EPA screens technologies  on the basis of the following three criteria:    effectiveness: the potential effectiveness of technologies in meeting the  cleanup goals, the potential impacts on human health and the environment  during implementation, and how proven and reliable the technology is  with respect to the contaminants and conditions at the site; implementability: the technical and administrative feasibility of the  technology, including the evaluation of treatment requirements and the  relative ease or difficulty in achieving operation and maintenance  requirements; and   cost: the capital and operation and maintenance costs of a technology (i.e.,  each technology is evaluated to determine whether its costs are high,  moderate, or low relative to other options within the same category). EPA’s Risk Assessment, Remedy Selection, and Prioritization Decisions for the Federal Creosote Site Were Primarily Influenced by the Extent of the Contamination in a Residential Area

The extent of the contamination in a residential area at the Federal  Creosote site was the primary factor that influenced EPA’s risk  assessment conclusions, remedy selection decisions, and site work  priorities. The officials said that  EPA considered what level of waste could be left on-site while still  allowing for unrestricted residential use of properties; however, they  noted that, with unrestricted residential use, there is a very low threshold  for the level of waste that can be left on-site. Ultimately, EPA determined  that off-site thermal treatment and disposal of the soil contamination  would best achieve its cleanup goals and were consistent with residential  use of the site. For the groundwater contamination, Region 2 officials said that EPA tried  to determine how to clean up the contaminated groundwater in the  fractured bedrock but ultimately concluded that none of the options  would be effective; moreover, many of the options would be expensive  and take a long time to implement. For example, EPA determined it  was unlikely that such technologies as bioremediation of contaminated  material in place would achieve the agency’s soil remediation goals,  because EPA was uncertain whether the bioremediation microbes could  be distributed evenly in contaminated areas since some of the  contamination was under residents’ homes. EPA Placed a High Priority on Cleaning Up the Federal Creosote Site

EPA placed a high priority on scheduling and funding the Federal Creosote  site work because the contamination was in a residential area. EPA also took steps to shorten the time needed to select, design, and  implement the remedial actions. As a result of these efforts to prioritize and expedite site cleanup work, the  Federal Creosote site reached key cleanup milestones in less time than  some other site cleanups. Total Site Costs Exceeded Early Construction Cost Estimates Largely because of the Nature of these Estimates and the Discovery of Additional Contamination

Total site costs exceeded construction estimates at the Federal Creosote  site by roughly $233 million, primarily because (1) EPA’s early  construction estimates were not designed to include all site-related  expenses and (2) additional quantities of contaminated material were  discovered during the cleanup effort. contractor fraud. EPA prepares these preliminary estimates during the remedy selection  process to compare projected construction costs across different remedial  action alternatives. Additionally, sampling during the site  investigations for the residential area as well as the Rustic Mall was  limited by the location of buildings and access restrictions, according to  EPA’s RPM. EPA Managed the Cleanup and Communicated with Residents

According to a 1984 interagency agreement between EPA and the Corps  for the cleanup of Superfund sites, EPA maintains statutory responsibility  for implementing the Superfund program. To fulfill its project management and community outreach responsibilities,  EPA dedicated a full-time RPM to the Federal Creosote site, according to  Region 2 officials. According to site documents and a local official, EPA’s community  relations efforts were successful at reducing residents’ anxieties. The Corps Selected and Oversaw Contractors’ Design and Implementation of the Remedy but Had a Limited Role in the Subcontracting Process

At the Federal Creosote site, the Corps selected and oversaw private  contractors’ design and implementation of the remedial action; however,  the Corps was less involved in the subcontracting process. For example, the  prime contractor was responsible for selecting and overseeing  subcontractors. The Secretary, on behalf of the Corps of Engineers, had no  comments on the draft report. However, our objective was, more broadly, to  identify what factors contributed to the difference between the estimated  remedial construction costs ($105 million) and the actual total site costs  ($338 million). We found that the difference between these two amounts  was $141 million in remedial construction cost increases—which were  largely due to increases in the amount of contaminated material requiring  remediation—and $92 million in other response costs that were not  included in EPA’s original estimates. Prime Contractor Civil Suit

