EPA may also defer oversight of the long-term cleanup of a site eligible  for the NPL through the Other Cleanup Activity (OCA) approach. EPA Defers Oversight of a Majority of Sites Eligible for the NPL to Approaches Outside of the Superfund Program

EPA most commonly addresses the cleanup of sites eligible for the NPL  by “deferring” oversight to approaches outside of the Superfund program. EPA Defers Oversight of More Than Half the Sites Eligible for the NPL to Approaches Outside of the Superfund Program

Among the 3,402 sites reported to the Superfund program in CERCLIS  that EPA has identified as having contamination making them eligible for   EPA deferred 1,984 sites to cleanup approaches outside of the  the NPL,Superfund program (see fig. While the manual defines OCA  deferrals generally, it does not define each type of OCA deferral. EPA officials noted they were working on  additional guidance for OCA deferrals. The SA and NPL Processes Are Similar in Many Ways and EPA Has Accounted for Some Differences Between Them

The processes for implementing the SA and NPL approaches have many  similarities. Through specific provisions in its SA agreements with PRPs, EPA has  sought to make the two approaches comparable by accounting for the  following four key differences:
First, EPA has the authority to pay for remedial actions only at sites  listed on the NPL.include a provision to help ensure cleanups are not delayed by a loss  of funding if the PRP ceases work during the remedial action phase of  cleanup. Even with EPA’s efforts to achieve equivalence of SA agreement and  NPL sites through these provisions, some sites may not benefit from  these efforts because EPA regions have entered into agreements with  PRPs at sites that they said were likely eligible for the SA approach  without following the SA guidance. According to EPA headquarters officials, if regions are going to conduct a  long-term cleanup under the Superfund program at a site, but not list it on  the NPL, the agency prefers regions to use the SA approach. EPA’s Tracking and Reporting of Certain Aspects of the Process under the SA Approach Differ Significantly from That under the NPL Approach

Some differences remain between the way EPA tracks sites under the SA  and NPL approaches. In addition, a lower proportion of SA  agreement sites have reached construction completion compared with  similar NPL sites. SA agreement sites tend to be in earlier phases of the  cleanup process because the SA approach began more recently than the  NPL approach. Moreover, EPA’s guidance does not specify in detail the documentation  regions should have to support their decisions on OCA deferrals or  completion of cleanup at these sites. Without clearer guidance  on OCA deferrals, EPA does not have reasonable assurance that it can  consistently track its OCA deferral sites in CERCLIS or that its regions’  documentation will be appropriate or sufficient to verify that these sites  have been deferred or have completed cleanup. Update EPA’s written policies on SA agreement sites, including taking  steps such as clarifying whether the SA approach is EPA’s preferred  approach for long-term cleanup of sites under the Superfund program  and outside of the NPL, specifying what documentation is sufficient to  support the Hazard Ranking System score at SA agreement sites,  and defining when the database code that identifies sites with SA  agreements should remain in place. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This appendix provides information on the scope of the work and the  methodology used to examine (1) how the Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) addresses the cleanup of sites it has identified as eligible  for the National Priorities List (NPL), (2) how the processes for  implementing the Superfund Alternative (SA) and NPL approaches  compare, and (3) how SA agreement sites compare with similar NPL sites  in completing the cleanup process. To compare how SA agreement sites and similar NPL sites complete the  cleanup process, we identified SA agreement sites and constructed a  comparison group of 74 NPL sites with agreements between EPA and  potentially responsible parties (PRP) similar to those at SA agreement  sites as follows:
We identified 67 SA agreement sites using the SA code and added to  that 3 SA agreement sites with their SA code removed after the site  was listed on the NPL for a total of 70 SA agreement sites; we  identified these three sites through our interviews with EPA officials. Median Length of Negotiations at SA Agreement Sites and Similar NPL Sites

As shown in table 3, for agreements with PRPs finalized from June 2002  through December 2012, SA agreement sites and similar NPL sites in our  analysis showed mixed results in the length of time to complete  negotiations, with SA agreement sites taking about as long as similar NPL  sites for remedial investigation and feasibility study negotiations and less  time for remedial design and remedial action negotiations. However, given the relatively small number of cleanup  activities for both NPL and SA agreement sites in our analysis and  differences at the site level, the differences in the median length of  cleanup activities cannot be attributed entirely to the type of approach  used at each site.
Why GAO Did This Study

