site
currently covers approximately 45 square miles;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2008;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: MO;
Site name: Washington County Lead District-Richwoods;
Description of human exposure risk: The primary risk at the site is
exposure to lead from contaminated soil and groundwater/drinking
water. The setting is both small town and rural with numerous
residential properties contaminated with lead in surface soil and/or
private well water caused by historical mining activity. The site
currently covers approximately 45 square miles;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2008;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: MT;
Site name: Libby Asbestos Site;
Description of human exposure risk: Many areas of the site still need
cleanup and present significant threats to public health. Vermiculite
from the former Libby Mine contains a toxic form of naturally
occurring amphibole asbestos. The site consists of
residential/commercial properties in the towns of Libby and Troy,
Montana, as well as the former vermiculite mine site. The former mine
site is posted with warning signs. EPA has cleaned up over 1,000
residential/commercial properties and major known source areas in the
towns of Libby and Troy. Residential and commercial property cleanups
will continue into the foreseeable future. EPA is working with the
responsible party to determine the full nature and extent of
contamination at and from the former mine site;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2003;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: MT;
Site name: Upper Tenmile Creek Mining Area;
Description of human exposure risk: People are likely to come into
contact with arsenic, lead, and cadmium-contaminated soil and mining
wastes in the community of Rimini and the Landmark subdivision, a
small group of private homes approximately 10 miles from Rimini;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2000;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2010.
State: NC;
Site name: Barber Orchard;
Description of human exposure risk: There is uncontrolled access to
contaminated soil at the site in a residential setting. The pathway of
exposure is incidental ingestion of soil. Arsenic is the driving
contaminant of concern--cancer and noncancer health risks exist;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2001;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2013.
State: NC;
Site name: Ward Transformer;
Description of human exposure risk: The source property is an
industrial setting, but contaminants have migrated to wooded off-site
areas including creeks and reservoirs. The site is in metro Raleigh,
NC, which has a large population that is potentially affected via
trespassing or fish ingestion. PCB is the contaminant of concern,
posing a cancer health risk;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2003;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2011.
State: NE;
Site name: Omaha Lead;
Description of human exposure risk: Lead contamination in soil exceeds
health-based cleanup criteria in hundreds of residential properties.
As of December 2007, EPA has completed soil remediation at more than
3,800 highly contaminated residential properties at the Omaha Lead
site, and these actions are ongoing;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2003;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2014.
State: NH;
Site name: Fletcher's Paint Works & Storage;
Description of human exposure risk: Unacceptable current exposure
exists from consumption of fish containing PCBs above acceptable
levels from the Souhegan River;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1989;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: NJ;
Site name: Caldwell Trucking Co;
Description of human exposure risk: Contaminated groundwater continues
to seep onto surface soils and discharge into surface water streams
and into the Passaic River. Direct contact with the seep contamination
is possible due to the location of the seep in a residential area. The
contaminants of concern are volatile organic compounds, including TCE
and 1,1,1 trichloroethane;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2013.
State: NJ;
Site name: Martin Aaron, Inc;
Description of human exposure risk: Soils are contaminated with
arsenic and benzo[a]pyrene that pose a direct contact threat. Although
the site is fenced, there is evidence of violation of temporary
controls;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1999;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2011.
State: NJ;
Site name: NL Industries;
Description of human exposure risk: Recent sediment samples taken from
a nearby stream, as part of the ongoing biological sampling
requirements, showed that the lead levels exceeded the cleanup
standard established for sediments and stream banks in a portion of
the stream at this site;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2010.
State: NJ;
Site name: Roebling Steel Co;
Description of human exposure risk: Evidence shows repeated violations
of temporary controls that have been established to prevent exposure
to site-wide, contaminated soils. Soils are contaminated with elevated
levels of heavy metals, including surficial lead at levels up to
69,000 mg/kg, which well exceeds the health-based residential
screening level of 400 mg/kg;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2015.
State: NJ;
Site name: Universal Oil Products (Chemical Division);
Description of human exposure risk: There is ongoing ingestion of fish
and crabs from Berry's Creek and its tributaries. Fish tissue
collected from these water bodies has been found to contain elevated
levels of mercury;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: NJ;
Site name: Ventron/Velsicol;
Description of human exposure risk: There is ongoing ingestion of fish
and crabs from Berry's Creek and its tributaries. Fish tissue
collected from these water bodies has been found to contain elevated
levels of mercury;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1984;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: NJ;
Site name: Vineland Chemical Co., Inc;
Description of human exposure risk: There is continuing direct contact
exposure to arsenic-contaminated sediments and surface water in nearby
wetlands and surface water bodies, as well as exposure to arsenic in
fish. Key public areas have been posted with safety/security/public
health signage while EPA collects additional data and works with the
state on fish consumption advisories;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1984;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: NJ;
Site name: Welsbach & General Gas Mantle (Camden Radiation);
Description of human exposure risk: The cleanup of radiologically
contaminated soil in residential neighborhoods is ongoing;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1996;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: NV;
Site name: Carson River Mercury Site;
Description of human exposure risk: People are likely consuming
mercury contaminated fish. The Nevada Health Division advises that
game fish and carp should not be consumed from most of the site. The
Lahonton Reservoir, located roughly in the middle of the site, is one
of Nevada's most popular sport fishing destinations. In 1998, a
walleye caught in the Lahontan Reservoir had a record high mercury
tissue concentration of 16 parts per million. Based on more recent
sampling results, the state Health Officer issued a health advisory
that fish from the Carson River from Dayton to the Lahontan Reservoir
should not be consumed. At heavily used fishing locations in and
around the reservoir, the state has posted warning signs that fish
from the river and reservoir should not be consumed. Despite this new
health advisory, in July 2007, two men were caught at the Lahonton
Reservoir with 155 fish over the legal limit. This suggests that fish
consumption from the Lahontan Reservoir is still continuing on an
individual basis or through commercial sales;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1990;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: NY;
Site name: Hudson River PCBs;
Description of human exposure risk: There is ongoing ingestion of fish
caught from the river. Fish tissue has been found to contain elevated
levels of PCBs;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1984;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: NY;
Site name: Onondaga Lake;
Description of human exposure risk: There is ongoing ingestion of fish
caught from the lake and its tributaries. Fish tissue has been found
to contain elevated levels of mercury and PCBs, and New York State has
issued fish consumption advisories;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1995;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: OH;
Site name: Copley Square Plaza;
Description of human exposure risk: The unacceptable human exposure is
from vapor intrusion into the indoor air of residences adjacent to the
site. The contaminants of concern are PCE and its degradation
products. At high vapor concentrations, PCE is both a potent
anesthetic agent and a cardiac epinephrine sensitizer;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2005;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2011.
