This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-514 
entitled 'Hazardous Waste: Early Goals Have Been Met in EPA's 
Corrective Action Program, but Resource and Technical Challenges Will 
Constrain Future Progress' which was released on August 25, 2011. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to the Honorable Edward J. Markey, House of Representatives: 

July 2011: 

Hazardous Waste: 

Early Goals Have Been Met in EPA's Corrective Action Program, but 
Resource and Technical Challenges Will Constrain Future Progress: 

GAO-11-514: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-11-514, a report to the Honorable Edward J. Markey, 
House of Representatives. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Years of industrial development generated hazardous waste that, when 
improperly disposed of, poses risks to human health and the 
environment. To mitigate these risks, Congress passed the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). Subtitle C of RCRA, as 
amended, requires owners or operators to take corrective actions to 
clean up contamination at facilities that treat, store, or dispose of 
hazardous waste. The corrective action program is administered by the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or states authorized by EPA. 

GAO was asked by Representative Markey, in his former capacity as 
Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, to 
assess this program. This report discusses (1) actions EPA has taken 
to establish goals for the program and expedite cleanup; (2) the 
progress EPA, states, and facilities have made in meeting these goals; 
and (3) the challenges EPA, states, and facilities face, if any, in 
meeting future cleanup goals. GAO reviewed and analyzed EPA documents 
and data and interviewed EPA and state agency officials and 
stakeholder groups. 

What GAO Found: 

To focus and streamline the RCRA corrective action program, EPA has 
over the past decade set a series of progressively more ambitious 
performance goals and identified which facilities must meet them. Its 
first set of performance goals, for example—-to be achieved in fiscal 
year 2005-—were to control human exposures to contamination and 
migration of contaminated groundwater at 95 percent of 1,714 “high-risk”
facilities. EPA also established a long-range vision for the program, 
going beyond controlling contamination to cleaning it up. Hence, it 
targeted 2020 as the year by which 95 percent of 3,747 facilities 
(expanded from 1,714 to include low- and medium-risk facilities) would 
have completed construction of all cleanup remedies. EPA also (1) 
established a process for its regions and authorized states to follow 
in determining whether facilities undergoing cleanup have met major 
milestones toward controlling human exposure and preventing the spread 
of contaminated groundwater and (2) issued guidance to assist in 
streamlining the corrective action process, maximize program 
flexibility, and expedite cleanup. 

EPA, states, and facilities have made considerable progress in meeting 
corrective action performance goals to control and contain 
contamination at high-risk facilities. Each of the five EPA regional 
offices GAO visited cited efforts to improve information on state 
program status, better estimate remaining work, and identify actions 
taken to meet the 2020 goals. Several also directly assisted states in 
assessing whether facilities had controlled contamination. Regional 
and state offices also reported streamlining reporting requirements 
and compliance procedures. EPA data show that by the end of fiscal 
year 2005, the vast majority of high-risk facilities had controlled 
human exposure to hazards and the migration of contaminated 
groundwater. Importantly, the EPA data also highlight the challenge 
facing EPA, states, and facilities in meeting the 2020 goal of 
constructing final cleanup remedies for 95 percent of the expanded 
universe of 3,747 facilities. For example, almost three-quarters of 
these facilities have yet to construct final cleanup remedies. Most 
EPA and state officials interviewed agreed that the 2020 goal was 
unlikely to be met. 

EPA, states, and facilities identified fiscal and human resource 
constraints and groundwater cleanup as key challenges for achieving 
the 2020 goals on time. Program cuts resulting from states’ fiscal 
problems and facilities’ funding difficulties resulting from the 
economic downturn have exacerbated resource constraints. Technical 
complexity associated with groundwater remediation may also impede 
progress, and disagreements between industry and regulators over 
groundwater cleanup standards may perpetuate delays. To date, however, 
EPA has not performed a rigorous analysis of its remaining corrective 
action workload, including the resources it needs to meet its 2020 
goals and the complexity and cost of what remains to be done. Without 
such an assessment, EPA cannot determine the extent to which the 
program has the resources it needs to meet these goals. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that EPA assess the remaining corrective action 
workload, determine the extent to which the program has resources 
needed to meet 2020 goals, and take steps to either reallocate its 
resources or revise its goals. EPA agreed with the recommendation. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-514] or key 
components. For more information, contact David Trimble at (202) 512-
3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

During the Past Decade, EPA Established Goals and Issued Guidance to 
Expedite Cleanup under the Corrective Action Program: 

EPA, States, and Facilities Have Made Considerable Progress in Meeting 
Corrective Action Performance Goals, but Meeting Long-Term Cleanup 
Goals May Be Difficult: 

EPA Regions, the States, and Industry Representatives Collectively 
Identified Resource Constraints and Groundwater Remediation as Key 
Challenges to Meeting Future Cleanup Goals: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: U.S. States and Territories Authorized to Manage a 
Corrective Action Program: 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix III: EPA Regions and Distribution of Facilities Covered by 
Corrective Action Goals for 2020: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: EPA's Goals for the Corrective Action Program: 

Figure 2: Percentage of Facilities That Achieved EPA's 2005 and 2008 
Corrective Action Performance Goals: 

Figure 3: Number and Percentage of EPA's Expanded Universe of 3,747 
Facilities That Achieved the 2020 Goals as of Fiscal Year 2010: 

Figure 4: Status of 3,747 Facilities Covered by EPA's 2020 Goals, as 
of Fiscal Year 2010: 

Figure 5: Progress Needed to Achieve EPA's 2015 and 2020 Corrective 
Action Goals: 

Figure 6: EPA's Grant Funding to States for Corrective Action, Fiscal 
Years 2004 to 2011: 

Figure 7: EPA Regions and Number of Facilities in Each State That Were 
Covered by EPA's 2020 Goals as of Fiscal Year 2010: 

Abbreviations: 

EPA: Environmental Protection Agency: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act: 

RCRA: Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 22, 2011: 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Markey: 

During more than a century of American industrial development, huge 
volumes of hazardous waste were generated and disposed of in an 
environmentally unsound manner. Recognizing that waste disposal 
without careful planning and management endangered human health and 
the environment, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act of 1976, or RCRA, to manage hazardous waste from 
generation to disposal, among other aims.[Footnote 1] RCRA requires 
companies that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste to obtain a 
permit specifying how their facilities will safely manage that waste, 
but the law initially required cleanup, known as corrective action, 
only in limited circumstances.[Footnote 2] In 1984, Congress amended 
RCRA to include expanded provisions for cleaning up contamination at 
facilities having permits, as well as those required to have permits, 
to treat, store, and dispose of hazardous waste. 

Under RCRA, as amended, the owners or operators of facilities located 
on sites where hazardous waste was or is treated, stored, or disposed 
of must clean up present and past contamination within the boundaries 
of their sites, as well as contamination that may have spread beyond 
those boundaries. The facilities include, for example, chemical 
manufacturers, wood preservers, and commercial landfill operations; 
the sites range in size from small hazardous waste storage areas where 
contaminants leaked into the ground to sites of more than 1,000 acres 
in area with extensive contamination. While conducting corrective 
actions, facility owners typically incur capital and equipment costs, 
operations and maintenance expenses, and planning and compliance 
costs. A 2002 study by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) found 
that the costs of cleanup at facilities can vary widely, noting at the 
time that facilities' cleanup estimates ranged from less than $1 
million to more than $50 million.[Footnote 3] More recently, an 
internal analysis conducted by an EPA contractor in 2007 estimated 
that in 2006 nationwide private-sector costs associated with 
corrective action program cleanups ranged from about $400 million to 
$500 million.[Footnote 4] 

EPA may authorize states to administer their own permitting programs 
for hazardous waste in lieu of the federal program, as long as these 
state programs are equivalent to and consistent with the federal 
program and provide for adequate enforcement. EPA may also authorize 
states to implement the corrective action program. To date, 42 states 
and Guam[Footnote 5] are authorized to manage their own corrective 
action programs (see appendix I). EPA distributes grant funds to these 
states, not to pay for the cost of cleanup, but rather to assist in 
the administration of their programs. States are required to 
supplement these grants with at least $1 for every $3 in federal 
money. In fiscal year 2010, EPA grants to the states to administer the 
program totaled $31 million. States typically work closely with EPA's 
10 regional offices to implement their programs, and the pertinent EPA 
regional office retains lead responsibility for a portion of 
facilities undertaking corrective action. EPA's Offices of Solid Waste 
and Emergency Response, and of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, 
oversee the RCRA corrective action program as a whole. The Office of 
Solid Waste and Emergency Response is responsible for developing and 
implementing policy for the federal corrective action program, and the 
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance is responsible for 
enforcement and compliance assurance at regulated facilities. Although 
RCRA, as amended, set no deadlines for completing cleanups under the 
corrective action program, EPA set performance goals for the program 
in response to planning requirements established for all federal 
agencies under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 
1993. 

Over the years, nationwide progress on the cleanup of hazardous waste 
has been slow. Moreover, in October 1997 and August 2000, we reported 
that a number of management factors limited cleanup progress under the 
corrective action program during the 1990s, including a burdensome 
cleanup process and resource shortfalls.[Footnote 6] Against a 
backdrop of continuing congressional concern, you asked us to assess 
the status of EPA's RCRA corrective action program in your former 
capacity as Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and 
Environment. Accordingly, this report examines (1) the actions EPA has 
taken to establish goals for the program and expedite cleanup; (2) the 
progress EPA, the states, and facilities have made in meeting these 
goals; and (3) the challenges, if any, that EPA, the states, and 
facilities face in meeting future cleanup goals. 

