Jump to main content.


Region 1's Implementation of Superfund Administrative Reforms

EPA SEAL Office of Inspector General Audit Report
Region 1's Implementation of Superfund Administrative Reforms
E1SFF7-01-0036-8100254
September 29, 1998

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE

Superfund critics often asked "Why does it take so long and cost so much?" As a result, the Agency has been continually seeking ways to make the Superfund process faster, fairer and more effective. We analyzed some of the actions taken by the Agency in order to answer the following questions:

RESULTS IN BRIEF

Region 1's use of various Superfund reforms helped achieve the Agency’s goals to improve the equity and effectiveness of the Superfund process. However, we were unable to document an overall improvement in expediting the Superfund process from listing on the National Priorities List (NPL) to construction completion (pipeline). Prior to the initiation of Superfund reforms, Region 1 sites took an average of seven years and two months to reach construction completion. Afterwards, the average time increased to nine years and 11 months. We found there were tradeoffs in implementing the reforms. Improved equity or community buy-in may come with the price of additional time spent in the pipeline. Such additional time may or may not equate to increased costs. Evaluating and measuring the impact reforms had on the cleanup process was not required of the Region. We found that Regional staff had ideas and suggestions about the impact reforms had in the process. In our opinion, capturing these ideas and suggestions to measure which reforms had a positive or negative effect on the entire cleanup process would allow the Agency to make better informed decisions regarding the value of the reforms. We believe the Region and Headquarters should coordinate an effort to measure reform performance. Such measurements should carefully examine how reforms promoting equity and effectiveness have impacted attaining the goal of expediting the cleanup process. Based on our review, we believe the goal to expedite the cleanup process has not been achieved. The regions can provide the practical knowledge that comes from implementing the reforms and provide suggestions to further improve the goals of providing a faster, fairer and more effective Superfund program.

Region 1 Actively Implemented Reforms

Region 1 successfully piloted and implemented various Superfund reforms. Benefits such as increased equity, cost savings, and community buy-in were achieved. Region 1 was one of the few regions to aggressively implement the Updating Remedy reform, saving $75 million at 11 sites. Use of enforcement reforms such as deminimis, mixed funding, orphan share, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) provided greater equity to the Superfund process. In one case, the use of a Community Advisory Group, another reform, resulted in not only community consensus but also a significant cost savings of approximately $45 million by the adoption of a new remedy. However, these successes also came with a price. It took five years for the Community Advisory Group to reach consensus. Enforcement reforms in particular required greater detailed information and documentation, thus increasing the amount of time a site spent in the pipeline. Based on their experience, Regional enforcement staff provided suggestions to prevent delays in implementing enforcement reforms.

Region 1 Needs to Assess the Impact of Presumptive Remedies on the Cleanup Process

Presumptive remedies were developed to streamline the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process, thus saving time and costs. We found, however, that this reform did not always expedite the Superfund process as envisioned. Remedial Project Managers (RPMs) believed the use of presumptive remedies provided a more focused RI/FS and promoted consistency. However, the RI/FS phase for most sites using this reform took longer than the 18 month completion goal set by Headquarters. The Agency had not developed a plan to evaluate the use of this reform. As a result, there was no assurance that the use of presumptive remedies actually saved time or money. Additionally, the RPMs said they were unable to quantify time or cost savings which they believed resulted from the use of the reform. Without formal measurements and evaluations, it is difficult to identify why the time savings were not realized so that appropriate corrections can be made.

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recommend that you instruct the Regional enforcement staff to work with Headquarters Office of Enforcement & Compliance Assurance (OECA) staff to determine the feasibility of implementing Regional recommendations which could help to expedite the Superfund enforcement process.

We also recommend that you instruct your Office of Site Remediation & Restoration staff develop an evaluation plan to determine if the use of presumptive remedies is achieving its desired results. This evaluation should be coordinated with Headquarters as part of its analysis of Superfund Reforms to measure the qualitative and quantitative impacts on the cleanup process.

REGION 1 COMMENTS

Region 1 was pleased to note that the audit findings confirmed that the Region used reforms and contributed to the Agency’s goals of improving equity and effectiveness in program implementation. However, the Region did not believe the OIG used the appropriate analysis to determine if the reforms were expediting the process. Region 1 along with Headquarters program staff provided written comments to our August 20, 1998 draft report. Their responses have been summarized at the end of Chapters 2, 3, and 4. The complete Regional and Headquarters responses have been included as Appendices 1 and 2. An exit conference was held with Region 1 officials on September 23,1998.

Top of page

 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.