State and Federal Actions to Encourage Voluntary Cleanups

To encourage redevelopment and help clean up sites that have not yet been addressed, most states, in the last few years, have created voluntary cleanup programs. In contrast to the state cleanup programs that rely on enforcement to compel cleanups by responsible parties, these programs allow volunteers, such as site owners or developers, to approach the state and initiate cleanups on their own. The agency is currently drafting guidance for establishing agreements with states that would specify, for programs meeting EPA’s criteria, that generally EPA will plan to take further action at sites in a state’s voluntary program only in limited circumstances. We agreed to (1) identify voluntary cleanup programs’ accomplishments; (2) describe these programs’ organization, funding, and major characteristics; and (3) determine the effects of federal hazardous waste policies on voluntary cleanups and the types of federal assistance that could further support voluntary programs. For the same reasons, voluntary cleanups are also less costly for both the states and volunteers. State officials attributed the success of their voluntary programs to the incentives these programs typically provide to attract participants, including (1) relief under state law from future liability—and therefore relief from the risk of incurring additional costs—for past contamination; (2) clearly defined cleanup standards that identify the extent of the necessary cleanup—and therefore the time and costs involved—at the start of a cleanup; and (3) reduced paperwork and cleanup requirements. Voluntary Cleanups Cost Less and Take Less Time

Because voluntary programs have fewer paperwork and oversight requirements than enforcement programs, they cost less both for the state and for volunteers, according to officials in every program we reviewed. The states receive funding for their programs by charging volunteers to participate, so their programs are, to some extent, privately financed. Whereas nearly all of the voluntary programs admitted sites contaminated enough to qualify for federal cleanup, two programs managed such sites only through the federal or their state’s enforcement program. All of the 17 programs reduced the requirements they imposed on cleanups to attract participants, but the changes varied extensively. First, EPA has been adding fewer sites to the federal Superfund program. Participants in these programs generally must meet the requirements by selecting one of three approaches for achieving an appropriate level of cleanup: the amount of a chemical that naturally existed in the local soil and groundwater before the contamination occurred; the cleanup standard established by the state for a contaminant, based on a determination of the maximum amount of the contaminant that can remain in soil or water without posing a risk to public health or the environment: The state analyzes the toxicity of the contaminant and the likelihood that people will be exposed to it to establish this cleanup standard; or the amount of cleanup necessary to control the unique risks posed by a particular contaminant at a particular site, as determined by a formal assessment of that site’s risks. EPA and the Congress Have Provided Funds

Since 1995, EPA has allowed the states to use a portion of the funds from their Superfund cooperative agreements to develop their voluntary cleanup programs. Not all of the 10 initial agreements would satisfy all of the criteria set forth in EPA’s interim memorandum. Consequently, to better define its criteria for voluntary programs in its final guidance, EPA could look to the models implemented by several states that vary their requirements with the risks and conditions at individual sites.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the voluntary cleanup programs that states have created to facilitate privately initiated cleanups, focusing on: (1) the voluntary cleanup programs' accomplishments; (2) these programs' organization, funding, and major characteristics; and (3) the effects of federal hazardous waste policies on voluntary cleanups and the types of federal assistance that could further support voluntary programs.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) voluntary programs' accomplishments include identifying, evaluating, and cleaning up many contaminated sites that would not have been addressed under other federal or state cleanup programs for some time, if at all, according to the state managers GAO surveyed; (2) because of these programs' cooperative nature and reduced cleanup procedures, voluntary cleanups are also less costly for the states and participants and take less time; (3) most of the 17 programs are organized to supplement their state's enforcement program, but a few are responsible for nearly all of the cleanups in their state; (4) all of the programs allowed volunteers to come forward on their own, saving their state from having to take time-consuming and costly enforcement actions; (5) all of the programs received funding through the fees paid by volunteers to participate, but most also relied on some federal and state funds; (6) nearly all of the programs admitted any type of site, including highly contaminated sites that could qualify for the federal program; (7) as an incentive to encourage cleanups, all of the programs gave volunteers some assurance of relief from future state liability at a completed site, but the legal strength of this assurance varied considerably; (8) in addition, to cut cleanup time and costs, all of the programs reduced the requirements they imposed on voluntary cleanups; (9) several programs balanced the requirements they implemented with incentives to attract volunteers by tailoring the stringency of the requirements to the risks and conditions at individual sites; (10) the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) authority under Superfund to ensure that any cleanup protects public health and the environment and the federal law's stringent liability provisions deter participation in voluntary programs because potential volunteers fear they could face expensive and indefinite cleanup liability; (11) Congress and EPA have supported voluntary programs by allowing the states to use a portion of the funds they receive through the federal Superfund program to develop and implement the voluntary programs; (12) to address liability issues, EPA has been working with the states over the past year to develop final guidance for negotiating agreements between EPA and the states, under which EPA generally will not plan to take further action at sites in a voluntary program that meets the agency's criteria for ensuring effective and protective cleanups; and (13) in the meantime, EPA has issued an interim memorandum outlining six criteria for voluntary programs that EPA's regions can use to enter into agreements with the states.