State: OK;
Site name: Tar Creek (Ottawa County);
Description of human exposure risk: People may be exposed to lead in
soils, chat piles, chat bases, and mill ponds. Tribal members live
throughout the area and eat plants grown on, or animals feeding near,
the contaminated areas, and some people continue to trespass and use
the contaminated areas for recreational purposes. The contaminated
area is vast, and it is not possible to prevent all access to the
waste;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: OR;
Site name: Portland Harbor;
Description of human exposure risk: Portland Harbor includes
approximately 11 river miles of the lower Willamette River located in
the Portland metropolitan area (population over 1 million). The river
is used extensively for transportation and recreation (i.e., boating
and fishing) by area residents. Sediment contamination includes PCBs,
dioxin, PAHs, metals, and pesticides. Exposure pathways include direct
contact with beach and in-water sediment, as well as fish and
shellfish consumption. Risks from consumption of resident fish are
higher than other pathways, and the highest cancer and noncancer risk
is associated with PCBs and dioxins;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2001;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: PA;
Site name: Bally Groundwater Contamination;
Description of human exposure risk: Chemicals in vapor form have been
identified in indoor air at the industrial park, which is the source
of contamination at the site. Indoor air samples revealed
concentrations of TCE above acceptable limits;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1987;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2010.
State: PA;
Site name: Crossley Farm;
Description of human exposure risk: People may be exposed to TCE
contaminated indoor air;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1993;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2011.
State: PA;
Site name: Havertown PCP;
Description of human exposure risk: A potential current human exposure
threat exists for a residential area called the Recreation and Open
Space area of the site. This area currently contains contaminated
soils that are at or above cleanup action levels for PCP and dioxin.
The contamination is located at the 4-to 8-foot below grade level;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2010.
State: PA;
Site name: Price Battery;
Description of human exposure risk: Lead contamination in soil and
dust exceeds health-based cleanup criteria in residential yards and
interiors;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2005;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2013.
State: PA;
Site name: Salford Quarry;
Description of human exposure risk: The site continues to impact
groundwater and surface water with boron and volatile organic
compounds, including TCE;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2009;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2015.
State: RI;
Site name: Centredale Manor Restoration Project;
Description of human exposure risk: Nearby residents and recreational
users of the Woonasquatucket River are reasonably anticipated to be
exposed to unacceptable levels of dioxin and other contaminants
through contact with sediment in the river and floodplain. Ingestion
of fish from the Woonasquatucket River also poses an unacceptable
risk. The river and riverbank are active recreational areas;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2000;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: RI;
Site name: Peterson/Puritan, Inc;
Description of human exposure risk: Unacceptable exposure pathways
exist for individuals known to trespass on the site. Unacceptable
current risk is posed when people come in contact with soil and debris
that is primarily contaminated with heavy metals and PAHs above
acceptable levels at both the Nunes parcel and J.M. Mills landfill
portions of the site. The Nunes and J.M. Mills landfill parcels are
partially fenced and gated to restrict access to the extent
practicable, but portions of the site abut a river where fencing is
not practical. EPA is aware that regular, frequent trespassing occurs.
EPA continues its efforts to dissuade entry to the site, including
regular replacement of locks, signage, coordination with local law
enforcement, etc. However, evidence of trespassing is routinely
observed;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2011.
State: TX;
Site name: Jones Road Groundwater Plume;
Description of human exposure risk: Some residents are still dependent
on private wells for their domestic water supply and can be exposed to
tetrachloroethene (and other chlorinated solvent degradation products)
in the groundwater. Approximately 150 residential and commercial users
have been connected to a water supply system that was completed in
2008. Even after installation of the water line was completed, some of
the private well owners who have tetrachloroethene concentrations
above the maximum contaminant level have not agreed to be connected to
the water line. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality will
discontinue providing service for the filtration system to those well
owners who have not chosen to be connected to the water line. After
the water line is operational, and the infrastructure has been
transferred to the water service provider, it will be the
responsibility of each property/well owner to arrange for the
installation of their own filtration system and filtration system
maintenance;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2003;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2012.
State: TX;
Site name: Petro-Chemical Systems, Inc. (Turtle Bayou);
Description of human exposure risk: Current human exposure is
considered not controlled for soil since the Monitoring Well-109 area
of the site needs to be remediated, and the remedial action is planned
in spring 2010. Human exposure is also considered not controlled for
groundwater. The groundwater monitoring is under way by the
responsible parties before the establishment of the technical
impracticality waiver zone, after which contaminated groundwater
migration will be considered to be under control;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1986;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2010.
State: UT;
Site name: Davenport and Flagstaff Smelters;
Description of human exposure risk: People can potentially come into
contact with soil contaminated with lead and arsenic. Remediation has
been completed at two of three operable units. The unremediated
operable unit has unacceptable exposure risks to workers from
contaminated soil in the commercial area and to trespassers in the
undeveloped area;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2003;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2011.
State: UT;
Site name: Eureka Mills;
Description of human exposure risk: People are in contact with soil
and dust contaminated with lead from mining activities. The site
consists of residential and mining-impacted areas with limited access;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2002;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2011.
State: UT;
Site name: Jacobs Smelter;
Description of human exposure risk: There are two potential human
health exposures to soil contaminated with lead and arsenic at the
site: residential and recreational. The cleanup levels are focused on
lead since addressing the lead contamination will also address the
arsenic contamination. The residential exposure is expected to be
limited to a relatively small number of residential lots known to have
soil lead contamination above cleanup levels. The recreational
exposure includes an undeveloped area. The exposures to recreational
users would be caused by inhalation of contaminated dust from
activities such as riding all-terrain vehicles that are known to occur
at the site;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2000;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2013.
