&EPA
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Policy
(1807T)
September 2013
EPA-100-F-13-008
Evaluating the Effectiveness and
Efficiency of Region 2's RCRA
Corrective Action Program
Fact Sheet
http://www.epa.gov/evaluate
For more information on
completed evaluations at
EPA or the Evaluation
Support Division, visit the
above link.
Introduction
• Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), EPA administers the
Corrective Action program, which requires regulated facilities to investigate and clean up
contamination of hazardous waste resulting from current and past practices at the sites.
• EPA Region 2 manages a universe of 674 Corrective Action facilities, including 332
facilities that are tracked under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
This evaluation focuses primarily on the 332 facilities in the "GPRA 2020" universe,
including: 174 facilities in New York, 106 facilities in New Jersey, 51 facilities in Puerto
Rico, and one facility in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
• Work may be implemented as federal lead or with state agencies, depending on state
authorization status. New York is fully authorized to implement the program, New
Jersey is not authorized but has a work sharing agreement with EPA, and Puerto Rico
and the U.S. Virgin Islands are not authorized and EPA implements the program directly
in these jurisdictions.
• EPA Region 2 initiated this evaluation to study the efficiency and effectiveness of the
Region's RCRA Corrective Action program and identify improvement opportunities.
Evaluation Questions
• The evaluation explored seven questions in the following six areas:
o Timeliness of remedy decisions, efficiency of federally-managed vs. state-
managed sites, accountability to project schedules, and actions available under
current authorities and resources that could accelerate the process.
o Adequacy of resources to support the program, and the effectiveness of resource
allocation.
o Potential to use administrative orders and other enforcement actions to prevent
delays or non-compliance.
o Benchmarking of Region 2's program with other EPA regions.
o Environmental stringency of interim and final remedy decisions.
o Effectiveness of public participation, and any changes the Region could implement
to improve communication with external stakeholders, including stakeholders in
communities with high-profile sites and environmental justice communities.
Evaluation Methods
• Conducted interviews with over 60 Corrective Action stakeholders to understand views
on efficiency and effectiveness and opportunities to strengthen the program.
• Reviewed the central project files for 20 selected Corrective Action sites to assess
delays, the Agency's consideration of proposed remedies, and public participation.
• Analyzed site progress and achievement of key milestones in RCRAInfo; conducted
statistical analyses of the data to understand differences between federally-managed vs.
state-managed sites, duration of key phases, and characteristics associated with delays.
• Reviewed national and regional budget data to assess resource adequacy and the
effectiveness of resource allocation in Region 2.
• Participated in the Corrective Action Lean Event for Regions 3 and 7 (February 2013),
and analyzed additional benchmarking data for the 10 EPA regions.
• Updated the RCRA Corrective Action process map to identify site management priorities
and causes of delays.
-------
Key Findings and Conclusions
• While stakeholders agree that many sites take longer to remediate than would be ideal, the
evaluation did not identify any systematic or structural elements of the Region 2 program that
appear to cause delays across sites. Reasons for delays include: the delegated structure of the program and
EPA's oversight role, which limits EPA's direct influence over many state-lead sites; EPA's historical emphasis on
solid waste management units and localized cleanups rather than site-wide remediation; patterns of delays
resulting from old permit language or long-established relationships among facilities, states, and EPA, where EPA is
strictly in an oversight role; and competing management priorities (e.g., timely cleanup decisions vs. environmental
stringency). The Corrective Action process and site progress are broadly similar at the federal and state level. In all
cases, meaningful, well-targeted metrics and goals, including GPRA goals, seem to motivate progress at sites.
• Resources are not adequate to support the full range of management priorities outlined in EPA
guidance, GPRA requirements, and as described by staff in interviews. Extensive resources are needed to
ensure progress across multiple and sometimes conflicting priorities for site remediation, such as rapid site
completion, meaningful public involvement, and effective working relationships that recognize state authority.
Instead, Region 2's budget allocation for the RCRA Corrective Action program is declining, which mirrors the
budget situation nationwide. The overall budget situation requires Region 2 to develop and communicate clear
management priorities that may not address all policy objectives with the same level of urgency at every site.
• Enforcement has traditionally been a lower management priority for Region 2's RCRA Corrective
Action program than negotiated approaches. This is due in part to historical management decisions, in part
to Region 2's structure in which enforcement is separate from the permitting function of RCRA, and in part to the
structure of the RCRA statute itself and EPA guidance, which has traditionally emphasized permitting and
negotiation. In addition, the delegated structure of the RCRA program has meant that New Jersey and New York
have traditionally taken the lead on enforcement for many sites. As a result, EPA Region 2 does not have an
integrated "enforcement culture" in its RCRA program. The evaluation findings suggest that an emphasis on
enforcement might in some cases be appropriate for certain sites.
• Region 2's RCRA Corrective Action program is not notably different from programs in other regions.
Rates of progress at sites in the Region 2 RCRA Corrective Action program are similar to those in other regions,
and in general, the region is near the center of the distribution in terms of the number and characteristics of
Corrective Action sites.
• Region 2's selection of interim and final remedies does not appear to be a "rubber-stamping"
exercise. Overall, we could find no information that suggests that the Region is not thoroughly considering the
remediation options and alternatives presented by the facilities, but in some cases it is possible that resource
constraints may affect the quality of EPA review.
• Stakeholders generally feel that RCRA Corrective Action sites would benefit from more meaningful
public participation opportunities. While the RCRA statute and policy require formal public meetings only when
taking a permit action or at the final remedy selection stage, many stakeholders noted that additional, "two-way"
public participation opportunities are necessary for the effective management of the sites. Notably, third-party
respondents, even when dissatisfied, appear to prefer to work with EPA than with state agencies and facilities, who
often have lead roles in public outreach.
Recommendations
• Define management's highest priorities for every site, and focus resources and metrics accordingly.
• Build on existing efforts and momentum in states and other regions to optimize resource use.
• Encourage efficient site completion by adopting a long-term strategy for Corrective Action sites that emphasizes
site-wide progress rather than process-based milestones.
• Enhance enforcement capabilities to support appropriate use of enforcement authority at sites that EPA and states
identify as strong candidates for federal enforcement.
• At sites with strong public interest or potentially high impact, strengthen opportunities for meaningful, two-way
public participation earlier in the process.
Contacts
• John Heffelfinger, EPA Evaluation Support Division, heffelfinger.iohn@epa.gov
• Ariel Iglesias, EPA Region 2, iglesias.ariel@eDa.Qov: Adolph Everett, EPA Region 2, everett.adolDh@eDa.aov
-------
Report Link: http://www.epa.gov/evaluate/
Date Completed: September 2013
------- |