To accomplish our work, we reviewed relevant EPA strategic plans and 
guidance, along with the procedures the agency has adopted to 
establish goals, identify which facilities it monitors for progress 
toward meeting those goals, measure progress, and expedite cleanup. We 
analyzed EPA's data on cleanup status, including information from 
EPA's RCRAInfo database.[Footnote 7] We assessed the reliability of 
the RCRAInfo data elements necessary to our engagement by reviewing 
system documentation, performing electronic testing, and interviewing 
officials knowledgeable about them; we found the data to be 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

To better understand the progress made and what work remains, we 
examined a nongeneralizable random sample of 32 facilities (located in 
Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, and Pennsylvania) selected from 1,658 
facilities that met criteria set by EPA for facilities deemed to pose 
a high risk to human health and the environment. Further, we 
interviewed officials responsible for the corrective action program in 
EPA headquarters and in a nonprobability sample of 4 of EPA's 10 
regional offices. We selected this nonprobability sample of regions on 
the basis of their having the largest caseloads (as determined by the 
number of facilities under their jurisdictions that are subject to the 
program).[Footnote 8] Taken together, the four regions account for 
approximately 65 percent of facilities EPA has identified that must 
meet its goals for the corrective action program.[Footnote 9] To gain 
a perspective from a region with a relatively smaller caseload, we 
also interviewed EPA officials in Region 10 in Seattle. Within the 
five regions, we visited or spoke with officials from nine states: 
Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, 
Pennsylvania, and Virginia. In addition, we discussed cleanup 
challenges with stakeholder groups, including a group of Fortune 50 
companies with facilities in the RCRA corrective action program, the 
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials, 
and the Environmental Council of States. Appendix II presents a more 
detailed description of our scope and methodology. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2009 through July 
2011, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 revised RCRA to 
include new provisions requiring certain facilities to take corrective 
action to clean up their sites. EPA data show that as of the end of 
fiscal year 2010, about 6,000 facilities were subject to corrective 
action; that is, they were required to undertake corrective action in 
response to a release of hazardous waste or constituents.[Footnote 10] 
Facilities that may be required to undertake corrective action 
include, among others, operating or closed treatment, storage, or 
disposal facilities that are permitted or have interim status--during 
which the owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal 
facility is considered to have been issued a RCRA permit even though a 
final determination on the permit has not yet been made by the 
regulator. Permitted and interim-status facilities generally incur an 
obligation for continued corrective action even after closure. 

Facilities generally come into the corrective action program when (1) 
EPA or an authorized state is considering a facility's RCRA permit 
application, (2) a release of hazardous waste or constituent has been 
identified, or (3) a facility volunteers to perform corrective action 
by entering into an agreement with EPA or an authorized state. First, 
when a facility is seeking a permit or when a permit is already in 
place, EPA or an authorized state can incorporate corrective action 
into the permit's requirements. EPA or the state may use this process 
to address both on-site releases and releases that have migrated 
beyond a facility's boundary. Second, EPA or the state may issue a 
corrective action order that is not contingent on a facility's permit 
status, for example, when immediate action is necessary to address a 
release or threat of release of a solid or hazardous waste that may 
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or 
the environment, including at an interim-status facility. Third, 
facilities may volunteer to take corrective action before they are 
required to do so by the terms of the permit or corrective action 
order. 

There are no comprehensive cleanup regulations under RCRA. Instead, 
EPA and authorized states primarily use guidance to implement 
corrective action and impose requirements at individual facilities 
through their permits or orders. The agency emphasizes the flexible 
nature of the program, but several elements are common to most, 
although not all, corrective action cleanups: 

* Initial facility assessment. EPA or an authorized state first 
assesses a facility to characterize the risk posed and determine the 
need for immediate action. 

* Facility investigation. If it is determined that information beyond 
initial facility assessment is needed, EPA or the authorized state 
requires the company owning or operating the facility to conduct a 
more detailed investigation to establish the nature and extent of 
contamination released to groundwater, surface water, air, and soil. 
Depending on a facility's particular circumstances, this phase may be 
complex and take years to complete. The process is monitored by the 
agency overseeing the correction action, and the outcome is subject to 
that authority's approval. While facility investigation is under way, 
interim measures may be needed to control or abate ongoing risks to 
human health and the environment. According to EPA, interim measures 
may take place any time during the corrective action process. In some 
cases, such actions may be enough to complete the corrective action 
process. 

* Remedy study and selection. If further corrective action is deemed 
necessary, facility owners and operators analyze a range of cleanup 
options. A company may complete a study of corrective measures 
describing the advantages, disadvantages, and costs of various 
options. The scope of the effort required for such a study depends on 
the risks posed at the facility: a study can be relatively restricted 
in scope if the risks and cleanup option are readily identifiable. EPA 
or the authorized state solicits public comments on the selected 
option and approves a final cleanup method. 

* Remedy construction and implementation. Facility owners and 
operators design and construct and, as necessary, operate, maintain, 
and monitor the selected remedy. 

EPA has undertaken a number of initiatives over the years to manage 
the corrective action program by making decisions on the basis of the 
level of the risk to public health and the environment and to improve 
the cleanup process. In 1991, EPA decided to focus its resources on 
facilities it ranked as high priority for corrective action because of 
the relatively high risk they posed.[Footnote 11] It also decided to 
first control or abate immediate threats to human health and the 
environment at these facilities, instead of diverting resources to 
push for final cleanup actions. In 1994, EPA established two 
environmental indicators: controlling exposures to humans and 
controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater. In 1998, EPA 
took steps to remove some barriers to cleanups, such as providing for 
more flexible treatment of contaminated soil that may temporarily 
accumulate during cleanups. In 1999 and 2001, EPA implemented a set of 
administrative reforms to promote faster and more flexible cleanup. 
These reforms called for new results-oriented cleanup guidance, 
promoting program flexibility through training and outreach, and 
enhancing community involvement. 

During the Past Decade, EPA Established Goals and Issued Guidance to 
Expedite Cleanup under the Corrective Action Program: 

As part of its effort to focus and streamline the RCRA corrective 
action program, EPA has since 1997 set a series of progressively more 
ambitious performance goals and identified which facilities must meet 
them. The agency also issued guidance to expedite cleanup. 

EPA Has Set a Series of Progressively More Ambitious Performance Goals 
and Identified Which Facilities Must Meet Them: 

Goals set by EPA for the corrective action program have encompassed 
progressively more facilities and longer time frames. In response to 
GPRA, the agency first set performance goals to be achieved by fiscal 
year 2005, which focused on high-risk facilities deemed to have 
potentially unacceptable levels of contaminants. EPA then began 
focusing on longer-term concerns by setting goals to be achieved by 
fiscal year 2008. EPA also began to establish a long-range vision for 
the program, which included a larger universe of facilities and goals 
for fiscal year 2020. In addition, the agency has also issued guidance 
to expedite cleanup. 

EPA First Set Goals for High-Priority Facilities: 

In 1997, in response to GPRA, EPA established its first set of 
performance goals for the corrective action program. The goals were to 
be achieved by the end of fiscal year 2005 and targeted 1,714 
facilities at high risk of causing potentially unacceptable public 
exposure to pollutants, having high levels of groundwater 
contamination, or both. The performance goals to be met by fiscal 2005 
were as follows: 

* controlling human exposures to contaminants at 95 percent of these 
high-priority facilities and: 

* controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater at 70 percent 
of the 1,714 facilities.[Footnote 12] 

Importantly, these goals did not explicitly address final cleanup of 
sites but rather sought to control contamination at high-risk sites 
first. Previously, we and others reported that EPA had not established 
long-term goals for final cleanup.[Footnote 13] In our August 2000 
report, we noted that focusing only on controlling contamination and 
not on implementing final cleanup actions could postpone cleanups well 
into the future, and we recommended that EPA establish long-term and 
annual goals delineating the number or portion of facilities that are 
to implement final cleanup actions. In response to our recommendation, 
EPA agreed that implementing final remedies was important but decided 
at the time to use its limited resources to focus on controlling 
contamination at the worst sites. EPA also stated that the corrective 
action program did not have the resources to focus concurrently on 
containing contamination and implementing final cleanup actions. 

Goals for 2008 Began to Focus on Longer-Term Concerns: 

EPA's next set of performance goals, for 2008, began to address longer-
term concerns. EPA continued the goals to control human exposures to 
contaminants and contain the spread of groundwater contamination, but 
it added two new goals. These two longer-term goals directed that a 
portion of high-priority facilities were to decide upon and construct 
a final cleanup remedy. EPA defined the completion of final remedy 
construction as the time when the physical components of a final 
corrective action remedy for a facility were in place and functioning 
correctly. EPA also increased the total number of high-priority 
facilities that must address the goals from 1,714 to 1,968. [Footnote 
14] The performance goals to be met by fiscal year 2008 were as 
follows: 

* controlling human exposures to contaminants at 95 percent of 1,968 
high-priority facilities, 

* controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater at 80 percent 
of these high-priority facilities, 

* selecting final remedies at 30 percent of these facilities, and: 

* completing final remedy construction at 20 percent of these 
facilities. 

EPA Expanded the Universe for Goals Set after 2008: 

While directing attention to high-priority facilities, EPA was also 
working to establish what it considered a long-range vision for the 
corrective action program--that by the year 2020, cleanup of 
contamination at an expanded universe of RCRA facilities would be 
largely complete.[Footnote 15] In developing this vision, EPA issued a 
memorandum asking the regions and authorized states to include in this 
universe facilities that, as of October 1997, had RCRA permits for 
actively managing waste, as well as treatment and storage facilities 
that had been closed and had postclosure obligations. The regions and 
states had discretion to add facilities they agreed were important to 
address through the program. According to an EPA official, this group 
of facilities includes the majority of facilities ultimately expected 
to need corrective action, including those that had previously been 
considered as medium or low priority. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2009, EPA shifted its focus from the 1,968 
high-priority facilities to tracking and reporting progress among the 
expanded universe of 3,747 facilities targeted in the 2020 goals. In 
September 2010, EPA issued new fiscal year 2015 performance goals for 
this expanded universe. These goals were as follows: 

* controlling human exposures to contaminants at 84 percent of the 
3,747 facilities, 

* containing migration of contaminated groundwater at 78 percent of 
these facilities, and: 

* completing final remedy construction at 56 percent of these 
facilities. 

The agency also set long-range goals for 2020: 

* controlling human exposures to contaminants at 95 percent of 3,747 
facilities, 

* controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater at 95 percent 
of these facilities, and: 

* completing final remedy construction at 95 percent of these 
facilities. 

Figure 1 depicts the goals set for the corrective action program for 
fiscal years 2005, 2008, 2015, and 2020. (Appendix III contains a map 
illustrating the number of facilities covered by the fiscal year 2020 
goals in each EPA region and each state.) 

Figure 1: EPA's Goals for the Corrective Action Program: 

[Refer to PDF for image;vertical bar graph] 

Target fiscal year: 2005; 
Percentage of facilities where human exposures to contaminants are to 
be controlled: 95% (1,628); 
Percentage of facilities where migration of contaminated groundwater 
is to be controlled: 70% (1,200); 
Percentage of facilities where final cleanup remedy is to be 
constructed: 0%; 
Number of facilities to which goals apply: 1,714. 

Target fiscal year: 2008; 
Percentage of facilities where human exposures to contaminants are to 
be controlled: 95% (1,870); 
Percentage of facilities where migration of contaminated groundwater 
is to be controlled: 80% (1,574); 
Percentage of facilities where final cleanup remedy is to be 
constructed: 20% (394); 
Number of facilities to which goals apply: 1,968. 

Target fiscal year: 2015; 
Percentage of facilities where human exposures to contaminants are to 
be controlled: 84% (3,147); 
Percentage of facilities where migration of contaminated groundwater 
is to be controlled: 78% (2,923); 
Percentage of facilities where final cleanup remedy is to be 
constructed: 56% (2,098). 