State: VA;
Site name: Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc;
Description of human exposure risk: The Atlantic Wood Industries
Superfund site, located along the Elizabeth River in Portsmouth,
Virginia, is a former wood-treating site that has extensive creosote
contamination. The site also has heavy metals, PCP, and dioxin
contamination. The site is considered "current human exposures not
under control" because (1) recreational users of the river could come
into direct contact with sediments contaminated with creosote
nonaqueous phase liquid that could cause an acute impact with one
exposure, (2) consumers of large quantities of shellfish are exposed
to unacceptably high levels of contaminants, (3) Atlantic Wood
Industries currently operates a prestressed, precast concrete
manufacturing business at the site where workers are exposed to
surface soils, and (4) workers at the Norfolk Naval Shipyard are
exposed to surface soils when they trespass regularly to go from a
parking area to their work areas;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1990;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2014.
State: WA;
Site name: Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats;
Description of human exposure risk: There is direct human exposure to
arsenic and lead as a result of contaminated yard soil. Almost all
yards will be remediated within the next 2 years. Long-term controls
will be required to prevent future exposure in unremediated areas. At
other problem areas, consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish is
the major issue. Although there is a "do not eat" fish advisory with
signs posted throughout the site, this area is home to many low-income
and non-English speaking people who are likely fishing anyway;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: WA;
Site name: Commencement Bay, South Tacoma Channel;
Description of human exposure risk: Well 12A is a City of Tacoma
drinking water supply well that has been contaminated by releases from
the Time Oil Superfund site. At this time, there is still considerable
contaminant source material in the ground that provides an ongoing
release to the drinking water aquifer. There is wellhead treatment at
this well, but there are other supply wells in the area that the city
plans to use more rigorously in the future. If they do this, they will
pull the contaminant plume toward those wells;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1983;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2015.
State: WA;
Site name: Lower Duwamish Waterway;
Description of human exposure risk: Unacceptable risks are posed by
consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish. Although there is a
"do not eat" fish advisory with signs posted throughout the site, this
area is home to many low-income and non-English speaking people who
are likely fishing anyway. Also, there is a lower but not
insignificant risk from direct contact with contaminated sediments;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2001;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: After 2015.
State: WA;
Site name: Midnite Mine;
Description of human exposure risk: The site includes an open pit
uranium mine on an American Indian reservation and mine-impacted
groundwater, surface water, and sediments. EPA assessed risk based on
tribal members consuming wild-harvested plants, fish, and game and
spending time (either as a visitor or a resident) on site, with
associated exposures (for example, residents would be exposed to site
radiation, radon in air, metals, and radionuclides in drinking water).
The mine area is now fenced, but affected surface water and sediments
are accessible to people and the plants/animals they consume. Health
advisory information likely reduces their exposure, but exposure will
only be under control when site conditions result in conditions that
meet media cleanup levels and resulting risk reduction;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 2000;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2015.
State: WI;
Site name: Sheboygan Harbor & River;
Description of human exposure risk: The current unacceptable human
exposure is due to human ingestion of contaminated fish. Fish
contaminants of concern are PCBs and heavy metals, including arsenic,
chromium, copper, lead, and zinc. Fishing has been observed. Fish are
taken off-site, and EPA believes the fish are being consumed. People
who eat PCB-contaminated fish can experience health problems,
including cancer, liver disease, and problems with the immune and
endocrine systems. During pregnancy and lactation, mothers can pass
PCBs and other chemicals to their infants. Because these chemicals
affect development, children through adolescence and women of
childbearing age are more sensitive to their harmful effects and
should be especially careful;
Fiscal year site was listed on the NPL: 1986;
Estimated fiscal year human exposure will be controlled: 2015.
Sources: EPA data and regional officials' responses to our survey.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Sites Receiving Recovery Act Funding:
EPA identified 51 sites to receive Recovery Act funding. Table 5
provides the amount of Recovery Act funds EPA allocated to each site
and the planned use of these funds.
Table 5: Amount and Planned Use of Recovery Act Funds for Superfund
Sites:
Dollars in millions:
State: CA;
Site name: Frontier Fertilizer;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $2.5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA is
nearing completion of the design for an in-place electrical resistive
heating system to treat pesticide-contaminated soil and groundwater to
a depth of 80 feet below ground. However, recently collected data
indicate much higher levels of contamination at greater depths, which
will require additional infrastructure and power to treat. Given these
additional needs, EPA will use Recovery Act funds to fund the
expansion of the heating system and associated power costs to address
the deeper contamination. EPA anticipates that this additional
treatment will accelerate cleanup by removing greater contaminant mass
in soil and, thereby, reducing the contaminants affecting groundwater
resources, a potential source of drinking water.
State: CA;
Site name: Iron Mountain Mine;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $20.2;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to reduce the time needed to dredge, treat, and
dispose of heavy metal-contaminated sediment located in the Spring
Creek Arm of the Keswick Reservoir. This accelerated activity will
take approximately 18 months to complete rather than the previously
anticipated 3 years. EPA will construct pipelines and pump stations to
move contaminated sediment from the Spring Creek Arm of Keswick
Reservoir to a disposal cell. Removing these contaminated sediments
will allow the Central Valley Project to produce $3 to $6 million of
additional peak power per year. This additional power production will
be possible because current operational constraints imposed to prevent
contaminated sediment releases to the Shasta Dam and the Spring Creek
Power House will no longer be needed.
State: CA;
Site name: Sulphur Bank Mercury Mine;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $1;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to start the cleanup of mine wastes. EPA's primary
efforts will be planning and coordinating activities with the Elem
Pomo Tribe; the procurement of a construction subcontractor;
the initiation of work to provide temporary water supply, sewer
service, and access for Elem Indian Colony residents during the
cleanup; and planning efforts to assure the performance of mine waste
excavation and disposal efforts.
State: CO;
Site name: Central City, Clear Creek;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $1.4;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to consolidate and cap additional mine waste piles,
implement sediment control and drainage controls, and treat water to
mitigate heavy metal impacts to Clear Creek. Reclaimed areas will be
revegetated and restored. This work moves the project one step closer
to completion by assisting in the recovery of aquatic life in the
North Fork of Clear Creek. Work at the site will also reduce metal
loads entering the watershed supplying water to Denver area residents.
State: CO;
Site name: Summitville Mine;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $17;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to construct the Summitville water treatment plant.
The plant's construction is the final long-term cleanup activity
planned at the site and will lead to achievement of the site-wide
construction completion milestone ahead of schedule.