Under the Superfund program, EPA may address the long-term cleanup of certain hazardous waste sites by placing them on the NPL and overseeing the cleanup. To be eligible for the NPL, a site must be sufficiently contaminated, among other things. EPA regions have discretion to choose among several other approaches to address sites eligible for the NPL. For example, under the Superfund program, EPA regions may enter into agreements with PRPs using the SA approach. EPA may also defer the oversight of cleanup at eligible sites to approaches outside of the Superfund program. GAO was asked to review EPA's implementation of the SA approach and how it compares with the NPL approach. This report examines (1) how EPA addresses the cleanup of sites it has identified as eligible for the NPL, (2) how the processes for implementing the SA and NPL approaches compare, and (3) how SA agreement sites compare with similar NPL sites in completing the cleanup process. GAO reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and guidance; analyzed program data as of December 2012; interviewed EPA officials; and compared SA agreement sites with 74 NPL sites selected based on their similarity to SA agreement sites.

What GAO Found

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) most commonly addresses the cleanup of sites it has identified as eligible for the National Priorities List (NPL) by deferring oversight of the cleanup to approaches outside of the Superfund program. As of December 2012, of the 3,402 sites EPA identified as potentially eligible, EPA has deferred oversight of 1,984 sites to approaches outside the Superfund program, including 1,766 Other Cleanup Activity (OCA) deferrals to states and other entities. However, EPA has not issued guidance for OCA deferrals as it has for the other cleanup approaches. Moreover, EPA's program guidance does not clearly define each type of OCA deferral or specify in detail the documentation EPA regions should have to support their decisions on OCA deferrals. Without clearer guidance on OCA deferrals, EPA cannot be reasonably assured that its regions are consistently tracking these sites or that their documentation will be appropriate or sufficient to verify that these sites have been deferred or have completed cleanup. Under the Superfund program, EPA oversees the cleanup of 1,313 sites on the NPL, 67 sites under the Superfund Alternative (SA) approach, and at least 38 sites under another undefined approach.
The processes for implementing the SA and NPL approaches, while similar in many ways, have several differences. EPA has accounted for some of these differences in its SA guidance by listing specific provisions for SA agreements with potentially responsible parties (PRP), such as owners and operators of a site. One such provision helps ensure cleanups are not delayed by a loss of funding if the PRP stops cleaning up the site. However, some EPA regions have entered into agreements with PRPs at sites that officials said were likely eligible for the SA approach without following the SA guidance. Such agreements may not benefit from EPA's provisions for SA agreements. EPA headquarters officials said the agency prefers regions to use the SA approach at such sites, but EPA has not stated this preference explicitly in its guidance. In addition, EPA's tracking and reporting of certain aspects of the process under the SA approach differs from that under the NPL approach. As a result, EPA's tracking of SA agreement sites in its Superfund database is incomplete; the standards for documenting the NPL eligibility of SA agreement sites are less clear than those for NPL sites; and EPA is not publicly reporting a full picture of SA agreement sites. Unless EPA makes improvements in these areas, its management of the process at SA agreement sites may be hampered.
The SA agreement sites showed mixed results in completing the cleanup process when compared with 74 similar NPL sites GAO analyzed. Specifically, SA agreement and NPL sites in GAO's analysis showed mixed results in the average time to complete negotiations with PRPs and for specific cleanup activities, such as remedial investigation and feasibility studies, remedial designs, and remedial actions. In addition, a lower proportion of SA agreement sites have completed cleanup compared with similar NPL sites. SA agreement sites tend to be in earlier phases of the cleanup process because the SA approach began more recently than the NPL approach. Given the limited number of activities for both NPL and SA agreement sites in GAO's analysis, these differences cannot be attributed entirely to the type of approach used at each site.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other things, that EPA issue guidance to define and clarify documentation requirements for OCA deferrals and clarify its policies on SA agreement sites. EPA agreed with the report's recommendations.