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This appendix provides information on the scope of work and  methodology used to examine (1) how EPA assessed the risks and  selected remedies for the Federal Creosote site, and what priority EPA  assigned to site cleanup; (2) what factors contributed to the difference  between the estimated and actual remediation costs of the site; and (3)  how responsibilities for implementing and overseeing the site work w divided between EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corp also discusses our methodology for summarizing criminal and civil  litigation related to the Federal Creosote site. However, because some costs  incurred prior to early May 2009 may not have been processed through the  Corps and EPA’s cost-tracking systems at the time of data collection, site  cost data in this report are considered to be approximate. work.
Why GAO Did This Study

In the 1990s, creosote was discovered under a residential neighborhood in Manville, New Jersey. Creosote, a mixture of chemicals, is used to preserve wood products, such as railroad ties. Some of the chemicals in creosote may cause cancer, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA found that creosote from a former wood-treatment facility (known as the Federal Creosote site) had contaminated soil and groundwater at the site. Under the Superfund program--the federal government's principal program to clean up hazardous waste--EPA assessed site risks, selected remedies, and worked with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clean up the site. As of May 2009, construction of EPA's remedies for the site had been completed; however, total site costs were almost $340 million and remedial construction costs had exceeded original estimates. In this context, GAO was asked to examine (1) how EPA assessed risks and selected remedies for the site, and what priority EPA gave to site cleanup; (2) what factors contributed to the difference between the estimated and actual costs; and (3) how EPA and the Corps divided responsibilities for site work. GAO analyzed EPA and Corps documents and data on the cleanup effort and its costs, and interviewed officials from these agencies. This report contains no recommendations. EPA generally agreed with GAO's findings on the agency's cleanup costs and actions, while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had no comments.

What GAO Found

The extent of the contamination in a residential area at the Federal Creosote site was the primary factor influencing EPA's risk assessment conclusions, remedy selection decisions, and how EPA prioritized site work, according to site documents and agency officials. EPA assessed site contamination through multiple rounds of evaluation and concluded that soil and groundwater contamination levels were high enough that EPA needed to take action. Then, EPA evaluated remedies to achieve cleanup goals that it had established for the site and that were consistent with its residential use. EPA selected off-site treatment and disposal of the contaminated soil and long-term monitoring of the groundwater contamination as the remedies for the site. In selecting these remedies, EPA considered a range of alternatives but ultimately determined that certain options would be potentially infeasible or ineffective due to the residential setting. For example, EPA chose not to implement certain alternatives on-site because the agency found that there was insufficient space and they would be too disruptive to nearby residents. In addition, EPA chose not to implement certain alternatives because the agency found that they would be unlikely to achieve the cleanup goals for the site, especially considering the high level of treatment required to allow for unrestricted residential use of the area and the high levels of contamination found at the site. EPA made cleanup of the site a high priority because the contamination was in a residential area. For example, EPA took steps to shorten the cleanup period and prioritized the use of regional Superfund resources on the Federal Creosote site over other sites in the region. The $338 million in total site costs exceeded EPA's estimated remedial construction costs of $105 million by about $233 million, primarily because EPA's estimates focused only on construction costs, and EPA discovered additional contamination during the cleanup effort. EPA prepared preliminary cost estimates during the remedy selection process; however, EPA requires that these estimates include only the costs associated with implementing different remedies it was considering, not all site costs. Also, as a result of the movement of contamination in the ground and sampling limitations during EPA's site investigation, a greater-than-expected amount of contamination was discovered during the cleanup effort, which increased costs. Other factors, such as contractor fraud, affected total site costs to a lesser extent. EPA was responsible for managing the overall site cleanup and community relations, while the Corps was responsible for implementing the cleanup. EPA dedicated a full-time staff member to manage the site cleanup who, according to EPA, maintained a significant on-site presence to ensure that the project remained on schedule and was adequately funded and to work with residents. EPA also oversaw the work of the Corps and its costs. To conduct the actual cleanup work, the Corps hired contractors to design or implement cleanup activities who, in turn, hired subcontractors for some tasks. The Corps oversaw the activities and costs of its primary contractors but, according to Corps officials, was less involved in selecting and overseeing subcontractors.