State: DE;
Site name: Standard Chlorine of Delaware, Inc;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $2.7;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to complete removal of the remaining 800 totes of
bulk liquid chemicals. In addition to completing the tote removal, EPA
will use the Recovery Act funds to upgrade the groundwater treatment
system, which will reduce future years' funding needs.
State: FL;
Site name: Escambia Wood-Pensacola;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $3.5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to speed up the ongoing cleanup of off-site
properties and more quickly eliminate human exposure pathways to
contaminants. The Recovery Act funding will also accelerate ongoing on-
site construction, which will lead to completion of the soil cleanup
earlier. Speeding up the cleanup schedule will make the site available
for earlier redevelopment.
State: FL;
Site name: Tower Chemical Co;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $8.5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to speed up ongoing cleanup activities. The funds
will support the excavation and off-site disposal of the remaining
contaminated soils in the immediate areas surrounding the site's
former wastewater pond and burn/burial area, sediments in a shallow
drainage ditch, and sediments in two wetland areas. The work will also
include backfilling and revegetation of excavated areas and wetland
restoration. EPA expects that removal of these remaining source soils,
estimated at 28,000 cubic yards, will expedite the cleanup. A follow-
up action for deeper groundwater contamination may be necessary to
reach groundwater cleanup goals.
State: FL;
Site name: United Metals, Inc;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $7.4;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to begin the long-term cleanup action, which
includes excavating contaminated soil and sediment. After excavation,
EPA will treat the contaminated soil and sediment by solidification
and stabilization. Treated soil and sediment will be placed in an on-
site containment cell. The excavated areas will be backfilled and
revegetated. EPA will restore the nearby wetlands after the
contaminated sediment is excavated. The Recovery Act funds will allow
for completion of the soil containment system.
State: GA;
Site name: Brunswick Wood Preserving;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $8.3;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to speed up completion of the ongoing long-term
construction, primarily to support the capping of the containment
cells and groundwater treatment. EPA expects completion of these
activities will eliminate the ongoing impacts to Burnett Creek.
State: GA;
Site name: Woolfolk Chemical Works, Inc;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $1.8;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to support the on-site work for the ongoing action
at the former facility property. Specific work activities will consist
of soil excavation, on-site soil treatment, backfilling, stockpiling
for off-site disposal, grading, closure, and revegetating the property.
State: ID;
Site name: Bunker Hill Mining & Metallurgical Complex;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $15;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to expedite the Coeur d'Alene Basin residential
cleanup program, which is a top priority for the site and key to
protecting public health. EPA estimates that the basin residential
cleanup will be completed in fiscal year 2015. With the Recovery Act
funding, EPA believes that this aspect of the site's cleanup could be
completed 2 years earlier, by the end of fiscal year 2013.
State: IL;
Site name: Outboard Marine Corp;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $18;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to conduct the demolition of a facility
contaminated with PCBs and to excavate and dispose of off-site PCB-
contaminated soil and sediment. Demolition of the building will enable
the property to be redeveloped, in accordance with the city's plans,
while groundwater restoration steps are under way.
State: IN;
Site name: Continental Steel Corp;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $6;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to support cleanup actions related to the
groundwater and slag processing area. To address the large portion of
the aquifer contaminated with volatile organic compounds, EPA will use
the Recovery Act funds to install groundwater extraction wells,
operate the wells to contain the existing contaminant plume, and
remove contaminated groundwater and send it off-site for treatment.
EPA also will use the Recovery Act funds to regrade the slag pile and
to install a protective soil cover over the area once the regrading is
complete.
State: IN;
Site name: Jacobsville Neighborhood Soil Contamination;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $13;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to conduct all of the cleanup and restoration work
at approximately 125 homes in the first operable unit. Lead and
arsenic-contaminated residential soils will be excavated to the depth
of elevated concentrations, a maximum depth of 2 feet. EPA will
dispose of contaminated soil off-site. Yards will then be reseeded and
returned to their original condition. This cleanup will be the start
of the first long-term cleanup action at the site. Use of the Recovery
Act funds will allow EPA to speed up the cleanup of the first operable
unit, which will result in the reduced exposure of residents to
contaminants.
State: KS;
Site name: Cherokee County;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $15;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to support cleanup activities at the Badger,
Lawton, Baxter Springs, and Treece subsites. At the Badger and Lawton
subsites, EPA will use the funds to support the initial base year of
cleanup work consisting of excavation, consolidation, capping, and
revegetation of approximately 120 acres or 700,000 cubic yards of mine
waste. This activity will address all surface mine and mill wastes at
these subsites. The funding will enable the project to be completed in
a 3-year time frame. At the Baxter and Treece subsites, the Recovery
Act funds will support the ongoing excavation, consolidation, capping,
and revegetation activities associated with approximately 380 acres,
or 2.1 million cubic yards, of mine waste. EPA anticipates that the
funding will support the completion of these activities, which are
addressing the final area of surface mine and mill waste at the site.
EPA expects that Recovery Act funds will expedite the projected 10-
year cleanup.
State: MA;
Site name: Hatheway & Patterson;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $20;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to fully implement the comprehensive site remedy
and achieve site-wide construction completion of the site. Cleanup
construction activities will involve the excavation of approximately
31,000 cubic yards of soil exceeding cleanup levels. Soils containing
dioxin and oily material will be disposed of off-site at a licensed
facility, while soils containing pentachlorophenol, semivolatile
organic compounds, and arsenic will be consolidated on-site under a
low-permeability cover. EPA expects that a portion of the site will be
reused as a commuter railroad parking facility. Other areas of the
site will also be made ready for future commercial uses and/or open
space as a result of cleanup actions.
State: MA;
Site name: New Bedford Harbor;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $30;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to supplement existing funds for ongoing dredging
efforts, which will accelerate cleanup activities. While the entire
cleanup effort will extend beyond the use of this additional funding,
the funds will speed up these efforts by allowing the dredging of a
larger volume of contaminated sediment from the highly contaminated
upper harbor. The accelerated cleanup will help facilitate the city's
plans to develop shoreline public access, recreational boating,
competitive rowing, and wetland restoration in the upper and lower
harbor areas.
State: MA;
Site name: Silresim Chemical Corp;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $14;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to achieve site-wide construction completion for
the Silresim site. The specific activities EPA will conduct with these
funds include cleaning up contaminated soil using thermally enhanced
soil vapor extraction, which involves heating 67,000 cubic yards of
contaminated soil over an approximately 1.25-acre area, and removing
and treating the contaminated vapor from these soils. EPA will also
complete construction of the final cover on the Silresim property,
which will make a portion of the site ready for potential future reuse.
State: MN;
Site name: South Minneapolis Residential Soil Contamination;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $20;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to conduct all cleanup and restoration work at the
approximately 500 remaining residential properties with soils above
the arsenic soil cleanup standard. The activities include the
excavation and off-site disposal of all contaminated soil above the
cleanup standard, with excavation to occur to a depth of 12 inches in
lawn areas, and 18 inches in garden areas. If confirmation samples
from the base of the excavation show arsenic levels above the acute
arsenic cleanup standard, EPA will continue excavating soil until the
acute standard is met or foundation depth is reach. Once excavation is
complete, the properties will be restored to their original condition.
The activities also include establishing institutional controls on
properties where excavation is not possible due to access restrictions.
State: MO;
Site name: Madison County Mines;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $11.1;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to support ongoing excavation, replacement, and
disposal of approximately 205,000 cubic yards of lead-contaminated
residential soil at approximately 800 residential properties.
Consistent with EPA's overall site cleanup approach, this activity
will address the highest priority and greatest risk to human health at
the site--exposure of young children to lead-contaminated residential
soil. EPA anticipates that the Recovery Act funding will allow for the
projected 4-to 5-year cleanup to be completed on an expedited schedule.
State: MO;
Site name: Oronogo-Duenweg Mining Belt;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $10;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to support excavation and disposal of the site's
contaminated mining wastes, soils, and sediments. Recovery Act funds
also will support capping of the disposal areas, backfilling and
revegetating excavated areas, and constructing wetlands to improve
surface water cleanup. The additional funding will expedite the
ongoing cleanup action by addressing an additional 600 to 800 acres of
contaminated mining waste and soil.
State: MT;
Site name: Upper Tenmile Creek Mining Area;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $6.5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to expedite the ongoing cleanup and to start new
work. Ongoing work to be supported by Recovery Act funds includes the
removal of waste from residential yards in the community of Rimini and
the Landmark subdivision, removal of waste at the Lee Mountain Mine,
placement of waste in the Luttrell Repository, and additional
stabilization and partial capping of the repository. New work to be
performed with Recovery Act funds will be the removal of waste from
the Rimini Road area.
State: NC;
Site name: GMH Electronics;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $1.5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to extend the existing City of Roxboro's municipal
drinking water line to the area affected by the contamination.
Residences that have contamination attributable to the site in their
private drinking water wells, or are located within a 500-foot buffer
area of the contaminated groundwater plume, will be offered a
connection to this public water supply. A follow-up action will be
needed to address contaminated sources, contaminated groundwater, and
any other contaminated media caused by the site.
State: NC;
Site name: Sigmon's Septic Tank Service;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $1;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to begin cleanup activities to excavate
contaminated soil. After being excavated, EPA will dispose of the
contaminated soil off-site. EPA will backfill and revegetate the
excavated area.
State: ND;
Site name: Arsenic Trioxide Site;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $13.8;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to accelerate the project to bring safe drinking
water to approximately 180 remaining rural households and to expand
the water treatment and distribution facilities to handle the
increased demand. EPA estimates that the project schedule will be
accelerated by 1 year. Specific activities include drilling two
additional water supply wells, installing an additional water
treatment filter, constructing an additional reservoir and pump house,
modifying four existing reservoirs, and extending water distribution
lines.
State: NE;
Site name: Omaha Lead;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $25;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to significantly increase the pace of ongoing long-
term soil cleanup and lead-based paint stabilization activities. Small
businesses with incentives to hire and purchase materials locally will
conduct the work. While EPA will need to continue work at this site in
future years, the funding will help expedite implementation of the
final cleanup approach for the site, estimated to be completed in 5 to
10 years.
State: NH;
Site name: Ottati & Goss/Kingston Steel Drum;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $2;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to support the next round of the ongoing in situ
chemical oxidation work.
State: NJ;
Site name: Cornell Dubilier Electronics Inc;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $30;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to accelerate the cleanup of contaminated soil and
debris. Contaminated soils will be treated on-site using low
temperature thermal desorption. Soils that cannot be cleaned through
on-site treatment will be transported off-site for disposal.
Addressing the contaminated soils will allow redevelopment to begin at
the industrial park, which is part of a Borough of South Plainfield-
approved redevelopment plan.
State: NJ;
Site name: Emmell's Septic Landfill;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $3;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to accelerate the cleanup of PCB-contaminated soil
remaining at the site. The funds will support the start of excavation
and off-site disposal of contaminated soil, backfilling of the
excavated soil, and revegetation of the affected area. This action
will alleviate potential risks associated with direct contact with PCB-
contaminated soil and the potential inhalation of contaminated dust.
While addressing the site's contaminated soil, EPA will begin interim
cleanup activities to address groundwater, which calls for the on-site
construction of a groundwater extraction and treatment system to
control movement of the contaminated groundwater off of the site
property.
State: NJ;
Site name: Horseshoe Road;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to accelerate the cleanup of the remaining on-site
soils that act as a source of contamination to the groundwater and
surface water, which drain into the Raritan River.
State: NJ;
Site name: Imperial Oil Co.;
Inc./Champion Chemicals;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $25;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to accelerate the cleanup of the remaining
contaminated soil components, which are the major source of
contamination to the groundwater beneath the site. Accelerating the
cleanup of the site soils is expected to reduce the overall site
cleanup cost and hasten the reuse/redevelopment of the site.
State: NJ;
Site name: Monitor Devices;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $3;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to start groundwater cleanup activities.
State: NJ;
Site name: Price Landfill;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $16;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds for construction and operation of a groundwater
extraction and treatment system near the site property. This system
will control further migration of groundwater contamination. After
implementation of the source control action, which includes capping of
the landfill, a groundwater remedy will be put into place to address
the down-gradient portion of the groundwater contaminant plume. The
goal of this remedy is aquifer restoration. Accelerating the
implementation of the source control action will reduce the cost
associated with restoring the aquifer.
