Superfund Process Does Not Fully Establish Cleanup Priorities for Federal Facilities

The Superfund process does not fully and consistently identify for possible cleanup the federal facilities presenting the greatest risks to public health and the environment. In addition, EPA’s evaluation process does not produce enough information to rank sites on the basis of relative risk. Partial Inventory, Incomplete Site Assessments, and Lack of Policy Guidance Hamper Priority Setting

Agencies cannot fully set priorities without a complete inventory of contaminated sites and adequate data on the risks at these sites. The relative risk ranking is a primary tool for setting cleanup priorities and making funding decisions. Such a process would go well beyond the current qualitative, facility-based approach. According to an Interior official, the Department has not developed a centralized system for setting cleanup priorities for sites in the earlier stages of the Superfund process. Consistent National Approach to Ranking Relative Risks Can Help Identify Highest-Priority Sites

As discussed above, individual federal agencies use their own approaches to classifying the risks at sites and setting priorities for funding cleanups. Status of the 2,070 Federal Facilities on the Docket

7.4% Currently on NPL (154)0.1% Removed From NPL (3)
Evaluation in Process (1,040)
Inclusion on NPL Not Warranted (873)

Estimates of Total Future Costs to Complete Cleanups and Number of Potentially Contaminated Federal Sites

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to assess (1) whether Superfund is identifying the highest-priority federal sites for cleanup and (2) what progress is being made by the departments of Defense, Energy, and the Interior in establishing approaches for ranking risks and setting priorities for cleanups.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed how priorities are being set for hazardous waste cleanups, focusing on: (1) whether the Superfund program is identifying the highest-priority cleanup sites; and (2) the Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), and the Department of the Interior approaches for ranking risks and prioritizing sites for cleanup.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) the Superfund program does not completely and consistently identify the federal facilities presenting the greatest risks to public health and the environment; (2) without a complete inventory of contaminated sites, adequate data on the risks at these sites, and consistent policy guidance, agencies cannot fully prioritize cleanup activities; (3) the National Priorities List (NPL) does not include all eligible contaminated sites and the Hazard Ranking System does not provide sufficient information to rank contaminated facilities on the basis of risk; (4) federal agencies responsible for cleanups do not use a consistent approach to assess relative risk; (5) to help set cleanup priorities and make funding decisions, DOD developed a risk-ranking tool to categorize contaminated sites; (6) DOE uses a qualitative, facility-based approach to evaluate contaminated sites and prioritize cleanups; (7) Interior uses a centralized priority-setting mechanism in the later stages of the Superfund process to rank its contaminated facilities; and (8) while individual agencies use their own risk-assessment processes, it would be more cost-effective for agencies to use a consistent, national approach to rank risks and identify high-priority sites.