Few Facilities Have Completed Cleanups Under the Program

Since 1984, companies have completed cleanup action at about 8 percent (301) of the universe of 3,698 nonfederal facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste, according to EPA’s data. These cleanups include about 5 percent (69) of the 1,304 facilities that EPA considers to be a high priority because they pose the highest potential risk to human health or the environment. At that time, EPA data showed that only about 1 percent of the facilities that needed cleanups had undertaken cleanup actions. While some of these cleanup activities are likely to qualify as corrective action, according to EPA program managers, the extent of these types of cleanup actions is unknown. Second, EPA, the states, and companies often disagree on how to approach cleanup at a facility, including the standards and remedies that facilities should use. Finally, EPA and some states lack the resources needed to direct more companies to begin cleanups at the facilities not yet in the program and to provide timely oversight of cleanups already under way. However, the industry representatives stated that the duplicative and restrictive nature of the cleanup process EPA and the states have implemented adds more time and cost than warranted. We determined, however, that the companies in our survey appear to undertake more comprehensive cleanup actions only when they have an economic incentive to do so because the corrective action process can be so costly and time-consuming. EPA’s and States’ Initiatives May Begin to Address the Cleanup Backlog

EPA, the states, and industry have recognized the need to improve the cleanup process. The state has also streamlined the process by which companies must ensure the quality of their cleanup work. While companies’ cleanup managers favor the flexibility that many of these initiatives provide, several of them expressed reservations about EPA’s and the states’ willingness to adopt these new approaches nationwide. Therefore, we recommend that the Administrator of EPA (1) devise a strategy with milestones for ensuring that cleanup managers in EPA’s regions and the states authorized to implement the program have a consistent understanding of the new approaches provided by the guidance or regulations as well as how to apply these approaches to cleanup decisions and (2) oversee program implementation to determine if cleanup managers are appropriately using the new approaches as they direct cleanups. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Because the Ranking Minority Member of the House Committee on Commerce was interested in the current status of the Corrective Action Program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), he asked us to determine (1) the progress made in cleaning up facilities under the program, (2) factors affecting progress, and (3) any initiatives that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the states, and industry have taken to accomplish cleanups.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Program, focusing on: (1) the progress made in cleaning up facilities under the program; (2) factors affecting progress; and (3) any initiatives that EPA, the states, and industry have taken to accomplish cleanups.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) only about 8 percent of the nonfederal facilities nationwide that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste, including about 5 percent of the facilities considered to pose the highest risk, have completed cleanup actions, according to EPA's data; (2) about 56 percent of the facilities, including about 35 percent of those posing the highest risk, have yet to begin the formal cleanup process; (3) some facilities have undertaken cleanup actions outside of the program; however, the extent of these efforts is unknown because they are not reflected in EPA's program data; (4) according to EPA, state, and company cleanup managers: (a) cleaning up the contaminated facilities under the program is time-consuming and costly because the process EPA developed for cleanups, and which some states authorized to implement the program have adopted, has multiple reporting and review requirements; (b) EPA, the states, and companies often disagree on how cleanup should be pursued, which prolongs the cleanup process because more time is needed to negotiate cleanup terms, and companies must sometimes meet the duplicate requirements of both federal and state regulators; (c) unless EPA or the states direct the companies to begin cleanup, the companies appear to perform cleanups only when they have business incentives to do so; and (d) EPA and the states lack the resources they need to direct more companies to begin their cleanups and to provide timely oversight at the facilities already performing cleanups; (5) EPA, some states, and industry have undertaken initiatives to streamline the cleanup process and make cleanup decisions on the basis of risk, rather than on the basis of the more generic process specified for the program; (6) EPA and the states are looking for ways to leverage their limited resources to accomplish cleanups more quickly, including putting facilities into alternative programs that streamline cleanups; (7) while these initiatives promise to allow faster and cheaper cleanups, some of them may involve tradeoffs in the stringency of the standards applied, the permanence of the remedies selected, and the level of public participation required; (8) these tradeoffs increase the need for long-term oversight to ensure that the remedies continue to protect human health and the environment; (9) although companies' cleanup managers favor many of the initiatives, several of them expressed reservations about EPA's and the states' willingness to use these initiatives; and (10) EPA's strategy of adopting new approaches to corrective action may not be sufficient to ensure that the approaches are implemented nationwide.