State: NJ;
Site name: Roebling Steel Co;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $27;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to remove approximately 242,000 cubic yards of
contaminated sediments from the Back Channel Delaware River and Crafts
Creek. The sediments are contaminated with varying degrees of metals,
including, lead, copper and zinc, and PAHs. The project will include
dredging and dewatering contaminated sediments, placement of sediments
in the slag area, stabilization of Back Channel shoreline, and wetland
restoration of affected areas. EPA expects that cleanup of the
contaminated sediments will accelerate the overall site cleanup, which
may increase reuse and redevelopment potential.
State: NJ;
Site name: Vineland Chemical Co., Inc;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $20;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to accelerate the cleanup of the remaining
stretches of Blackwater Branch. The associated contaminated sediments
are the major remaining source of arsenic contamination to the Maurice
River (designated as a scenic river) and Union Lake (the second
largest lake in New Jersey). EPA anticipates that accelerating the
cleanup of the Blackwater Branch will reduce the overall cleanup of
the site by approximately 2 years.
State: NJ;
Site name: Welsbach & General Gas Mantle (Camden Radiation);
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $22;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to clean up the radiologically contaminated soils
around the former General Gas Mantle facility in Camden. The EPA
believes the cleanup of the General Gas Mantle property will serve as
a catalyst for redevelopment of the area.
State: NM;
Site name: Grants Chlorinated Solvents;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $4;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to expedite the construction of the groundwater
remedy, which includes the installation of wells for enhanced
biological treatment, in situ chemical oxidation, and thermal
desorption to destroy the chlorinated solvents in the groundwater. EPA
will be flexible in constructing the individual components of the
remedy at the site. Installation of the groundwater remedy will
eliminate the source of the indoor air contamination and ensure that
the vapor mitigation systems currently being installed on 14 houses
above the groundwater plume function as intended. Installation of the
groundwater remedy will also protect the source of the area's drinking
water by preventing contamination from migrating to the deeper aquifer.
State: NY;
Site name: Lawrence Aviation Industries, Inc;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to implement a portion of the groundwater remedy
for the site, which consists of an extraction and treatment system and
the in situ chemical oxidation process. These actions, aimed at source
control, will prevent the further migration of groundwater
contaminants beyond the plant site boundary. Over time, the actions
also will eliminate further contamination of down-gradient surface
waters and sediments in Old Mill Pond and Old Mill Creek in Port
Jefferson.
State: NY;
Site name: Old Roosevelt Field Contaminated GW Area;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $10;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to accelerate the cleanup of the contaminated
groundwater and to protect two municipal well fields that extract
water from the site's sole-source aquifer. EPA anticipates that
accelerating the cleanup of the groundwater will eliminate the need
for treatment of the public water supply in the future. Given the
risks associated with chlorinated solvent contamination in
groundwater, shortening the cleanup time frame will be protective of
the more than 8,000 people who get their drinking water from the
public water supply.
State: OK;
Site name: Tar Creek (Ottawa County);
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $34.5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to continue the ongoing voluntary relocation
efforts of Picher, Cardin, and Hockerville residents. EPA projects
that the relocations will be completed within 3 years. Additional
funds will be used to accelerate the start of the chat excavation from
the remote areas of the site and from area streams. Other additional
work to be performed includes constructing a repository, providing
alternate water supply to two rural residential properties, and
conducting cleanup of rural residential yards. EPA is currently
negotiating with several mining companies to complete the work on
their operating areas of the site. EPA expects that the use of
Recovery Act funds will accelerate the overall cleanup. As chat at Tar
Creek is addressed, the land will become available for agricultural
development.
State: PA;
Site name: Crossley Farm;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $6.5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to start the construction necessary to begin the
site's groundwater cleanup activities. Once this project is completed,
and the plume is addressed, EPA will focus future cleanup efforts on
the source area.
State: PA;
Site name: Havertown PCP;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $4.2;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to complete cleanup activities at the site. The
remaining cleanup activities include work to improve the performance
of the groundwater treatment system, which among other actions, will
involve installing an additional deep recovery well. Other cleanup
activities include excavating the open recreational area and
backfilling it with clean soil, removing a portion of the abandoned
sewer line, installing three new extraction wells and up to five new
monitoring wells, and implementing ecological sampling to demonstrate
habitat and fish community recovery. EPA also plans to implement
institutional controls to protect the site's cleanup.
State: SD;
Site name: Gilt Edge Mine;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $3.5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds at the Ruby Repository portion of the site to grout
unlined portions of the clean-water ditches and to repair/replace
existing liners. The repair of these ditches will reduce the volume of
acid rock drainage collected and treated at the water treatment plant.
The Recovery Act funding is expected to lead to a long-term cleanup
completion of operable unit 3 and enable future funding to focus on
the remaining site cleanup.
State: TX;
Site name: Garland Creosoting;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $6;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to expedite achievement of site-wide construction
completion.
State: UT;
Site name: Bountiful/Woods Cross 5th S. PCE Plume;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to start the cleanup work at operable unit 2, which
will consist of installing additional groundwater extraction and
monitoring wells and constructing a water treatment system.
State: UT;
Site name: Eureka Mills;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $26.5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to accelerate the cleanup of mine waste and
residential areas by 1 year. Specific work to be performed includes
the stabilization and capping of three large mine waste areas,
construction of drainage control features to contain contaminated
runoff so that cleaned up areas are not recontaminated, and the
cleanup of the lead-contaminated soils at approximately 160
residential properties.
State: VA;
Site name: Atlantic Wood Industries, Inc;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $3.7;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to start cleanup approximately 1 year earlier than
expected. EPA anticipates that initial cleanup activities will include
stabilization of creosote-soaked soils, construction of an earthen
berm to contain some of the contaminated sediments that will be
dredged in a future phase, shoreline stabilization work, soil
excavation and consolidation, and wetland mitigation work. EPA expects
that the work at this site will create job opportunities and create
redevelopment opportunities once completed.
State: VT;
Site name: Elizabeth Mine;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $8;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to begin the final phase of a non-time critical
removal action to control the three major source areas responsible for
acid rock drainage and leachate. This work will contribute to the
cleanup actions targeted to eliminate acid rock drainage from the
site's waste piles and will also reduce the leachate generated by the
tailing impoundments. The final phase is a 3-to 4-year project, a
portion of which will be funded via the Recovery Act. This funding
will allow EPA to begin and complete this phase sooner than planned,
which will shorten the time period for improvement of water quality.
State: WA;
Site name: Commencement Bay, Near Shore/Tide Flats;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $5;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to support activities at the Ruston/North Tacoma
study area, which encompasses approximately 950 acres located in a 1-
mile circle around the former Asarco Tacoma smelter. Both the smelter
and the study area are part of the larger site. Recovery Act resources
applied to this area will complete residential cleanup involving
excavation of contaminated soils from residential yards, park lands,
and rights-of-way.
State: WA;
Site name: Wyckoff Co./Eagle Harbor;
Amount of Recovery Act funds provided: $2.3;
Description of the planned use of Recovery Act funds[A]: EPA will use
Recovery Act funds to upgrade and supplement existing groundwater
extraction wells and to install an additional one. The funds will also
be used to demolish existing structures at the site so that the sheet-
pile wall can be completed, and the soil cap can be constructed. EPA
projects that the entire containment remedy will be completed in 5 to
7 years with assistance from the Recovery Act funds.
Sources: EPA data and regional officials' responses to our survey.
[A] EPA may currently be implementing these planned actions, and some
actions may be complete.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:
United States Environmental Protection Agency:
Office Of Solid Waste And Emergency Response:
Washington, D.C. 20460:
April 21, 2010:
Mr. John B. Stephenson, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report entitled
"EPA's Estimated Costs to Remediate Existing Sites Exceed Current
Funding Levels, and More Sites Are Expected to be added to the
National Priorities List (GAO-10-380)." We appreciate the collegial
working relationship and dialogue with GAO as this report was
developed. We also want to commend GAO for undertaking this important
study with respect to budget issues in the Superfund Remedial Program.
I am responding on behalf of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER) as well as the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance (OECA) and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO).
Their comments have been incorporated into this consolidated EPA
response. Below are our most significant comments on the report's one
recommendation and on the information provided in the report itself.
Other technical comments are included in the Enclosure.
Recommendation:
GAO recommends that "the EPA Administrator determine the extent to
which EPA will consider vapor intrusion in listing NPL sites and its
effect on the number of sites listed in the future".
EPA agrees with this recommendation. While EPA currently does consider
vapor intrusion impacts in both the remedial and removal cleanup
programs, as part of its Integrated Cleanup Initiative, the Agency is
evaluating whether vapor intrusion needs to be more specifically
addressed in the Hazardous Ranking System (HRS) model, In addition,
the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response is developing a final
version of its Vapor Intrusion Guidance, establishing a vapor
intrusion website, and producing technical papers to improve our
ability to address this issue.
General Comments:
With respect to the overall funding situation, EPA's Administrator and
the Administration face extremely difficult decisions about where to
allocate scarce resources, and the funding level requested as part of
the President's Budget request represents what the Administration
believes is the best balance of funding decisions across many
competing environmental priorities. We recognize that the Superfund
remedial program has the capacity to use additional resources if and
when they are available, as is evident in its utilization of the $600
million provided through the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
(ARRA). The President's budget in both FY2010 and FY2011 proposed
reinstating the Superfund tax, and that would provide additional funds
for Congress to appropriate. Given currently available resources, EPA
will continue to work to make sure that it uses its Superfund
resources in the most effective manner possible to complete work at
sites as expeditiously as possible with the funding we receive.
In FY 2010, EPA launched the Integrated Cleanup Initiative (ICI) to
increase the pace and efficiencies of EPA's land cleanup programs. As
part of the ICI, we have committed to a new publicly reported
performance measure of Superfund remedial action project completions.
This new measure, which will begin in FY2011, will provide greater
accountability and transparency of the detailed, incremental actions
necessary to bring site cleanup to completion, and ultimately reuse.
As part of the ICI, we will identify opportunities to maximize program
resources and identify additional efficiencies. The ICI will evaluate
all phases of our cleanup programs including 1) starting cleanups; 2)
advancing cleanups and; 3) completing cleanups.
There are, however, two issues that EPA has determined require more
clarification within the report. First, it is important to highlight
early in the report that people are not typically in danger of
immediate harm at "sites with unacceptable human exposure," which we
label Human Exposure Not Under Control sites or HE NUC sites. When
acute health threats are identified, the Agency takes immediate action
to address them using our time critical removal authorities. It should
be noted as well that funding for these actions comes from a different
part of the Agency's Superfund budget, so it is not in competition
with the remedial program's budget. Otherwise, EPA is taking longer-
term actions to characterize the risks and/or address the threats to
human health at these sites. In addition, it should be noted, that EPA
does not use the word "unknown" when classifying a site as Human
Exposure Insufficient Data (HE ID). We believe to label it as
"unknown" fails to reflect the Agency's efforts to develop the site
characterization necessary to determine whether people are exposed at
unsafe levels at a site.
In addition, GAO notes that the Regional cost estimates are likely
understated, since they do not include funding for sites where a
responsible party is currently funding remedial construction but may
be unable to do so in the future. In this regard, GAO should recognize
that in cases where responsible parties are conducting remedial
construction under existing settlement agreements; those agreements
require those parties to maintain financial assurance mechanisms to
ensure that response actions are completed if the parties are unable
to do so. Over the last several years, EPA has made considerable
efforts to ensure that financial assurance mechanisms are in place for
existing response settlements and to ensure that financial assurance
mechanisms for all new response settlements are put in place in a
timely fashion. Thus, in addition to Superfund appropriations, these
financial assurance mechanisms are an additional potential source of
funding for cleanup under existing response settlements. With respect
to GAO's concerns about the effects on future funding, it is more
likely that the Trust Fund would bear the cost of completing cleanups
at sites where PRPs are experiencing financial difficulty but have not
yet settled with EPA. They therefore may be unable to complete
cleanups in the future, which would increase the burden on the Trust
Fund.
