The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) provided that facilities discovered after the act was passed should be evaluated for placement on the NPL within 4 years of the site’s discovery if EPA determines on the basis of a site inspection or preliminary assessment that such an evaluation is warranted. For our reviews, we asked EPA to provide us with data on the length of time taken (l) to evaluate sites for possible placement on the NPL and (2) to complete cleanups of listed sites. To measure the time taken to evaluate sites for listing, we identified sites that were added to the NPL each year and calculated the time between their listing and their “discovery,” i.e., their entry into CERCLIS. Cleanup Completion Times Have Lengthened

For sites with completed cleanups, the average time between the sites’ placement on the NPL and the completion of the cleanup increased in 1986 to 1996. In 1996, cleanup completions averaged 10.6 years for nonfederal operable units. As mentioned earlier, in 1993 EPA set an expectation for its regions to complete a cleanup within 5 years of a site’s listing. The increase in overall cleanup times was accompanied by a marked increase in the time to select cleanup remedies—the study phase of the cleanup process and the time during which attempts are made to reach settlements with the parties responsible for site contamination. We found that, as of July 1, 1997, remedial action had been completed at 13 percent (95) of the 752 sites placed on the NPL in fiscal years 1986 through 1994. Assuming that all remedial actions at these “in process” sites had been completed on July 1, 1997, the average cleanup duration for all sites listed on the NPL during the 9-year period would have been 7.9 years, almost as long as EPA’s 8-year estimate of the cleanup time for recently listed sites. But because such a large proportion of the sites are still in process, the average cleanup time for these sites will exceed 8 years, possibly by a substantial margin. A major factor was that the Superfund program started with a backlog of sites awaiting evaluation. The probability of long time frames for future site listings is indicated by the large number of sites that are awaiting a listing decision (about 3,000) and the small number of sites that have been admitted to the Superfund program in recent years (an average of 16 per year in fiscal years 1992 through 1996). EPA challenged the fairness of our methodology, said that our report was inconsistent with earlier GAO reports, and said that it had recently accelerated the cleanup process. Time Taken to Accomplish the Principal Steps in the Process of Cleaning Up Sites

In addition to measuring the total time taken from the placement of a site on the National Priorities List (NPL) to the completion of its cleanup, we examined the time taken to complete two of the principal intermediate steps: (1) the preparation of the record of decision, which documents the final remedy selected after the completion of the remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS), and (2) the preparation of the remedial design, which includes the technical drawings and specifications for the selected remedy.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO discussed two of its recent reports on the pace of cleanup in the Superfund program, focusing on the: (1) time taken to evaluate hazardous waste sites for possible placement on the National Priorities List (NPL) and the time to clean them up after the listing; and (2) status of cleanup for sites listed from 1986 to 1994.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) GAO's March 1997 report stated that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) took an average of 9.4 years--calculated from the date of each site's discovery--to evaluate and process the nonfederal sites it added to the NPL in 1996; (2) this evaluation and processing time was generally longer than for prior years; (3) the 1986 Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) requires EPA to evaluate nonfederal sites for listing, when warranted, within 4 years of their discovery; (4) listing decisions were made within 4 years of their discovery for 43 percent of the 8,931 nonfederal sites discovered in 1987 through 1991--the last year for which an analysis could be done at the time of GAO's review; (5) a number of factors contributed to the increased time to list a site, including a backlog of sites awaiting evaluation and a reduction in the annual number of sites being added to the NPL; (6) GAO's March report also stated that cleanup times have also lengthened for completed projects; (7) nonfederal cleanup projects completed in 1986 through 1989 were finished, on average, 3.9 years after the sites were placed on the NPL; (8) by 1996, however, nonfederal cleanup completions averaged 10.6 years; (9) although SARA did not set deadlines for completing cleanups within a certain number of years, EPA set an expectation for 1993 for its regions to complete a cleanup within 5 years of a site's listing; (10) much of the time to complete cleanups is attributable to the early planning phases of the cleanup process when the decision is made on the selection of cleanup remedies; (11) actual construction work at sites is being done quicker than the selection of cleanup remedies; (12) EPA officials attributed the increased completion times for cleanups to the growing complexity of sites, efforts to reach settlements with parties responsible for site contamination, and resource constraints; (13) GAO's September report stated that because a large portion--87 percent--of the sites listed on the NPL in fiscal years 1986 through 1994 were still in the Superfund cleanup process as of July 1, 1997, the average cleanup time for this group of listed sites will exceed 8 years, possibly by a substantial margin; (14) EPA stated that the methodology used in GAO's March 1997 report was biased in favor of showing increasing completion times and that the report was inconsistent with GAO's earlier Superfund reports; (15) it claimed to have recently speeded up the Superfund process; and (16) GAO believes that its March 1997 report fairly portrays trends in the program and is consistent with its earlier reports.