Target fiscal year: 2020; 
Percentage of facilities where human exposures to contaminants are to 
be controlled: 95% (3,560); 
Percentage of facilities where migration of contaminated groundwater 
is to be controlled: 95% (3,560); 
Percentage of facilities where final cleanup remedy is to be 
constructed: 95% (3,560); 
Number of facilities to which goals apply (2015-2020): 3,747. 

Source: EPA. 

Note: EPA's goals for 2005 did not include final remedy construction. 

[End of figure] 

Notably, EPA's fiscal year 2020 goals are for the final construction 
of remedies, which is something short of the ultimate goal of final 
completion of corrective action. According to EPA guidance, for 
corrective action to be complete, a facility must have constructed all 
required remedies and met the relevant specific cleanup 
objectives.[Footnote 16] For some facilities, such as those working to 
clean up contaminated groundwater, it can take years--perhaps decades--
of operation before a site meets final cleanup standards. To date, EPA 
has not explicitly articulated such an ultimate cleanup goal. EPA 
headquarters officials told us that they may consider adding an 
explicit completion goal as the program progresses. 

EPA Established a Process to Determine When Facilities Meet 
Performance Goals: 

EPA has established a formal process for its regions and authorized 
states to follow to determine whether facilities undergoing cleanup 
have controlled human exposures to contaminants and the migration of 
contaminated groundwater. An EPA document outlining the process calls 
for a facility's lead regulator (an EPA or state official) to evaluate 
the site, using a standard assessment tool, to determine if these 
goals have been met. Both the individual completing the evaluation and 
that person's supervisor must sign off on the evaluation and provide 
supporting documentation for their determination. The resulting 
determination represents the status of the facility. If conditions 
change for a facility deemed to have achieved its performance goals 
(for example, if contamination is no longer under control), the 
decision can be reversed in EPA's records. The major aim of this 
process is to measure the progress facilities have made and determine 
whether a facility poses an unacceptable risk of human exposures to 
contaminants or migration of contaminated groundwater. 

Regarding the risk of human exposures, EPA documents direct regulators 
to evaluate various pathways, such as air or migrating groundwater, by 
which humans could be exposed to contamination and determine whether 
controls are in place to prevent unacceptable exposures given present 
uses of the land and groundwater. To meet the goal of controlling 
unacceptable human exposures, a facility may have to institute 
controls such as posting signs, constructing fences, or providing 
residents with alternative drinking water sources. In addition, 
according to EPA documents, to meet the goal of controlling the 
migration of contaminated groundwater, contaminants within groundwater 
must be contained, and monitoring must be done to confirm that 
contaminated groundwater remains in place. In addition, the 
groundwater contamination must not significantly affect the quality of 
streams, rivers, and other surface waters. To accomplish this goal, 
typical actions a facility might have to take include installing 
groundwater systems to treat or hydraulically contain contaminated 
groundwater, removing contaminated soil, or capping contaminated 
areas. Cleanup is not necessarily complete after meeting the goal of 
controlling groundwater migration, however. More-permanent remedies 
(or more detailed site investigation) are often needed to ensure the 
site is safe for reasonably anticipated future uses. As part of longer-
term site cleanup, EPA would put these remedies in place. 

EPA's documented process for determining whether a facility has 
achieved the performance goal of remedy construction is less formal. 
According to this process, EPA and the states must affirm this 
achievement in a letter to the facility or in a memorandum to the 
file, acknowledging that all physical construction of the last 
corrective remedy has been completed and that all the remedies are 
fully functional. In some instances, EPA considers facilities to have 
completed remedy construction even if no remedy has been constructed. 
According to its documented process, EPA may make such a determination 
in cases where (1) an investigation of the facility was conducted and 
no remedy was needed or (2) no additional construction was needed 
beyond the interim measures the facility implemented to control 
contamination. EPA has also established criteria for determining when 
cleanup is to be documented as complete. For example, if a facility 
has completed construction and the facility cleanup objectives have 
been met, the lead regulator can make a determination that the 
facility has achieved protection of human health and the environment. 
EPA guidance recommends that such a determination be reflected in a 
permit modification and include procedures for public involvement. 

EPA Guidance to Support Cleanup: 

In addition to clarifying when facilities may be deemed to have met 
performance goals, EPA has also issued a number of guidance documents 
to help streamline the corrective action process, maximize program 
flexibility, and expedite cleanup. Key documents include guidance on 
results-based cleanup approaches and tailored oversight, groundwater 
remediation, and enforcement strategies and financial 
responsibilities. Specifically: 

* January 2001 guidance on enforcement strategies to encourage timely 
cleanup. This enforcement guidance describes several actions 
regulators could consider during corrective action permitting and 
negotiation, including using flexible rather than fixed compliance 
schedules to determine when or if facilities should be penalized for 
missing deadlines.[Footnote 17] The guidance also describes more 
collaborative approaches, with reduced agency oversight, for 
facilities with good compliance histories and the capacity to complete 
necessary corrective actions. 

* September 2003 guidance outlining ways that regulators can change 
their processes to emphasize results and outcomes.[Footnote 18] This 
guidance outlines several core approaches for consideration at all 
corrective action facilities to move oversight and cleanup activities 
away from a one-size-fits-all approach to one that is site-specific, 
based on actual site risk, and procedurally flexible. For example, the 
lead regulator responsible for a site would develop an oversight plan 
for the corrective action process based on facility-specific 
conditions, such as site complexity, compliance history, and the 
facility's financial and technical capability. In addition, the 
guidance encourages facilities to use innovative technologies and to 
focus first on areas representing the greatest short-term threats to 
human health or the environment. To increase cleanup efficiency at a 
site with multiple contamination sources, facility owners or operators 
would first address immediate risks to human health and the 
environment posed by the site as a whole and then address other short-
and long-term cleanup objectives. The guidance recommends that 
regulators and facilities focus on achieving environmental results, 
rather than follow a predetermined set of cleanup steps that may not 
reflect site-specific circumstances. The guidance states that such 
results-based approaches to corrective action can achieve 
environmental results faster and potentially save resources for both 
the facility and regulatory agencies. 

* April 2004 guidance for remediating groundwater contamination. 
[Footnote 19] In its own words, the guidance serves as a "plain 
language" consolidation of previous EPA policies on groundwater 
cleanup, aiming to provide regulators, facilities, and the public with 
greater clarity, certainty, and understanding of EPA's policies and 
expectations regarding the cleanup of contaminated groundwater. The 
guidance promotes a results-based approach, recommending that 
facilities address immediate threats before moving on to intermediate 
and longer-term issues. It outlines EPA's expectation that, where 
practicable, final cleanups will return usable groundwater to its 
"maximum beneficial use" (e.g., for drinking water, industrial use, or 
agriculture) within a time frame that is reasonable. This maximum 
beneficial use determines the levels to which a site's groundwater 
should be cleaned up, whether to drinking water standards or 
potentially less stringent levels, which may be appropriate for 
industrial use. The guidance also notes that EPA's policy recognizes 
that it may in some cases be technically impracticable to achieve 
certain groundwater cleanup levels. Importantly, the guidance notes 
that EPA policy also recognizes that states are the primary 
implementers of the program and that facilities may therefore need to 
follow the states' groundwater requirements, which may be stricter. 

* April 2010 memorandum on enforcement strategy. This memorandum 
outlines a national enforcement strategy to assist the regions and 
states in achieving the 2020 goals.[Footnote 20] This strategy 
provides direction for identifying and ranking facilities that warrant 
enforcement and clarifies a number of enforcement issues that regions 
and states should consider during the various steps of the correction 
action process. 

* In addition to enforcement-related guidance, EPA also implemented an 
initiative to improve compliance with financial assurance requirements 
to ensure that funds are available for cleanup. According to EPA 
officials, to increase EPA and state officials' knowledge and skills 
on financial assurance matters, EPA held training sessions, developed 
fact sheets and cost estimation software, held monthly conference 
calls, and took other education actions. These officials also stated 
that the agency hired a contractor to assess financial assurances 
obtained from numerous facilities, which helped to identify 
violations, as well as areas where more training was needed.[Footnote 
21] 

EPA, States, and Facilities Have Made Considerable Progress in Meeting 
Corrective Action Performance Goals, but Meeting Long-Term Cleanup 
Goals May Be Difficult: 

EPA, states, and facilities have taken a variety of actions to 
streamline the cleanup process, and the vast majority of high-priority 
facilities have made considerable progress in meeting EPA's 
performance goals to control contamination. But EPA's longer-term 2020 
goal of actually constructing final remedies to clean up 
contamination--a goal that applies to a much larger universe of high-, 
medium-, and low-priority facilities--may be difficult for the agency, 
states, and facilities to meet. 

EPA Regions and States Have Taken a Variety of Actions to Hasten 
Cleanup: 

According to the EPA and state officials we spoke with, EPA's 2020 
corrective action goals have helped motivate regulators and facilities 
to address cleanups. Each of the five EPA regional offices we visited 
has developed a strategy for achieving cleanup goals at the facilities 
within its jurisdiction that are subject to the 2020 goals. The 
strategies generally include clarifying the status of the region's 
program, projecting remaining workloads, and identifying actions the 
region plans to take to meet the 2020 goals. In addition to 
articulating these long-term strategies, regional officials also told 
us that, through the agency's annual planning process, they develop 
annual targets for the states to achieve each year. The regions build 
these targets into states' work plans accompanying their grant 
agreements. These work plans specify activities that states are to 
perform in their corrective action programs and form the basis of 
midyear and end-of-year regional reviews. Regional officials also told 
us that they routinely discuss with responsible state regulators 
facilities' progress and projections, and they hold training classes 
and other meetings to promote best practices. 

EPA officials in several regions also reported assisting states with 
facilities. In some cases, the regions have taken over the oversight 
of sites with unusually complex circumstances at the state's request. 
Regional officials also told us of taking direct responsibility for 
completing assessments of the extent to which particular facilities 
have controlled human exposures to contaminants and the migration of 
contaminated groundwater. For example, EPA's Dallas regional office 
reported reviewing technical documents and conducting site inspections 
at 47 facilities in Texas to verify that corrective action goals were 
met, and the Chicago office reported a number of assessments in 
Michigan. Regional and state officials also cited examples of regional 
technical assistance, such as regional support in sampling and 
analysis and groundwater surveys or modeling at distressed or bankrupt 
facilities. 