In closing, we believe that there is substantial useful information in
this report and applaud GAO for looking into these very important
subjects. We hope to build off of the cooperative nature in which this
review was performed and continue to work with GAO to improve the
Superfund program. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our
comments or responses to recommendations, EPA would be happy to meet
with you prior to GAO finalizing this report. Please feel free to
contact me or Robin Richardson at 703-603-9048 if there is any
additional follow up required.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Mathy Stanislaus:
Assistant Administrator:
Enclosure:
cc:
Barbara Bennett, OCFO:
Cynthia J. Giles, OECA:
Barry Breen, OSWER:
Maryann Froehlich, OCFO:
Catherine R. McCabe, OECA:
James Woolford, OSRTI:
Elliott Gilberg, OSRE:
David Bloom, OCFO:
Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA:
Bobbie Trent, OSWER:
Johnsie Webster, OSWER:
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841, stephensonj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Vincent Price, Assistant
Director; Deanna Laufer; Barbara Patterson; Kyerion Printup; and Beth
Reed Fritts made key contributions to this report. Elizabeth
Beardsley, Nancy Crothers, Pamela Davidson, Michele Fejfar, Carol
Henn, and Mehrzad Nadji also made important contributions.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 96-510 (1980), codified, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. §§
9601-9675 (2010).
[2] In addition to the 1,269 sites that were listed on the NPL at the
end of fiscal year 2009, EPA had listed and subsequently deleted 333
sites from the NPL because it determined, with state concurrence, that
no further site response was needed. Additionally, 5 sites were
proposed for listing but were deleted before being finalized on the
NPL. As of the end of fiscal year 2009, there were a total of 1,607
final and deleted NPL sites.
[3] The 158 federal facilities are owned and operated by federal
agencies, such as the Departments of Defense, Energy, and the Interior.
[4] EPA refers to sites with unacceptable human exposure as ’current
human exposures not under control“ and sites with unknown human
exposure as ’insufficient data to determine human exposure control
status.“
[5] In addition to sites listed on the NPL, some non-NPL sites may be
cleaned up through the Superfund remedial program by using the
Superfund alternative approach, under which responsible parties enter
into an agreement with EPA to clean up the site. Remedial actions at
these non-NPL sites are not funded by the Superfund trust fund.
[6] Under CERCLA, potentially responsible parties include current or
former owners or operators of a site or the generators and
transporters of the hazardous substances. For purposes of this report,
we use the term responsible parties to refer to those potentially
responsible parties who are accepting liability or for whom liability
is proven.
[7] The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No.
111-5, was enacted with the purpose to promote economic recovery, make
investments, and minimize and avoid reductions in state and local
government services, among other things.
[8] Of the $600 million, EPA allocated $582 million to remedial
cleanup activities and $18 million to internal EPA activities related
to the management, oversight, and reporting of Superfund Recovery Act
funds.
[9] We spoke with hazardous waste agency officials from the states of
California, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New
Jersey, Virginia, and Washington.
[10] Love Canal was a toxic waste site near Niagara Falls, New York,
where housing was built upon a former landfill for toxic chemicals,
and residents began developing cancer and other illnesses from the
residual waste. In August 1978, President Carter announced a national
emergency at Love Canal and called for the allocation of federal funds
for the site.
[11] The budget proposed by the administration for fiscal year 2011
reflects legislative proposals to reestablish a tax to support the
Superfund program.
[12] EPA, A Guide to Developing and Documenting Cost Estimates During
the Feasibility Study, EPA 540-R-00-002 (Washington, D.C.: July 2000).
[13] GAO, GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for
Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-3SP] (Washington, D.C.: March 2009).
[14] In surveying EPA regional officials about the amount of work
remaining to complete construction at a site, we specified that they
should consider the scope of the work remaining, as opposed to the
amount of time needed to complete the work.
[15] Thirty of the 41 sites that EPA regional officials expect will
continue to pose unacceptable risk until fiscal year 2015 or later are
’teenager sites“-”sites that have been on the NPL for at least 13
years.
[16] TCE is a colorless liquid that is used as a solvent for cleaning
metal parts. Drinking or breathing high levels of TCE may cause
nervous system effects, liver and kidney damage, abnormal heartbeat,
unconsciousness, and possibly death.
[17] This total includes construction costs and all other appropriated
site-specific Superfund expenditures through fiscal year 2009, except
for reimbursable and homeland security supplemental expenditures.
[18] Unless otherwise specified, these numbers are as reported by EPA,
and are not adjusted for inflation by GAO.
[19] These costs include both EPA costs, as well as costs paid by
responsible parties for site cleanup. Although EPA‘s data classified
megasites and potential megasites separately, we grouped megasites and
potential megasites together for purposes of this report.
[20] Our survey asked EPA regional officials to provide the
approximate projected costs to EPA to complete construction at a site
in the most efficient manner, given what is currently known about
contamination at a site. EPA regional officials provided cost
estimates based on various information, including ROD estimates,
estimates developed during remedial design or construction, and
estimates developed during remedial investigations and feasibility
studies. According to EPA officials, cost estimates for individual
fiscal years for a site may change because of a number of factors,
such as a site‘s construction readiness and contracting delays.
[21] For 9 of the 57 sites, EPA officials did provide a broad range of
costs for construction, but we did not include those costs in our
analysis because EPA officials were unable to provide more precise,
annual cost figures for those sites.
[22] EPA notes that when a responsible party enters a settlement
agreement with EPA, financial assurance mechanisms are put in place to
provide cleanup funds in the event that the party is no longer
financially able to complete the cleanup. There are no financial
assurances, however, for potentially responsible parties who have not
yet entered a settlement agreement.
[23] GAO, Superfund: Information on Cost and Other Issues Related to
the Cleanup of the Federal Creosote Site, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-277] (Washington, D.C.: February
2010).
[24] As part of this allocation, EPA headquarters includes funding for
other nonconstruction activities, including conducting prelisting
activities through cooperative agreements with states, oversight of
all responsible party-lead activities, and providing general support
and management.
[25] CERCLA requires that states share the cost of any EPA-led remedy,
specifically by requiring states to fund 10 percent of the remedial
action and assume responsibility for a site‘s operation and
maintenance. Before EPA lists a site on the NPL, the state in which a
site is located must provide assurance that it will do so.
[26] The November 2002 draft guidance on vapor intrusion also applies
to additional sites, such as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Corrective Action and Brownfields sites, which are distinct from the
Superfund program.
[27] EPA, Office of Inspector General, Lack of Final Guidance on Vapor
Intrusion Impedes Efforts to Address Indoor Air Risks, 10-P-0042
(Washington, D.C.: December 2009).
[28] GAO, Superfund: Litigation Has Decreased and EPA Needs Better
Information on Site Cleanup and Cost Issues to Estimate Future Program
Funding Requirements, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-656] (Washington, D.C.: July 2009).
[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:
