Record Display for the EPA National Library Catalog

RECORD NUMBER: 2228 OF 2709

OLS Field Name OLS Field Data
Main Title Superfund : analysis of costs at five Superfund sites : report to the Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of Representatives /
CORP Author United States. General Accounting Office.
Publisher The Office,
Year Published 2000
Report Number GAO/RCED-00-22; B-284098
Stock Number 163290
OCLC Number 43687939
Subjects Hazardous waste site remediation--United States--Costs. ; Hazardous waste site remediation--United States--Accounting.
Additional Subjects United States.--Environmental Protection Agency--Accounting.
Internet Access
Description Access URL
http://www.gao.gov/archive/2000/rc00022.pdf
Holdings
Library Call Number Additional Info Location Last
Modified
Checkout
Status
EJBM  TD1040.U55 2000 Headquarters Library/Washington,DC 01/05/2015
ELBM  TD1040.U55 2000 AWBERC Library/Cincinnati,OH 09/27/2010
ERAM  TD1040.A32913 2000 HWC Region 9 Library/San Francisco,CA 06/02/2000
Collation 62 pages : illustrations, map ; 28 cm
Abstract
Since the Superfund program began in 1980, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has spent about $17.7 billion to clean up hazardous waste sites. EPA oversees the work, but private contractors do the actual cleanups--known as remedial actions--of Superfund sites. GAO has issued a series of reports that describe the portion of EPA's funds spent on remedial actions by contractors, as opposed to other activities, such as studying conditions at sites, designing cleanup remedies, and travel. (See GAO/RCED-97-211, Sept. 1997, GAO/RCED-98-221, Aug. 1998, and GAO/RCED-99-139, May 1999.) This report examines the costs at the following five Superfund sites: the Raymark site in Stratford, Connecticut; the Sharon Steel site in Midvale, Utah; the United Creosoting site in Conroe, Texas; the NL Industries site in Granite City, Illinois; and the Newmark site in San Bernadino, California. For each site, GAO discusses (1) what portion of the total funds EPA spent on each site was used to pay contractors for remedial actions as opposed to other activities and how the contractors spent the money and (2) whether the actual costs for remedial actions differed from the estimated costs and why.
Notes
Cover title. "January 2000." Includes bibliographical references. "GAO/RCED-00-22." "B-284098"--Page 3.