Officials from the regions and states we visited also reported taking 
steps to streamline corrective action procedures to help expedite 
cleanup. For example, in lieu of the conventional sequence of 
procedural steps, the EPA Dallas regional office developed a strategy 
that involved the development and use of performance standards and 
facility-specific risk management plans for a more results-based 
approach, which was adopted by several of its states. Officials in 
several regional and state offices told us they had eliminated the 
"corrective measures study," which requires an evaluation of different 
cleanup alternatives. Officials in one region explained that this 
study often took too long and had neither a focus nor a remedy 
envisioned and that with the maturing of the corrective action 
program, federal and state regulators and the facilities with more 
knowledge about successful remedies can better target their efforts 
toward these remedies. In the same vein, a Georgia official explained 
that instead of studying every option for cleanup, facilities may now 
submit a proposal. The state may ask a facility to consider other 
alternatives if the proposal does not look appropriate or is not 
likely to be implemented within a reasonable time frame. 

Several of EPA's Chicago regional officials told us they have 
successfully used streamlined enforcement orders for a number of 
facilities. According to the officials, the orders allow facility 
owners to investigate their sites and perform cleanup activities with 
fewer prescriptive instructions from the regulators. Reporting 
requirements during the investigation phase have also been streamlined 
to reduce the time needed to produce and review paperwork. The 
officials maintained that this more flexible approach has in some 
cases allowed them to cut substantial time off what would otherwise be 
needed to clean up some sites. Along similar lines, Philadelphia 
regional officials cited more than 50 "facility-lead agreements" with 
lower-risk facilities. Under these agreements, instead of relying on a 
more time-consuming enforcement order, the regional office and the 
facility sign a nonenforceable letter of commitment to implement a 
specified corrective action and use broad performance standards to 
guide facility activities. 

In addition to these streamlining initiatives, state officials also 
cited a number of other actions they believe encourage faster 
cleanups. For example, Louisiana has promulgated regulations that 
allow a tiered approach for setting minimum cleanup levels for soils 
and groundwater. Under the program, a facility may begin with 
stringent screening standards and progress through up to three levels 
of risk-based cleanup standards that are increasingly tailored to the 
specific conditions at the site. As a safeguard, however, before the 
facility can apply the tailored cleanup levels, it must conduct 
extensive site assessment and investigation work. State officials 
believe this program has helped address past situations where 
facilities and regulators reached impasses over facilities' risk 
assessments and that it has allowed facilities to work toward cleanup 
levels more applicable to a given situation while still achieving 
environmental goals. 

Louisiana officials also adopted a program developed by the EPA Dallas 
region to encourage reuse of land at cleaned sites. The state 
regulator reviews a site to determine if investigation and cleanup 
efforts have confirmed or produced environmental conditions 
sufficiently protective for redevelopment or revitalization under 
current or planned land uses (e.g., residential, industrial, 
agricultural). Under the program, state and EPA officials provide the 
facility a letter summarizing the site's condition, on-site work 
performed to investigate and address risks, and a determination that 
the site is ready for reuse. The determination can apply to the entire 
site or just a portion. Both EPA regional and state officials said 
that the determinations encourage faster investigations and cleanups, 
as well as encourage redevelopment by helping sites posing little 
environmental risk to avoid the stigma of historical contamination. 

Officials from other states also provided examples of actions they 
believe are encouraging faster cleanups. New Mexico officials said the 
state achieved better results at its federal facilities by issuing 
consent orders with detailed action steps and schedules.[Footnote 22] 
To encourage faster cleanups, Georgia shortened the timetable for the 
selection of cleanup remedies by its facilities, requesting that they 
select cleanup remedies by 2012. The state also has an internal goal 
for its facilities to complete corrective action by 2020. State 
officials explained that Georgia's program may be ahead of some 
states' because it was one of the first ones authorized, and many 
facilities have therefore been implementing corrective action measures 
under Georgia's policies since the late 1980s. 

The Vast Majority of High-Priority Facilities Have Controlled 
Contamination: 

EPA data show that facilities surpassed EPA's 2005 and 2008 
performance goals seeking to stabilize the highest-priority sites by 
controlling human exposures to contaminants and the migration of 
contaminated groundwater (see figure 2). By the end of fiscal year 
2005, 96 percent of the 1,714 facilities designated at that time as 
high priority had controlled human exposures to contaminants, and 78 
percent had controlled the migration of contaminated groundwater. By 
the end of fiscal year 2008, 96 percent of the 1,968 facilities 
designated at that time as high priority had controlled human 
exposures to contaminants, and the percentage controlling the 
migration of groundwater contamination had risen to 83 percent. Also 
by the end of fiscal year 2008, regulators and facilities had selected 
final remedies at 43 percent of these facilities and completed remedy 
construction at 35 percent of them. 

Figure 2: Percentage of Facilities That Achieved EPA's 2005 and 2008 
Corrective Action Performance Goals: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Number of facilities: 

2005 goals: 
Number of facilities to which goals apply: 1,714. 

Human exposures to toxin controlled; 
Goal: 1,628 (95%); 
Facilities that achieved goal: 1,649 (96%). 

Contaminated ground water controlled; 
Goal: 1,200 (70%); 
Facilities that achieved goal: 1,342 (78%). 

2008 goals: 
Number of facilities to which goals apply: 1,968. 

Human exposures to toxin controlled; 
Goal: 1,870 (95%); 
Facilities that achieved goal: 1,893 (96%). 

Contaminated ground water controlled; 
Goal: 1,574 (80%); 
Facilities that achieved goal: 1,642 (83%). 

Final cleanup remedy selected; 
Goal: 590 (30%); 
Facilities that achieved goal: 848 (43%). 

Final cleanup remedy controlled; 
Goal: 394 (20%); 
Facilities that achieved goal: 682 (35%). 

Source: EPA. 

[End of figure] 

Beginning in fiscal year 2009, EPA began to measure the extent to 
which its expanded universe of 3,747 facilities was meeting the 
performance goals of controlling human exposures to contaminants, 
containing migration of contaminated groundwater, and constructing 
final cleanup remedies. EPA regional and state officials explained to 
us that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, regulators and facilities 
continued to pursue cleanup remedies at high-priority facilities, 
which had long been working toward cleanup. The EPA regions and states 
also began to evaluate the extent to which the low-and medium-priority 
facilities added to the workload in 2009 had controlled contamination 
or constructed remedies to achieve the 2020 goal. As shown in figure 
3, 2,712 facilities (72 percent) have controlled human exposures to 
contaminants, 2,357 facilities (63 percent) have controlled the 
migration of contaminated groundwater, and 1,396 facilities (37 
percent) have constructed final cleanup remedies. 

Figure 3: Number and Percentage of EPA's Expanded Universe of 3,747 
Facilities That Achieved the 2020 Goals as of Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph] 

Number of facilities to which goals apply: 3,747. 

Goal: Human exposure controlled: 
Number of facilities: 2,712 (72%); 

Goal: Migration of groundwater controlled; 
Number of facilities: 2,357 (63%); 

Goal: Cleanup remedy constructed: 
Number of facilities: 1,396 (37%). 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

[End of figure] 

Figure 4 shows progress made by the 3,747 facilities covered by the 
2020 goals in carrying out major milestones in the corrective action 
process--including facility investigation, remedy selection, and 
remedy construction--plus cleanup not yet started and cleanup 
completed. As the figure shows, by the end of fiscal year 2010, 283 (8 
percent) of the 3,747 facilities had not yet begun the cleanup 
process. Some of these facilities may have been assessed by EPA or the 
state and assigned a high, medium, or low priority, but no further 
action had been taken. The facilities in this category are also the 
ones most recently added to the universe for the 2020 goals. 

Figure 4: Status of 3,747 Facilities Covered by EPA's 2020 Goals, as 
of Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

Cleanup Status: Cleanup not started; 
Number of facilities: 283 (8%). 

Cleanup Status: Facility investigation and contamination control under 
way; 
Number of facilities: 968 (26%). 

Cleanup Status: Contamination controlled; 
Number of facilities: 828 (22%). 

Cleanup Status: Remedy selected; 
Number of facilities: 219 (6%). 

Cleanup Status: Remedy constructed; 
Number of facilities: 826 (22%). 

Cleanup Status: Cleanup completed; 
Number of facilities: 623 (17%). 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data. 

Note: In this figure, the category "facility investigation and 
contamination control under way" contains facilities that may have 
either controlled human exposures to contaminants or controlled the 
migration of contaminated groundwater but not both. Facilities 
represented in the category "final cleanup remedy constructed" in 
figure 3 are represented here in either the category "remedy 
constructed" or "cleanup completed." 

[End of figure] 

Our analysis of EPA data found that 968 of the 3,747 facilities (26 
percent) at the facility investigation and contamination control stage 
are completing, or have completed, a thorough investigation of the 
types and extent of on-site contamination. These facilities have 
already controlled human exposures to contaminants or controlled the 
migration of contaminated groundwater but not both. The majority of 
facilities in this category are medium-and low-priority facilities. 
But a small number of high-priority facilities still fall into this 
category and have been unable to contain contamination at their sites 
despite numerous years as a high-priority facility. One such facility 
we examined is a small wood treatment operation in Georgia that has 
been investigating its groundwater contamination for years. According 
to state officials, under the terms of a 2005 consent order, the 
facility is required to collect more on-site groundwater contamination 
data and install remedies by 2011. Georgia officials told us that 
progress on this site is slow because the facility has been struggling 
to pay for corrective action work. 

At 828 of the 3,747 facilities (22 percent), steps have been taken and 
both human exposures to contaminants and the migration of contaminated 
groundwater have been controlled. Nevertheless, many of these 
facilities may need to take additional corrective steps to complete 
their cleanups. These facilities may still be investigating their 
sites and studying various remedies. They may have completed some 
remedy construction but may have additional work to do. Some may also 
have implemented remedies but are awaiting longer-term results to 
determine if the steps taken can serve as a final remedy. 

Two hundred nineteen of the 3,747 facilities (6 percent) have selected 
final cleanup remedies for all problems at their sites but have not 
yet completed remedy construction. Eight hundred twenty-six (22 
percent) have completed construction of all remedies but have yet to 
qualify as having completed cleanup. At these facilities, the selected 
remedies are working, but specific cleanup standards have not yet been 
met. 

Six hundred twenty-three of the 3,747 facilities (17 percent) have 
achieved complete cleanup. The majority of these facilities have been 
medium-and low-priority facilities. High-priority facilities often 
have complex groundwater contamination problems and are typically more 
difficult to remediate; as a result, less than one-third of the 
facilities that had achieved complete cleanup are high-priority. 

It Will Be Difficult for EPA, States, and Facilities to Meet EPA's 
2020 Goal for Constructing Final Cleanup Remedies: 

Given EPA's progress to date in meeting its goals and the progress it 
needs to make to meet them, it will be difficult to meet the goal of 
constructing final remedies at not only high-priority facilities but 
also at the medium-and low-priority facilities included in EPA's 
expanded universe covered by the 2020 goals. To date, regulators and 
facilities have made significant progress in controlling both human 
exposures to contaminants and the migration of contaminated 
groundwater, but the path toward meeting the challenging, time- 
consuming, and expensive goal of actually constructing remedies at 95 
percent of targeted facilities by 2020 is likely to be more difficult 
(see figure 5). Overall, almost 2,300 facilities, or 61 percent, must 
still complete remedy construction. Of particular note, even though 
EPA has focused cleanup efforts on high-priority facilities for about 
20 years, more than 900 high-priority facilities have yet to complete 
remedy construction. 

Figure 5: Progress Needed to Achieve EPA's 2015 and 2020 Corrective 
Action Goals: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Number of facilities: 

Fiscal year: 2005; 
Human exposures controlled: 1,649; 
Migration of ground water controlled: 1,342. 

Fiscal year: 2008; 
Human exposures controlled: 1,893; 
Migration of ground water controlled: 1,642; 
Cleanup remedy constructed: 682. 

Fiscal year: 2015; 
Human exposures controlled: 3,147; 
Migration of ground water controlled: 2,922; 
Cleanup remedy constructed: 2,098. 

Fiscal year: 2020; 
Human exposures controlled: 3,560; 
Migration of ground water controlled: 3,560; 
Cleanup remedy constructed: 3,560. 

Source: EPA. 

Note: Points represent EPA's actual performance status for fiscal 
years 2005 and 2008 and stated performance goals for fiscal years 2015 
and 2020. 

[End of figure] 

The majority of officials from EPA regions and states we interviewed 
agreed that while controlling human exposures to contaminants and 
controlling the migration of contaminated groundwater were achievable 
at most facilities by fiscal year 2020, constructing final remedies at 
95 percent of the facilities by fiscal year 2020 was unlikely to be 
achieved. Many of these officials offered reasons that meeting the 
third 2020 remedy construction goal could be more challenging than the 
numbers alone would suggest. The officials explained that progress to 
date has included some "easy" accomplishments for all three goals. 
Specifically, EPA and the states were able to document that some 
facilities had controlled human exposures to contaminants, contained 
migration of contaminated groundwater, and achieved remedy 
construction by reviewing paperwork and examining records of samples 
and cleanup activities completed years before. One state official also 
told us that facilities have been addressed where contaminant releases 
were limited in scope and quickly investigated. Our August 2000 report 
made the same observation, noting that a number of stakeholders, 
including industry representatives and several state regulators, 
considered the goals at that time to be more of a paperwork exercise--
documenting that facilities had contained contamination--than an 
effort to bring about additional cleanup actions.[Footnote 23] 

These observations were further echoed by cases of several high- 
priority facilities we examined for this report with "easy" 
accomplishments because the remedies were installed about a decade 
before EPA established its corrective action program performance 
goals. For example, Louisiana was able to document that an active wood 
treatment facility had controlled groundwater contamination by using a 
pump-and-treat system--wells installed to pump contaminated 
groundwater to the surface for treating--that the facility had 
installed in 1991. Similarly, several facilities we reviewed in 
Pennsylvania had controlled the spread of groundwater by removing 
soils or installing pump-and-treat systems in the 1990s. By reviewing 
quarterly groundwater monitoring reports and other documentation, EPA 
was able to document that these Pennsylvania facilities had controlled 
human exposures to contaminants and the migration of contaminated 
groundwater and, in some cases, completed construction before 1999. 
Likewise, several of the facilities we reviewed in Georgia had 
controlled human exposures to contaminants and the migration of 
contaminated groundwater by 1999. In Michigan, on the basis of a 
review of groundwater monitoring reports that showed no significant 
problems, the state was able to document that several of the 
facilities in our review had met corrective action program performance 
goals. 

EPA and state officials have acknowledged to us that the facilities 
that can be characterized as "easy" or "low-hanging fruit" have 
largely been addressed and will therefore constitute a smaller 
percentage of the workload that lies ahead. Most of the work has been 
completed that evaluates the extent to which facilities have 
controlled human exposures to contaminants and contained the migration 
of contaminated groundwater (especially at high-priority facilities). 
The officials explained that the majority of the work ahead will 
involve selecting and constructing remedies, which in many cases will 
likely prove more difficult. Several officials also told us that the 
remedy construction goal will be increasingly harder to attain because 
the remaining facilities will tend to be larger, more complex, and 
more labor-intensive to clean up. 

EPA Region 5 officials in Chicago told us that facilities in their 
region in particular are not progressing at the same rate as those in 
other regions, and they would be hard-pressed to meet the remedy 
construction goal by 2020. More than 20 percent of facilities that 
have yet to complete remedy construction are located in that heavily 
industrialized region. The officials predicted that after 2015, the 
region would likely have an even larger share of facilities yet to 
complete remedy construction because the other regions will most 
likely be further along. Their views were substantiated by state 
officials in Ohio and Michigan. Ohio represents more than 36 percent 
of Region 5's remaining workload, and Michigan, 18 percent. State 
officials in Ohio told us they were uncertain if they could meet the 
remedy construction goal by 2020, and those in Michigan said they 
definitely could not reach the remedy construction goal by 2020. The 
federal and state officials cited the lack of sufficient resources as 
the primary reason they could not do so. Region 5 and Michigan also 
cited the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler as increasing 
their workload in a way that has diverted attention away from 
facilities on the 2020 list. 

EPA Regions, the States, and Industry Representatives Collectively 
Identified Resource Constraints and Groundwater Remediation as Key 
Challenges to Meeting Future Cleanup Goals: 

Officials in EPA regions and the states identified fiscal and human 
resource constraints as the preeminent challenge for achieving the 
2020 goals on time. The technical complexity associated with 
groundwater remediation may also continue to impede progress, and 
industry representatives noted that difficulty reaching agreement on 
the type of groundwater remediation will continue to cause delays in 
cleanup progress at some facilities. 

Officials in EPA's Regional Offices and the States Identified Resource 
Constraints as a Primary Challenge: 

EPA and selected state officials identified resource constraints--both 
in terms of money and staff--as the preeminent challenge that is 
likely to impede their future cleanup efforts. The problem will likely 
worsen if federal, state, or facilities' fiscal problems deteriorate 
further. 

Constraints on EPA Program Funds: 

The gap between workload and available resources has affected the 
progress of the corrective action program since it began. In our 
previous reports, we cited resource shortfalls as a major barrier to 
cleanups--shortfalls that have continued to the present day.[Footnote 
24] Specifically, EPA's funding for program operations in headquarters 
and the regions has stayed generally the same since fiscal year 2004, 
with EPA receiving $39 million in fiscal year 2004 and $39 million in 
fiscal year 2010--effectively a decrease when adjusted for inflation. 
Officials from several EPA regions we visited noted in particular the 
impact this flat funding has had on funding available for outside 
contracts, called contract funds. The regions use contract funds for a 
variety of purposes, including for monitoring cleanup work at 
facilities and providing site-specific support to the states. For 
example, officials from several regions reported using these funds for 
hiring the Army Corps of Engineers to monitor construction, hiring 
hydrologists to provide technical assistance, or conducting limited 
cleanup work at financially struggling or bankrupt facilities. These 
funds decreased from $5.2 million in fiscal year 2004 to $3.7 million 
in fiscal year 2010 in nominal dollars.[Footnote 25] Several regional 
officials told us that the decrease has limited their ability to 
oversee work at facilities or assist the states. 

As funding has decreased, so has the total number of full-time- 
equivalent EPA employees dedicated to the corrective action program. 
EPA corrective action program staffing has fallen from 275 full-time 
equivalents in fiscal year 2004 to 245 in fiscal year 2011. At the 
same time, according to both headquarters and regional officials we 
interviewed, corrective action program responsibilities increased. In 
2007, for example, EPA shifted the management of cleanup of PCBs 
(polychlorinated biphenyls) to the office that implements the 
corrective action program. Several regional officials told us that a 
renewed emphasis on community outreach has also taken a significant 
amount of additional staff time.[Footnote 26] These officials 
expressed agreement with the principle of community outreach but noted 
that the new approach had significantly affected their resources. 

Officials in several regional offices also cited an inability to 
replace retiring regional staff as an additional problem that has 
slowed progress toward corrective action goals, noting that over a 
period of several years, they could replace three experienced staff 
members with only one new hire. Several officials added that this 
dilemma continues, with many experienced project managers approaching 
retirement when the regional offices are tackling remedy selection and 
construction at some of the most difficult sites. 

Constraints on EPA Grants to States: 

Added to restrictions on the agency's own spending, EPA's grants to 
states have also experienced restrictions. As shown in figure 6, grant 
funding EPA provides to authorized states to help pay for the 
corrective action program has remained virtually flat in nominal 
dollars and decreased somewhat in constant dollars.[Footnote 27] In 
2010 constant dollars, EPA's corrective action grants to the states 
totaled $34.9 million in fiscal year 2004 to $31 million in fiscal 
year 2010, a decrease of 13 percent. Officials in several EPA regions 
we visited told us that this level of support would not be adequate to 
keep states on track to achieve the 2020 goals. A representative of 
the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials noted that grants have not kept pace with inflation, 
increases in worker salaries, health insurance costs, and increasing 
workloads. 

Figure 6: EPA's Grant Funding to States for Corrective Action, Fiscal 
Years 2004 to 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: multiple line graph] 

Year: 2004; 
Constant 2010 dollars: $34.9 million; 
Nominal dollars: $30.3 million. 

Year: 2005; 
Constant 2010 dollars: $35.3 million; 
Nominal dollars: $31.7 million. 

Year: 2006; 
Constant 2010 dollars: $30.5 million; 
Nominal dollars: $28.2 million. 

Year: 2007; 
Constant 2010 dollars: $33.3 million; 
Nominal dollars: $31.8 million. 

Year: 2008; 
Constant 2010 dollars: $31.9 million; 
Nominal dollars: $31.2 million. 

Year: 2009; 
Constant 2010 dollars: $29.0 million; 
Nominal dollars: $28.7 million. 

Year: 2010; 
Constant 2010 dollars: $31.1 million; 
Nominal dollars: $31.1 million. 

Year: 2011; 
Constant 2010 dollars: $29.4 million; 
Nominal dollars: $29.6 million. 

Source: EPA. 

[End of figure] 

Constraints on States' Own Funding and Staffing: 

The grants EPA provides to the states only partially support states' 
corrective action programs. States are required to supplement the 
grants with at least $1 for every $3 in federal funds. According to 
the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials, some states contribute more than the minimum required by 
the grant. The program's heavy reliance on state funds helps explain 
the impact of state governments' recent budget crises on the program. 
According to officials in the EPA regional offices we visited, many 
states in their regions have sustained severe funding shortages, 
leading to furloughs and hiring freezes. The majority of state 
officials we interviewed told us that budget problems have led to 
fewer staff available for the corrective action program, with 
remaining staff having to absorb heavier workloads, leading to delays 
in cleanup efforts. Officials in two states specified that limited 
resources have constrained their ability to visit facilities for 
oversight purposes and obtain validating samples. 

According to the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 
Management Officials representative we interviewed, most states have 
streamlined their corrective action programs to cope with funding or 
staff cuts. He added that this streamlining, combined with the 
substantial experience of many state staff, has so far helped dampen 
the cuts' effects. He noted, however, that state capacity will likely 
shrink as experienced workers retire and not all are replaced. 

EPA headquarters and regional officials and state officials all told 
us that if program resources continued to decline, they would likely 
be unable to meet their 2020 goals. EPA headquarters officials 
explained that they see value in having aggressive goals for the 
program but have in recent years begun to acknowledge that they may 
have to adjust them to better reflect the realities of available 
resources. The agency has not, however, performed a systematic 
analysis of the funding that would be needed to achieve the goals or 
to determine how the goals should be adjusted. Headquarters officials 
explained that predicting funding needs for corrective action is 
complicated because the workload model reflects 43 states and requires 
funding from federal, state, and owners' or operators' resources. 
These officials noted that in developing the shorter-term 2005, 2008, 
and 2015 goals, they did in fact discuss with regional and state 
officials what could actually be achieved within prescribed time 
frames. They explained, however, that the long-term 2020 goals--
originally developed in 2003--were viewed at the time as reflecting a 
long-term "vision" and, as such, not warranting a robust analysis of 
the resources needed to achieve them. With the passage of time, 
however, what was once viewed as a long-term vision is being 
increasingly treated as a high-profile, nearer-term target, whose 
practicality, we believe, should be assessed. 

Constraints on Facilities' Resources: 

According to several regional and state officials we interviewed, 
economic hardship has also tightened facilities' own budgets for 
identifying and constructing remedies. One state official told us that 
the state has the enforcement tools to compel compliance, but some 
facilities do not have sufficient cleanup funds. Another state 
official explained that financial conditions in some industries have 
translated into a reluctance among facilities to assign as high a 
priority to cleanup work as in the past. Still another state official 
told us that whereas the state had previously succeeded in getting 
facilities to clean up sites with redevelopment potential, the recent 
economic downturn has reduced this incentive for cleanups. Officials 
from several regions and states also told us that some facilities 
within their jurisdictions are bankrupt or nearly so. 

The sites we reviewed included a number of facilities with funding 
difficulties. In Georgia, two of the facilities that have not 
completed final remedy construction lack adequate funds, according to 
state officials. One of them has struggled to pay for investigation of 
its groundwater contamination and can pay only $2,000 to $3,000 a year 
toward it. At the second facility, the state was concerned that 
contamination may be reaching a nearby stream, so the state and EPA 
worked together using EPA contract funds to investigate the site and 
found that contamination was under control. In Louisiana, one site was 
the location of a large chemical plant, most of which is now closed. 
Louisiana officials said they are working on cleanup standards for a 
contaminated groundwater plume and that standards are likely to be 
strict because the groundwater plume lies over a potential source of 
drinking water. The officials said that the cleanup will be expensive 
and that the company will have to budget to complete it. 

Technical Complexity and Disagreements over Groundwater Remediation 
Complicates Cleanup at Some Sites: 

Cleaning up contaminated groundwater is inherently complex, requiring 
large expenditures and long time periods--many centuries in some 
cases--according to a 1994 National Research Council report.[Footnote 
28] The report states, however, that it is often difficult to 
characterize with precision the nature and extent of groundwater 
contamination, citing as complicating factors the diversity of 
materials, such as sand, gravels, and solid rock, layered under the 
ground. For example, water, along with any dissolved contaminants, 
flows through these materials along pathways that are hard to predict. 
In addition, organic solvents once used at many hazardous waste sites 
do not mix with water. Heavier or lighter than groundwater, these 
chemicals may migrate to or become trapped in inaccessible spaces, 
adhere to solid particles underground, and remain a source of 
continuing groundwater contamination. Flushing out such contaminants 
using conventional pump-and-treat systems can be difficult, time-
consuming, costly, and inefficient or impracticable. Alternatives to 
conventional pump-and-treat systems rely on a variety of biological, 
chemical, or physical technologies to treat or contain the 
contaminated groundwater in place underground. Like conventional pump-
and-treat methods, alternative technologies can also be time- 
consuming, although they can potentially reduce costs. Nevertheless, 
the use of innovative cleanup methods has been limited by technical, 
institutional, and economic barriers. 

Given such inherent difficulties, various groups with an interest in 
groundwater cleanup are critical of the levels some states set for 
groundwater cleanup and disagree with methodologies proposed by states 
to meet those standards. EPA's recommendation that cleanup remedies at 
groundwater-contaminated sites be selected on the basis of "maximum 
beneficial use" recognizes both that it may be technically impossible 
to remediate groundwater contamination at all sites to drinking water 
standards and that less stringent cleanup levels may be appropriate 
for groundwater that is not a current or reasonably expected future 
source of drinking water. 

Some states, however, designate all groundwater as a current or future 
source of drinking water, meaning that stringent standards must always 
be applied. In other states where drinking water standards do not 
apply to all groundwater, facilities may disagree with regulators 
about the designation of a particular source of groundwater as 
drinking water. Such disagreements tend to slow cleanup progress while 
regulators and facilities spend time negotiating cleanup terms. 

Illustrating such disagreements, a representative from an industry 
group representing Fortune 50 companies with whom we met expressed 
concern that facilities have been required to apply drinking water 
standards to groundwater remediation efforts in situations where 
groundwater had not been used for that purpose and was not likely to 
be used as such in the foreseeable future. He also cited instances in 
which it was technically impracticable to achieve drinking water 
standards. The industry representative also noted that facilities may 
hesitate to install remedies that may not be able to achieve the 
applicable cleanup level when new or additional systems may later be 
required as technology advances. He went on to say that, in his view, 
EPA has not provided enough guidance to states and that some states 
are not implementing the guidance the agency does provide--for 
example, guidance about less stringent cleanups or waivers that may be 
granted to facilities where cleanup to drinking water standards is 
technically impracticable. 

EPA officials and some state regulators explained to us that a natural 
tension exists between regulatory and industry positions. Regulatory 
officials and the industry representatives agreed that because of the 
cost and long time frames involved in groundwater cleanup, facilities 
may be reluctant to invest in groundwater cleanup equipment. In 
essence, they say that disagreements center on judgments over 
questions like, "How clean is clean enough?" and on whether, for 
example, industrial sites should be cleaned up to the same levels as 
sites in or near residential areas. Disagreements also arise when the 
final remedy required under the corrective action program is one that 
contains contaminated groundwater (which requires long-term controls, 
operation, and monitoring), rather than eliminates groundwater 
contaminants. We heard from state regulators in Georgia and Michigan 
that while affected facilities may want to focus only on controlling 
contamination, regulators may want to see removal or effective 
treatment in place that eliminates as much of any continuing sources 
of contamination as possible before emphasizing containment of the 
remainder. Michigan officials noted that this issue is especially 
important given the possibility that, in the event of bankruptcies, 
future long-term management and costs of operating the containment 
systems may fall to the state, EPA, or both. 

It is difficult to gauge the extent to which such disagreements may 
stand in the way of achieving EPA's 2020 goals. State and EPA regional 
officials we interviewed said that state standards and procedures 
would not limit their ability to reach the 2020 goals. Given the state 
lead on groundwater-related issues, EPA headquarters officials noted 
that the agency generally defers to state judgment on these issues. 
Officials from three states with particularly strict groundwater 
cleanup policies--Georgia, Michigan, and New Mexico[Footnote 29]--told 
us that their groundwater policies do not factor into their ability to 
reach the remedy construction goal by 2020. In fact, in reviewing a 
draft of this report, Michigan officials noted that addressing 
concerns raised by the public about the sufficiency of the standards 
may have more of an impact on their ability to reach the 2020 goals. 
Officials in Georgia added that, in their experience, less stringent 
standards do not significantly expedite cleanup. Specifically, 
officials said that allowing facilities to contain groundwater 
contamination or restrict its use, rather than remediate it, does not 
motivate most facilities with a history of delaying corrective action 
to clean up. The officials also noted that weakening cleanup standards 
with the hope of increasing the number of facilities that reach the 
2020 goals would put facilities that have complied with existing 
regulations at an economic disadvantage with respect to competitors 
that have delayed compliance. In contrast, the industry representative 
cited above acknowledged that groundwater policy decisions are in fact 
largely state prerogatives, but he maintained that EPA's failure to 
more forcefully promote alternatives that were less costly and easier 
to implement (while still protective of human health and the 
environment) stood in the way of achieving the 2020 goals at many 
facilities. 

Conclusions: 

EPA, states, and facilities have made significant progress over the 
past decade in streamlining RCRA corrective action processes, setting 
performance goals to better direct the corrective action program and 
accomplishing on-the-ground cleanups of hazardous waste. Nevertheless, 
resource constraints, the size and cost of the program's remaining 
workload, and projected federal and state budget cuts are leading EPA 
and state regulators to question whether this rate of progress can be 
sustained. Without realistically taking these factors into account, 
EPA cannot reliably determine the extent to which the program has the 
resources it needs to meet its 2020 vision and goals nor better align 
the 2020 goals with resources it will take to attain them. 

We acknowledge the complexities associated with a definitive and 
detailed analysis of the program's costs, given the number and 
complexity of cleanups required and the varied federal, state, and 
industry sources that fund it. Nevertheless, short of an exhaustive, 
facility-by-facility study, we believe that much useful information 
can be gained from a more limited effort in which EPA headquarters, 
EPA regions, and participating states collaborate in an analysis that 
sheds light on the practicality of the 2020 goals--particularly one 
that takes into account the recent economic and fiscal events that 
have affected program participants and the funding they rely on. We 
believe that such an analysis could provide useful information to 
senior EPA managers and to Congress and would help inform decisions 
about the program's future direction. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To sustain progress in the RCRA corrective action program and better 
align the 2020 program goals with resources it will take to attain 
them, we recommend that the EPA Administrator direct cognizant 
officials to assess the agency's remaining corrective action workload, 
determine the extent to which the program has the resources it needs 
to meet these goals, and take steps to either reallocate its resources 
to the program or revise the goals. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment; the 
agency's written comments are reproduced in appendix IV. EPA's July 6, 
2011, letter stated that the report was accurate in its representation 
of the corrective action program, noting specifically that it 
"provides a good summary ... on the Corrective Action Program, 
highlights some of the challenges and issues the program faces, and 
notes initiatives that individual states or regions have taken." The 
letter also expressed agreement with the recommendation to assess the 
program's workload and potentially make adjustments in either program 
resources or in program goals. Toward this end, EPA noted that it will 
"work with its regional offices and authorized state programs to 
define ... remaining workloads, identify efficiencies to help with 
addressing the workload, and strive to use resources in the most 
focused way possible to achieve these goals." 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to the 
appropriate congressional committees, the Administrator of EPA, and 
other interested parties. In addition, this report will be available 
at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. Key contributors to the report are 
listed in appendix V. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

David C. Trimble: 
Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: U.S. States and Territories Authorized to Manage a 
Corrective Action Program: 

Alabama; 
Arizona; 
Arkansas; 
California; 
Colorado; 
Connecticut; 
Delaware; 
Florida; 
Georgia; 
Guam; 
Hawaii; 
Idaho; 
Illinois; 
Indiana; 
Kentucky; 
Louisiana; 
Maine; 
Massachusetts; 
Michigan; 
Minnesota; 
Missouri; 
Montana; 
Nevada; 
New Hampshire; 
New Mexico; 
New York; 
North Carolina; 
North Dakota; 
Ohio; 
Oklahoma; 
Oregon; 
Rhode Island; 
South Carolina; 
South Dakota; 
Tennessee; 
Texas; 
Utah; 
Vermont; 
Virginia; 
Washington; 
West Virginia; 
Wisconsin; 
Wyoming. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Our objectives were to determine (1) the actions the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) has taken to establish goals for the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) corrective action program and to 
expedite cleanup; (2) the progress EPA, the states, and facilities 
have made in meeting performance goals; and (3) the challenges, if 
any, that EPA, the states, and facilities may face in meeting future 
cleanup goals. 

To determine the actions EPA has taken to establish goals for the 
corrective action program and expedite cleanup, we reviewed relevant 
EPA strategic plans. We reviewed the process the agency has adopted to 
establish goals and the methodology used to identify which facilities 
will be monitored for progress toward meeting those goals. We also 
reviewed the procedures established to evaluate whether facilities 
have met the goals. To determine the actions taken by EPA to expedite 
cleanup, we reviewed applicable guidance and training materials. We 
also reviewed strategy documents each region prepared to address 
actions to be taken to meet EPA's 2020 goals for the program. We 
obtained the budget for, and number of full-time-equivalent EPA 
employees dedicated to, the corrective action program for fiscal years 
2004 through 2011. 

To determine the progress EPA, the states, and facilities have made in 
meeting corrective action performance goals, we reviewed EPA's fiscal 
years 2005 and 2008 Performance and Accountability Report to Congress 
and obtained data from EPA on the status of the corrective action 
program at the end of fiscal years 2005 and 2008. To determine the 
current status of the program toward meeting the 2020 goals, we 
collected and analyzed data from EPA's national program management and 
inventory system of hazardous waste handlers, RCRAInfo. This system 
includes a range of information on treatment, storage, and disposal 
facilities, including permit and closure status, compliance with 
federal and state regulations, and cleanup activities. We focused our 
analysis on the facilities that EPA has identified as part of the 
universe of facilities to meet its 2020 corrective action performance 
goals. We determined the number of facilities designated by EPA as 
having controlled human exposures to contaminants, contained the 
migration of contaminated groundwater, and constructed final cleanup 
remedies. We also compared the status of facilities in this group that 
EPA has designated as high priority with the status of facilities the 
agency has designated as medium-and low-priority. To illustrate 
facilities' cleanup progress, we also grouped facilities into 
categories generally corresponding with stages in the corrective 
action process: cleanup not started, facility investigation and 
contamination control under way, contamination controlled, remedy 
selected, remedy constructed, and cleanup completed. We assessed the 
reliability of the RCRAInfo data elements necessary to our engagement 
by (1) performing electronic testing of required data elements, (2) 
reviewing existing information about the data and the system that 
produced them, and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable 
about the data. We determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 
for the purposes of this report. 

To better understand progress made; identify any initiatives by EPA 
and states to expedite cleanups; and identify challenges EPA, the 
states, and facilities may face in meeting future cleanup goals, we 
interviewed officials responsible for the corrective action program at 
EPA headquarters and at a nonprobability sample of 4 of EPA's 10 
regional offices. We selected the regions because they had the largest 
caseloads (as determined by the number of facilities subject to the 
program that are under their jurisdictions). Taken together, the 4 
regions--Region 3 in Philadelphia, Region 4 in Atlanta, Region 5 in 
Chicago, and Region 6 in Dallas--account for approximately 65 percent 
of facilities EPA has identified that are to meet its goals for the 
corrective action program. To gain a perspective from a region with a 
relatively smaller caseload, we also interviewed EPA officials in 
Region 10 in Seattle. The findings from our interviews at these 
regional offices cannot be generalized to those we did not include in 
our nonprobability sample. Within the 5 regions, we visited or spoke 
with officials from nine states: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, 
Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Except 
Pennsylvania, these states are authorized to implement the corrective 
action program (see appendix I). We examined a nongeneralizable, 
random sample of 32 facilities (located in Georgia, Louisiana, 
Michigan, and Pennsylvania) selected from 1,658 facilities that met 
criteria set by EPA for facilities deemed to pose a high risk to human 
health and the environment. We randomly selected the 32 to ensure an 
objective selection of facilities to examine more closely. We did not 
generalize our findings from this sample to the population. Included 
in the information collected about these facilities were the types of 
activities conducted to reach the goals at the facility and the type 
of work remaining. 

In addition, we discussed cleanup challenges with various stakeholder 
groups. These included the RCRA Corrective Action Project, a group of 
major corporations with facilities in the corrective action program, 
represented by attorneys and cleanup managers. We also met with 
officials from the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 
Management Officials and the Environmental Council of States. 

We conducted this performance audit from December 2009 through July 
2011, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: EPA Regions and Distribution of Facilities Covered by 
Corrective Action Goals for 2020: 

Figure 7: EPA Regions and Number of Facilities in Each State That Were 
Covered by EPA's 2020 Goals as of Fiscal Year 2010: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map] 

Region: 1; 
Fewer than 20 facilities: 
New Hampshire; 
Rhode Island; 
Vermont; 
20-49 facilities: 
Maine; 
Massachusetts; 
100-200 facilities: 
Connecticut; 
New York. 

Region: 2; 
100-200 facilities: 
New York. 

Region: 3; 
Fewer than 20 facilities: 
Delaware; 
20-49 facilities: 
Maryland; 
West Virginia; 
100-200 facilities: 
Virginia; 
Over 200 facilities: 
Pennsylvania. 

Region: 4; 
20-49 facilities: 
Mississippi; 
50-100 facilities: 
Alabama; 
Georgia; 
Kentucky; 
North Carolina; 
South Carolina; 
Tennessee; 
100-200 facilities: 
Florida. 

Region: 5; 
50-100 facilities: 
Minnesota; 
100-200 facilities: 
Indiana; 
Illinois; 
Michigan; 
Wisconsin; 
Over 200 facilities: 
Ohio. 

Region: 6; 
20-49 facilities: 
Arkansas; 
New Mexico; 
Oklahoma; 
50-100 facilities: 
Louisiana; 
Over 200 facilities: 
Texas. 

Region: 7; 
20-49 facilities: 
Kansas; 
Nebraska; 
50-100 facilities: 
Iowa; 
Missouri. 

Region: 8; 
Fewer than 20 facilities: 
Montana; 
North Dakota; 
South Dakota; 
Wyoming; 
20-49 facilities: 
Colorado; 
Utah. 

Region: 9; 
Fewer than 20 facilities: 
Hawaii; 
Nevada; 
20-49 facilities: 
Arizona; 
Over 200 facilities: 
California. 

Region: 10; 
Fewer than 20 facilities: 
Alaska; 
Idaho; 
20-49 facilities: 
Oregon; 
Washington. 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data; MapInfo (map). 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency: 

United States Environmental Protection Agency: 
Washington, DC 20460: 

Mr. David Trimble: 
Acting Director, Natural Resources and Environment: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Thank you for sending us the draft of your report to Congressman 
Markey on EPA's Corrective Action Program under the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We appreciate the opportunity to 
review the report and provide comments. On the whole, the report is 
well written and accurate in its representation of the Corrective 
Action Program. We have some small technical comments that we will 
enclose with this letter. In this letter, I would like to present a 
general discussion of our reactions to the content and suggestions of 
the report. 

The report provides a good summary background on the Corrective Action 
Program, highlights some of the challenges and issues the program 
faces, and notes initiatives that individual states or regions have 
taken. 

EPA's RICRA Subtitle C Corrective Action Program was authorized by the 
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1954. Over time, the country 
has expanded its knowledge and expertise in eliminating the risks of 
hazardous waste sites at RCRA facilities. There have been many 
successes. Sites have been cleaned up, redeveloped, and put back into 
productive use. However, there still are many sites that have yet to 
make significant progress. 

Site remediation was a relatively new field in the l980s, and EPA's 
clean-up programs relied on numerous reviews and rigorous processes to 
assess contamination and choose remedies. The rate of site cleanup was 
slow to accommodate the close oversight that was being provided. In 
the late 1990s, recognizing advancement of established approaches and 
clean-up technologies, EPA undertook two sets of reforms that built on 
the expertise gained and focused on streamlining the oversight process 
to maximize results. These reforms have been successful, and today EPA 
and the authorized state RCRA programs are working with facilities to 
achieve clean-up milestones at a rate triple the rate prior to the 
reforms. 

To build momentum for this ambitious increase in the rate of progress, 
EPA also set and achieved goals of having "human exposures under 
control" at 95 percent of 1,714 facilities by 2005 and having
"groundwater migration under control" at 70 percent of these sites.  
These totals were widely believed to be unattainable for some years. 
But EPA, authorized states and facility owners and operators defied 
the collective previous wisdom, worked together to identify and 
address issues quickly, and succeeded in achieving the 2005 goals. EPA 
then expanded the universe to 1,968 facilities and again EPA and its
state partners worked with owners and operators to meet identical 
goals for the additional facilities by 2008. 

EPA has found that setting challenge/stretch goals focuses efforts and 
drives the program to the highest productivity possible. These 
aggressive goals often provide a useful deadline for completing clean-
up negotiations that otherwise can remain in stalemate for years. 
Without EPA and states focused on meeting these goals and transferring 
that urgency to site-owners, many sites would not have agreed to
establish internal deadlines for clean-up and, instead, might have 
chosen to draw the process out as long as possible. The report 
acknowledges that EPA issued the April 2010 National Enforcement 
Strategy for Corrective Action to provide direction for identifying 
facilities that warrant enforcement in order to achieve the 2020 
remedy construction goal. 

Our focus today, in the face of constrained resources, is to maintain 
the momentum built up over the years in getting corrective action 
sites cleaned up. We have established 2020 aspirational goals to put 
final remedies in place at 95 percent of 3,747 sites around the 
country. We believe that pushing for such an ambitious target is vital 
to achieving the environmental progress that the public expects from 
us. 

The RCRA Corrective Action program continues to work to improve the 
program, and is participating in EPA's Integrated Cleanup Initiative 
(ICI). Under the ICI, individual EPA regions and authorized states
are periodically reviewing their workloads, and updating workplans and 
strategies to meet their 2020 goals. RCRAInfo, the database that we 
use to track progress at RCRA CA sites, is being modified to include 
an additional data element that would allow us to better track 
progress at operating sites. We will be piloting approaches for 
reporting interim progress at complex RCRA sites to provide additional 
cleanup information to the public. We are working with other EPA 
offices to provide information for cross-program measures. Through our 
enforcement program, we are looking at how we can most
effectively use our enforcement authorities where needed at RCRA 
corrective action facilities to achieve timely and protective cleanups. 

The economic downturn, and resulting shrinking revenues and budgets of 
the facilities themselves, also are contributing to a slower pace of 
clean up activities at many sites. Several sites are owned by
companies that either have sought bankruptcy protection or will hover 
near bankruptcy in the years to come. It is to everyone's advantage to 
get these sites addressed while these companies still have some
resources that can be claimed for clean-up. 

Both EPA and the report note that many of the easier sites have been 
addressed, while the more challenging complex sites still have much 
work to be done. Some of these sites have scores of units and/or 
extensive contamination, and it may take years to assess and implement 
site-wide final remedies. The more complex sites, as well as many of 
the less complex sites, require more resources from everyone, meaning 
that, while the numbers of remaining sites may be going down, the 
annual resources needed to address the remaining sites may increase. 

Acknowledging this situation. the report suggests that EPA "assess the 
remaining corrective action workload, determine the extent to which 
the program has resources needed to meet [it's corrective action] 2020 
goals, and take steps to either reallocate its resources or revise its 
goals." 

EPA appreciates GAO's concern over maintaining a vital and successful 
Corrective Action Program. Slowing down the pace of cleanup is no good 
for anyone, Deferring action on sites locks up properties that, once 
remediated, can be vital resources to communities for economic 
development or green space. Delay also is economically inefficient. In 
many instances contamination will spread and be more expensive to 
clean up over time. Most importantly, delaying the protection of human 
health and the environment fails to provide the protection envisioned 
by Congress in establishing RCRA. 

For these reasons, EPA believes strongly that the 2020 aspirational 
goals should remain as a benchmark for the program. These publicly-
communicated goals provide an incentive for industry, EPA, and state 
RCRA programs to push forward with the clean-ups needed and expected 
by the communities affected by these sites. 

At the same time, we agree with the suggestion that it would be 
prudent to assess the workload and potentially make adjustments in 
either program resources or in the goals set. Thus, EPA will continue
to work with its regional offices and authorized state programs to 
define our remaining workloads, identify efficiencies to help with 
addressing the workload, and strive to use resources in the most 
focused way possible to achieve these goals. 

With respect to the overall funding levels for EPA's Corrective Action 
program, EPA's Administrator and the Administration face extremely 
difficult decisions about where to allocate scarce resources. The 
funding level requested as part of the President's Budget request 
represents what the Administration believes is the best balance of 
funding decisions across many competing priorities. We will continue to
strive to use funding for the RCRA Corrective Action program in the 
most efficient and productive approach possible. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review the draft report. The 
RCRA Hazardous Waste program is complicated and we appreciate the time 
and effort you and your staff have invested to fully understand the 
program and its challenges, as well as the support for continued focus 
on cleaning up our nations hazardous waste sites. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Mathy Stanislaus: 
Assistant Administrator: 

Enclosure: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

David C. Trimble, (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individual named above, Steven Elstein (Assistant 
Director), Antoinette Capaccio, Ellen W. Chu, Melinda Cordero, Cindy 
Gilbert, Brian Hartman, and Leigh McCaskill White made key 
contributions to this report. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§6901-6992k (2006). Subtitle C 
of the law governs hazardous waste management. The act also contains 
provisions governing solid nonhazardous waste and the regulation of 
underground storage tanks. 

[2] Throughout this report, we use the terms "companies" and 
"facilities" to refer to the owners or operators of facilities for the 
treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous waste. The terms "owner" 
or "operator" are broadly defined to include individuals, trusts, 
corporations, federal agencies, states, municipalities, interstate 
bodies, and other entities. 

[3] Environmental Protection Agency, A Study of the Implementation of 
the RCRA Corrective Action Program (Washington, D.C., Apr. 9, 2002). 

[4] Industrial Economics, Inc., "Private Sector RCRA Corrective Action 
Cost," prepared for EPA's Office of Solid Waste, September 28, 2007. 

[5] RCRA defines "state" to include the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands. 

[6] GAO, Hazardous Waste: Progress under the Corrective Action Program 
Is Limited, but New Initiatives May Accelerate Cleanups, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-98-3] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
1997), and GAO, Hazardous Waste: EPA Has Removed Some Barriers to 
Cleanups, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-224] 
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 31, 2000). 

[7] RCRAInfo is a national program management and inventory system of 
hazardous waste handlers, which includes a range of information on 
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, such as whether they have 
active operating permits or have been closed, whether they are in 
compliance with federal and state regulations, and whether they are 
undertaking cleanup activities. 

[8] The information we obtained from the interviews from this 
nonprobability sample of regions cannot be generalized to other 
regions. 

[9] The four regional offices were Region 3 in Philadelphia, Region 4 
in Atlanta, Region 5 in Chicago, and Region 6 in Dallas. 

[10] Hazardous wastes are those listed at 40 CF.R. pt. 261, subpt. D, 
or that display characteristics listed at 40 C.F.R. pt. 261, subpt. C. 
Waste may also be determined to be hazardous waste if it contains 
certain toxic constituents listed at 40 C.F.R. pt. 261, app. VIII. 
According to an EPA document, these constituents include toxic 
pollutants under the Clean Water Act, hazardous air pollutants under 
the Clean Air Act, certain contaminants regulated under the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. 

[11] In the early 1990s, EPA created the National Corrective Action 
Prioritization System, a computer-based ranking system that sets 
priorities for the cleanup of hazardous wastes at treatment, storage, 
and disposal facilities regulated under RCRA. The system established 
national criteria for ranking facilities as high, medium, or low 
priority, as determined by an evaluation of four pathways of actual or 
potential contamination (groundwater, surface water, air, or soil). 

[12] EPA defined groundwater as under control if contaminated 
groundwater remained in place and the contaminants it contained no 
longer rose above specified levels of concern. In addition, 
contaminated groundwater was not to significantly affect surface water 
in streams or other water bodies. 

[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-224] and 
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, RCRA 
Corrective Action: RCRA Corrective Action Focuses on Interim 
Priorities--Better Integration with Final Goals Needed, 2000-P-0028 
(Washington, D.C., September 2000). 

[14] According to agency officials, EPA added new facilities judged as 
high risk to the list and deleted facilities from the list that were 
deferred to other cleanup programs. 

[15] In stating that cleanup of existing contamination problems at 
RCRA facilities would be "largely complete," EPA's vision statement 
maintains that in some cases, long-term remediation work may continue 
and some mechanism for addressing releases occurring in the future may 
be needed. 

[16] Facilities may be designated as "corrective action complete 
without controls," meaning that the areas subject to the determination 
do not require any additional action or measures to ensure that the 
remedy remains protective of human health and the environment, or 
"corrective action complete with controls," meaning that all that 
remains is required operation, maintenance, and monitoring actions; 
compliance with and maintenance of any institutional controls; or both. 

[17] Environmental Protection Agency, "Transmittal of Guidance on 
Enforcement Approaches for Expediting RCRA Corrective Action," January 
2001. 

[18] Environmental Protection Agency, Results-Based Approaches and 
Tailored Oversight Guidance for Facilities Subject to Corrective 
Action under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 
EPA 530-R-03-012 (Washington, D.C., September 2003). 

[19] Environmental Protection Agency, Handbook of Groundwater 
Protection and Cleanup Policies for RCRA Corrective Action for 
Facilities Subject to Corrective Action under Subtitle C of the 
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, EPA530-R-04-030 (Washington, 
D.C., issued September 2001 and updated April 2004). 

[20] Environmental Protection Agency, "Transmittal of National 
Enforcement Strategy for RCRA Corrective Action," April 27, 2010. 

[21] Environmental Protection Agency, "Transmittal of Interim Guidance 
on Financial Responsibility for Facilities Subject to RCRA Corrective 
Action," September 30, 2003. 

[22] The New Mexico Environment Department issued an "installation 
work plan" to Los Alamos National Laboratory and a "determination of 
imminent and substantial endangerment" to Sandia National Laboratory. 
The United States challenged both of these issuances in court, 
asserting, among other things, that RCRA did not apply to certain 
radioactive waste that does not fit within the definition of solid 
waste. The cases were settled out of court, resulting in consent 
orders requiring the laboratories to investigate and remediate the 
contamination. 

[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-224]. 

[24] GAO, Hazardous Waste: Progress under the Corrective Action 
Program Is Limited, but New Initiatives May Accelerate Cleanups, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-98-3] (Washington, 
D.C.: Oct. 21, 1997), and GAO, Hazardous Waste: EPA Has Removed Some 
Barriers to Cleanups, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-00-224] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 
31, 2000). 

[25] The nominal dollar value of a good or service is its value in 
terms of prices current at the time the good or service is acquired or 
sold. 

[26] Working for environmental justice is currently one of EPA's key 
priorities identified by the Administrator. The agency has a draft 
strategy to help integrate environmental justice into its programs. 

[27] Constant dollar values are those adjusted to remove the effects 
of inflation by dividing the nominal value (also called the current 
dollar value) by the appropriate price index. The resulting amount can 
be labeled real or inflation adjusted. Real dollar values can reflect 
a measure of purchasing power, such as real income, or a measure of 
quantity, such as real gross domestic product. Real dollars are 
frequently called constant dollars when referring to measures of 
purchasing power. 

[28] National Research Council, Alternatives for Ground Water Cleanup 
(Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 1994). 

[29] Georgia state officials told us that it is the policy of Georgia 
to consider all groundwater as a potential source of drinking water 
and thus always apply drinking water standards to groundwater 
remediation. New Mexico state officials told us that 85-90 percent of 
drinking water in that state comes from groundwater and is thus 
subject to drinking water standards, which officials told us are in 
some cases higher than the standards mandated under the federal Safe 
Drinking Water Act. According to EPA, Michigan starts from the premise 
that all groundwater is a potential source of drinking water but 
allows for waivers. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: