United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Office of Policy
(1807T)
September 2013
EPA-100-K-13-013
Evaluating the
Effectiveness and
Efficiency of Region 2rs
Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act
Corrective Action
Program
Final Report
Promoting Environmental Results
t >
Through Evaluation
-------
Acknowledgements
This evaluation was conducted by Industrial Economics, Incorporated (lEc) for EPA's Office of Policy
(OP) under Contract EP-W-10-002 between EPA and lEc. The lEc evaluation team included Cynthia
Manson, Daniel Kaufman, Peter Courtright, and Curtis Morrill. John Heffelfinger and Terell Lasane of
OP were the Work Assignment Managers. Ariel Iglesias, Adolph Everett, Phil Flax, and Jennifer Thatcher
from EPA Region 2 provided input throughout the course of the evaluation. Representatives from EPA
Headquarters Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR) and Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement (OSRE) also provided valuable input.
This report was developed under the Program Evaluation Competition, sponsored by OP. To access
copies of this or other EPA program evaluations, please go to EPA's Evaluation Support Division's
website at http://www.epa.gov/evaluate.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Evaluation Questions ES-1
Methodology ES-2
Findings and Conclusions ES-2
Recommendations ES-6
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
Report Organization 1-2
Process Map 1-2
Evaluation Questions 1-5
CHAPTER 2 | METHODS
Evaluation Design 2-1
Data Sources 2-1
Analytical Approach 2-5
Limitations of the Methodology 2-18
CHAPTER 3 | FINDINGS
High-Level Finding: Multiple Management Objectives Affect the RCRA Corrective Action Process 3-1
Question 1A: Within Current EPA Authority, Policies, Guidance and Resources What Actions
Could the Region Take to Accelerate the Time it Takes to Reach a Remedial Decision? 3-5
Question IB: What Are the Differences in Efficiency Between Federally-Managed Sites vs.
State-Managed Sites? 3-16
Question 1C: Are Decisions Made In A Timely Manner? 3-21
Question ID: Do We Have A Schedule for the Projects and Are We Holding Facilities
Accountable to the Schedule? 3-32
Question 2: Are the Resources Adequate to Support the Program? 3-33
Question 3: Are There Identifiable Delays In the Projects or Identifiable Non-Compliance
That Might Have Been Prevented by the Issuance of a RCRA Corrective Action Order Or
by Taking Some Other Enforcement Action? 3-40
-------
Question 4: Benchmarking with Other Regions: How Does the Efficiency of Region 2's
Program Compare to Other Regions? 3-50
Question 5: Is the Region's Selection of Interim Corrective Measures and Final Remedies
Consistent with National Guidelines and Directives? Is the Region Considering Interim Or
Final Remedial Alternatives Beyond Those Proposed by Facilities (e.g., An Interim Measure
Different from the One Proposed by the Facility, A Final Remedy Different Than the
Facility's Preferred Final Remedy, Or Enhancements to the Facility's Preferred Final
Remedy), As Necessary? 3-54
Question 6: What Is the Opinion of Various Stakeholders on the Effectiveness of the RCRA
Corrective Action Program? What Are Their Views on Public Participation? 3-59
Question 7: Should the Region Implement Any Changes to Improve Communication with
External Stakeholders for High Profile Facilities Or Facilities Located In Communities with
Environmental Justice Considerations? 3-65
CHAPTER 4 | CONCLUSIONS AND RECMMENDATIONS
Conclusions 4-1
Recommendations 4-4
APPENDICES:
Appendix A: Bibliography
Appendix B: List of Sites Reviewed
Appendix C: List of Interviews
Appendix D: Interview Guides
Appendix E: Detailed RCRAInfo Analysis
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (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
their sites. Work may be implemented as federal lead or with partner state agencies, depending on state
authorization status. For purposes of the Corrective Action program, New York is fully authorized, New
Jersey is not authorized but has a work sharing agreement with EPA under which the state assumes
management of some sites, and Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are not authorized and EPA
implements the program in these jurisdictions. In addition to assuming full jurisdiction of functions not
delegated to Region 2's states and territories, EPA also provides oversight of the state programs and has
shared responsibilities in some projects with state delegation.
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.
EPA Region 2 initiated this evaluation to study the efficiency and effectiveness of the Region's RCRA
Corrective Action program. The study explores factors that hamper or delay the identification of the
remedy decision, the program's effectiveness in achieving environmentally protective remedies, and the
effectiveness of public participation and communication with external stakeholders.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The evaluation was guided by seven questions:
Process Questions
Is Region 2's RCRA Corrective Action program operating efficiently?
1) Within current EPA authority, policies, guidance and resources what actions could the Region
take to accelerate the time it takes to reach a remedial decision? What are the differences in
efficiency between federally-managed sites versus state-managed sites? Are decisions made in a
timely manner? Do we have a schedule for the projects and are we holding facilities accountable
to the schedule?
2) Are the resources adequate to support the program? Are the resources allocated effectively?
3) Are there identifiable delays in the projects or identifiable non-compliance that might have been
prevented by the issuance of a RCRA Corrective Action order or by taking some other
enforcement action?
ES-1
-------
4) Benchmarking with other regions: How does the efficiency of Region 2's program compare to
other regions?
Outcome and Public Participation Questions
Is Region 2's RCRA Corrective Action program operating effectively?
5) Is the Region's selection of interim corrective measures and final remedies consistent with
national guidelines and directives? Is the Region considering interim or final remedial alternatives
beyond those proposed by facilities (e.g., an interim measure different from the one proposed by
the facility, a final remedy different than the facility's preferred final remedy, or enhancements to
the facility's preferred final remedy), as necessary?
6) What is the opinion of various stakeholders on the effectiveness of the Corrective Action
program? What are their views on public participation?
7) Should the Region implement any changes to improve communication with external stakeholders
for high profile facilities or facilities located in communities with environmental justice
considerations?
METHODOLOGY
This evaluation uses multiple analytical methods and data sources, including a review of EPA guidance
documents, interviews with more than 60 Corrective Action stakeholders, reviews of central project files
for 20 selected Corrective Action sites in Region 2, analysis of program data in RCRAInfo, national and
regional budget data, regional benchmarking data, and the Corrective Action process map. The data
collection strategy makes the fullest possible use of existing data while undertaking targeted new data
collections to provide comprehensive and robust answers to the evaluation questions.
We triangulate our findings across existing and new data sources using a combination of quantitative and
qualitative analysis to answer each evaluation question. Using multiple sources of information to address
the same question provides the opportunity for findings from one source to validate or contradict findings
from another source. If we see consistent themes across methods, it bolsters the strength of the evaluation
findings. Several evaluation findings are supported and validated by more than one source.
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
In this evaluation, respondents provided a set of observations about the structure of the program that were
striking in their consistency, and led to a central finding about the program structure and process.
Specifically, respondents observed that a key source of tension in implementing the program is
responding concurrently to multiple priorities for site management. The objectives identified by
interviewees most often are:
Completing sites in an efficient (i.e., timely) manner;
Ensuring through collaboration that states and responsible parties (RPs) maintain a central role in
site remediation;
Ensuring timely and adequate public participation; and
Requiring stringent, environmentally-protective remedies.
ES-2
-------
The relative importance of these priorities has changed repeatedly over the history of the program.
Moreover, these priorities are difficult to reconcile and in some cases can confound one another,
particularly in the context of declining resources.
Certain site features are likely to affect both the importance and the success of a given objective. For
example, a site with complex contamination with off-site exposure is not likely to be resolved in a short
time; efficiency may not be the best determinant of success, but public participation and stringent
clearance standards are likely to be critical. Similarly, an emphasis on collaborative approaches may
conflict with a specific emphasis on stringent clearance standards, since the latter implies that EPA
maintains not only a review role but a set of specific expectations for remediation. In a collaborative
process, federal enforcement may signal that collaboration has been unsuccessful (unless requested by
state leads), but in a process focusing on specific site cleanup objectives, enforcement may be appropriate
for ensuring protective remedies (e.g., for residential areas).
Moreover, historical shifts in site management focus may affect EPA's ability to emphasize particular
management strategies going forward. A historic focus on collaborative approaches, for example, may
result in more informal communication records that would not support a new focus on enforcement.
In addition to this central finding, we summarize the key findings for each evaluation question in the
following set of conclusions:
Competing management priorities complicate site management and, in the context of
limited resources, can affect the program's efforts to make efficient progress at sites. While
stakeholders agree that many sites take longer to remediate than would be ideal, we did not
identify any other systematic or structural elements of the Region 2 program that appear to cause
delays across sites. Site management priorities within EPA, however, have historically varied
both across sites and overtime. This suggests several different "Corrective Action processes" that
may be appropriate at different types of sites. When management priorities are not clearly aligned
with site objectives, this can complicate efforts to enhance overall timeliness of either decision-
making or broader site remediation.
o While interview respondents universally agree that some sites do not move efficiently
through the Corrective Action process, they also note a number of reasons for slow progress
that do not directly result from Region 2's program. These include the delegated structure of
the RCRA program and EPA's oversight role (particularly in New York and New Jersey) -
which limits EPA's direct influence over many state-lead sites - and the need to forego speed
to ensure public involvement and the development of stringent site cleanup standards at
highly visible and/or technically complex sites.
o One reason cited for the slow pacing at some sites is the EPA RCRA program's emphasis on
solid waste management units (SWMUs) and localized cleanup, rather than site-level
remediation objectives (in contrast to Superfund's site-wide emphasis). This marks a key
difference in emphasis between EPA and the state governments in New York and New
Jersey, which are focusing on site-wide anticipated use goals in their cleanup programs.
Interview respondents note that the unit-level approach can result in repetition of project steps
that could potentially be addressed concurrently.
ES-3
-------
o Although the strategic emphasis and approaches differ across jurisdictions (e.g., SWMU vs.
site-wide emphasis), the RCRA Corrective Action process is broadly similar at both the
federal and state level. Our statistical analysis of site progress to date found no significant
differences in the full duration of the Corrective Action process, or the time required to
achieve environmental indicators, between EPA-lead and state-lead sites. Factors affecting
site progress appear to be largely independent of jurisdiction and existing program structure.
o Interviews and file reviews suggest that meeting site cleanup schedules is difficult, and that
delays beyond initial schedules are common. In some cases patterns of delay result from old
permit language or long-established relationships among RPs, states, and EPA, where EPA is
strictly in an oversight role.
o Metrics and goals, when they reflect management priorities, are critical tools. In all contexts,
meaningful, well-targe ted metrics and goals, including GPRA goals, seem to motivate
progress at sites. Though some interview respondents complained about "counting beans,"
most complaints arose where metrics were not aligned correctly with management priorities
for specific sites.
Resources are not adequate to support the full range of management priorities outlined in
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. Furthermore, the recent transfer of 16 RCRA Corrective
Action sites to the Superfund Division has not relieved resource constraints due to requirements
involving cross-charging and overhead related to Superfund resources. 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, but site
history and relationships with states and RPs may also suggest an alternative approach. The
evaluation findings suggest that a commitment to significant increases in enforcement actions
would require a realignment of enforcement resources to the Regional Corrective Action program
such that, similar to the Superfund program, the remedial project managers' responsibilities
would include an enforcement component. The integration of programmatic and enforcement
resources would ensure that sufficient resources are available to integrate enforcement actions
and Corrective Action requirements, including oversight.
ES-4
-------
Region 2's RCRA Corrective Action program is not notably different from programs in
other regions. Our benchmarking effort found that rates of progress at sites in the Region 2
RCRA Corrective Action program are similar to those in other regions, and that in general, the
region is near the center of the distribution in terms of the number and characteristics of
Corrective Action sites. Interviews with EPA Headquarters and Regions 3,5, and 7 confirm that
other regions face similar challenges in prioritizing activities and achieving site goals.
Region 2's selection of interim corrective measures and final remedies does not appear to be
a "rubber-stamping" exercise. Information from guidance, interviews, and file reviews
indicates that Region 2 reviews potential remedies and provides detailed comments on remedial
options. Resource constraints, including lack of access to technical expertise, may in some cases
limit the depth of technical review that can be done in a timely manner on specific sites;
management priorities are important determinants for how sites would proceed in these cases,
since additional review and presentation of new options conflicts with an emphasis on more rapid
site progress. In addition, the Region does not emphasize the use of presumptive remedies, even
though this is a recommendation in EPA guidance. Overall, we could find no information that
suggests that the Region is not thoroughly considering the remediation options and alternatives
presented by the RPs, 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. EPA has for many sites conducted additional
public outreach, but it appears that historically public participation has not been a management
priority, and interview respondents noted a lack of meaningful opportunities to provide input.
Notably, third-party respondents, even when dissatisfied, appear to prefer to work with EPA
rather than with state agencies and RPs, who often have lead roles in public outreach.
In the context of examining these specific questions, we also examined how respondents viewed the
current operations of the program as a whole, and found that while specific issues are problematic,
respondents also expressed some optimism. In general, all respondents emphasized that the Corrective
Action program is constrained by the statutory structure that emphasizes an oversight role for EPA, by a
long history of evolving site management practices at many sites, and, more recently, by increasingly
constrained resources. Respondents and data suggest that the largest challenges facing Region 2's
program are generally the same as those experienced across the country. However, in spite of recent
budget constraints, interview respondents with many different perspectives also noted that program
management, communication, and coordination across EPA, state agencies, and some other communities
have seen several improvements in recent years. This appears to be at least in part a result of EPA's
reorganization of the program to establish the Caribbean office and reconfigure the program branches,
along with parallel changes in structure and personnel in both New York and New Jersey's Corrective
Action programs. This general theme of cautious optimism in financially difficult times informs the
various recommendations we lay out below.
ES-5
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the conclusions presented above, we offer the following recommendations to Region 2 to
address issues of efficiency and effectiveness related to the RCRA Corrective Action program.
Define management's highest priorities for every site in the Corrective Action program, and
focus resources and metrics accordingly:
o Differentiate between different types of sites, based on the willingness, ability, and level of
public interest in each site.
o Allocate resources according to priority.
o Develop and apply a limited number of meaningful metrics and goals for each management
priority.
o Develop a strategy for lower priority sites and non-GPRA sites.
In developing and implementing management priorities, 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.
ES-6
-------
CHAPTER 1 | INTRODUCTION
Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (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
their sites.
Work may be implemented as federal lead or with partner state agencies, depending on state authorization
status. For purposes of the Corrective Action program, New York is fully authorized, New Jersey is not
authorized but has a work sharing agreement with EPA under which the state assumes management of
some sites, and Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands are not authorized and EPA implements the
program in these jurisdictions. In addition to assuming full jurisdiction of functions not delegated to
Region 2's states and territories, EPA also provides oversight of the state programs and has shared
responsibilities in some projects with state delegation.
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. Historically, EPA
Headquarters guidance has prioritized GPRA sites, which collectively receive significant attention and
resources. In keeping with the Region's reporting conventions, we analyze progress at these 332 facilities
at the site-wide level.
Historically, EPA has measured the progress of Corrective Action projects by project milestones referred
to as environmental indicators (Els). While these Els are useful milestones to ensure that relatively quick
action is taken to mitigate potential and dramatic impacts, the development of the final remedy decision
can then take years or even decades. The Region is interested in examining whether the Corrective Action
process is being implemented as intended, pinpointing bottlenecks, and identifying opportunities to
improve the program.
This study evaluates the efficiency and effectiveness of Region 2's RCRA Corrective Action program.
The study explores: factors that hamper or delay the identification of the remedy decision; the program's
effectiveness in reaching environmentally protective interim and final remedy decisions; and the
effectiveness of public participation and communication with external stakeholders. The evaluation
results are intended to help Region 2 identify program management opportunities to maximize limited
federal, state, and territorial resources to reach final remedy decisions for projects significantly sooner and
in a manner that provides long-term protection of public health and the environment. The results of this
evaluation may also be of interest to EPA Headquarters Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
(ORCR) and Office of Site Remediation Enforcement (OSRE), and other regions that are working to
streamline and strengthen the Corrective Action program.
1-1
-------
This evaluation was funded by EPA's Program Evaluation Competition, through which EPA's Office of
Policy (OP) encourages the use of program evaluation as a management tool throughout the Agency.
Region 2's proposal to the competition was chosen to receive contractor support from EPA. EPA
contracted with Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc) to provide contractor support for the evaluation.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
The report is organized as follows:
The rest of Chapter 1 presents the RCRA Corrective Action process map and the seven
evaluation questions that guided this evaluation project.
Chapter 2 presents the evaluation methodology. IEc used several methods to assess Region 2's
RCRA Corrective Action program, including: analysis of existing program data; review of EPA
guidance documents and central project files; interviews with over 60 Corrective Action
stakeholders; benchmarking data for other EPA regions; and preliminary findings from lEc's
separate evaluation of EPA's Community Engagement Initiative. We also discuss the strengths
and weaknesses of the methodology to assess program outcomes.
Chapter 3 presents the evaluation findings, organized by the seven evaluation questions.
Chapter 4 presents overall conclusions and recommendations for Region 2's RCRA Corrective
Action program.
We include data collection instruments and supporting analyses as appendices. See the Table of Contents
for the list of appendices.
PROCESS MAP
An initial challenge in evaluating both the efficiency and the effectiveness of the Region 2 Corrective
Action program is clearly describing the Corrective Action process itself. One standard step in
evaluations, particularly evaluations of process efficiency, is to describe the process and identify the
specific steps in the process where inefficiencies occur. In the case of Corrective Action, however, RCRA
program guidance describes only a very general process, and emphasizes that this process should be
adaptable to account for different site conditions. As noted in EPA guidance materials:
The corrective action process is not linear. The elements [of the process] should not be viewed as
prescribed steps on a path, but as evaluations that are necessary to support good cleanup decisions.
Because these elements may not occur in the same order (or at all) at every facility, we encourage
planners to use them as general guidelines, while leaving flexibility for changes. A successful
corrective action program must be procedurally flexible; no one approach to implementing these
cleanup elements will be appropriate for all facilities.1
Exhibit 1-1 presents a process map developed by IEc of the general Corrective Action process. The map
draws on previous process maps developed by EPA Headquarters in various publications, and has been
revised to include specific input from Region 2 staff through the course of interviews. The map presents a
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Office of Solid Waste, Permits Branch. RCRA Public Participation Manual, Chapter 4 (1996 Edition).
1-2
-------
simplified conceptual process and does not attempt to describe the site- and unit-specific review processes
and coordination steps that vary widely across jurisdictions, sites, and sometimes even across different
units at a single site. For example, many sites have multiple solid waste management units (SWMUs); it
is not atypical for activities and progress to vary across units. The final goal, however, is to achieve site-
wide cleanup.2 Feedback from interviews, including minimal changes to the map, suggests that this
general map is most appropriate for a program-level description of the process.
Facilities may be required to initiate Corrective Action when applying for a RCRA permit, upon
discovering a release at a permitted or interim status facility, or upon discovering additional SWMUs at a
facility already conducting Corrective Action. When a release is discovered, Corrective Action may be
initiated through modification of the facility's permit, through an administrative order or other
enforcement action, or through a voluntary agreement. As described in EPA guidance documents and
interviews conducted for this evaluation, the Corrective Action process has four key phases:
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA). Conducted by EPA, state authorities, or the facility once
contamination is identified or suspected, the purpose of the RFA is to determine if a more
detailed investigation is required. The RFA typically includes review of existing facility
information, a visit to the facility, and sampling of environmental media to determine if there is
an actual or potential release at the facility. Depending on the results of the RFA, the facility may
be subject to Corrective Action or, if RCRA Corrective Action is not the appropriate legal
authority, the site may be transferred to another cleanup program (e.g., Superfund). If no
remediation is required, the Agency issues a "Determination of No Further Action."
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI). The RFI is the second phase of the Corrective Action
process. The RFI is a detailed investigation to determine the nature and extent of the release, if
any, and to provide a foundation for developing a strategy to address the contamination.
Corrective Measures Study (CMS). If the RFI finds that there is a need to implement a
corrective measure, the CMS phase focuses on examining the alternatives for the corrective
measure. This phase involves developing remedy options, evaluating feasibility, engaging the
public, and deciding on the appropriate remedy.
Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI). The CMI phase includes the design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of the corrective measure. After completing the CMI,
the facility can apply for termination of Corrective Action.
The GPRA environmental indicators - human exposure under control and groundwater contamination under control - can only be achieved at the
site-wide level. Construction complete can be determined at the sub-site or site-wide level, but GPRA only assigns "credit" when construction
complete is achieved at the site-wide level.
1-3
-------
EXHIBIT 1-1. REGION 2 RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS MAP
1/1
c
.0
J-J
u
c
0)
E
0)
o
C
ro
_
O
4->
ro
c
(U
E
c
o
c
LU
CD
13
1/1
OJ
E
i
0)
Phases
RFA
VI
8
1
a
a:
Key Actions
RCRA Facility
Assessment
Permit Modification,
Administrative Order, or
"Voluntary" Cleanup *
Determination of Need
for Facility Investigation
or "No Further Action"
Imposition of Facility
Investigation
Facility Investigation
Complete
Corrective Measures
Study Imposition
CMS
Corrective Measures
Study Complete
r
Public Notice and
Participation
CMI
ean-up
mplete
>
s
D
o
1
ady for Anticip
V
EC
/
Final Remedy Selection
C Final Remedy
Construction
_ Remedy Operation,
Maintenance and
Monitoring
Final Cleanup Goals
Achieved
Notes:
^ = key milestone achieved
* We understand that EPA can use permits and
administrative orders to initiate RCRA CA and
at other points throughout the process.
rRestricted Use:
Residual
Contamination -
Institutional and/or
Engineering
Typical
Activities
Initial facility
review
Facility
assessment
Scoping the RFI
and CMS
Facility
investigation
and sampling
Characterization
of release
Conduct interim
CMS if required
Develop and
screen remedy
options
Conduct
treat ability
studies
Analysis of
alternatives
Remedy
decision
Design and
construction of
remedies
Certification of
completion
Final permit
modification *
Operate remedy
systems
Maintain
engineering and
institutional
controls
Environmental
sampling and
monitoring
systems
Long-term
stewardship:
on-going
maintenance of
institutional and
engineering
controls
1-4
-------
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
This evaluation seeks to address the following questions about the Corrective Action process and
outcomes in Region 2:
Process Questions
Is Region 2's RCRA Corrective Action program operating efficiently?
1) Within current EPA authority, policies, guidance and resources what actions could the Region
take to accelerate the time it takes to reach a remedial decision? What are the differences in
efficiency between federally-managed sites versus state-managed sites? Are decisions made in a
timely manner? Do we have a schedule for the projects and are we holding facilities accountable
to the schedule?
2) Are the resources adequate to support the program? Are the resources allocated effectively?
3) Are there identifiable delays in the projects or identifiable non-compliance that might have been
prevented by the issuance of a RCRA Corrective Action order or by taking some other
enforcement action?
4) Benchmarking with other regions: How does the efficiency of Region 2's program compare to
other regions?
Outcome and Public Participation Questions
Is Region 2's RCRA Corrective Action program operating effectively?
5) Is the Region's selection of interim corrective measures and final remedies consistent with
national guidelines and directives? Is the Region considering interim or final remedial alternatives
beyond those proposed by facilities (e.g., an interim measure different from the one proposed by
the facility, a final remedy different than the facility's preferred final remedy, or enhancements to
the facility's preferred final remedy), as necessary?
6) What is the opinion of various stakeholders on the effectiveness of the Corrective Action
program? What are their views on public participation?
7) Should the Region implement any changes to improve communication with external stakeholders
for high profile facilities or facilities located in communities with environmental justice
considerations?
Chapter 2 describes the methods that lEc used to answer the evaluation questions.
1-5
-------
CHAPTER 2 | METHODS
This chapter describes the evaluation methodology used to assess Region 2's RCRA Corrective Action
program. First, we provide an overview of the evaluation design. Next, we discuss methods for collecting
and analyzing existing data. We then review new data collection strategies and analysis. The chapter
concludes with a discussion of the limitations of the methodology.
EVALUATION DESIGN
This mixed-methods evaluation uses multiple analytical methods and data sources, including a review of
EPA guidance documents, literature review, program data, central project files, regional benchmarking
data, interviews, and the process map. The data collection strategy makes the fullest possible use of
existing data while undertaking targeted new data collections to provide comprehensive and robust
answers to the evaluation questions.
As explained in this chapter, we triangulate our findings across existing and new data sources using a
combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis to answer each evaluation question. Using multiple
sources of information to address the same question provides the opportunity for findings from one source
to validate or contradict findings from another source. If we see consistent themes across methods, it
bolsters the strength of the evaluation findings. As discussed in Chapter 3, several evaluation findings are
supported and validated by more than one source.
DATA SOURCES
EXISTING DATA SOURCES
This section describes the existing data that we used to answer the evaluation questions, including: 1)
documents describing EPA authority, guidance, and program management issues; 2) Region 2 budget and
staffing data; 3) RCRAInfo; 4) regional benchmarking data; and 5) central project files. Each of these
data sources is described below.
Documents
lEc reviewed a variety of documents to set the stage for the analysis:
Background documents. As a first step in understanding the Corrective Action process, we
reviewed a number of guidance documents provided by Region 2 and EPA Headquarters,
including: Proposed Rule: Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for RCRA Corrective Action
Regulations; Federal Register Notice Withdrawing RCRA Corrective Action Regulations;
National Enforcement Strategy for Corrective Action (NESCA); NESCA Assessment; National
Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPS); and the U.S. General Accounting Office's
report Hazardous Waste: Early Goals Have Been Met in EPA 's Corrective Action Program, but
2-1
-------
Resource and Technical Challenges Will Constrain Future Progress. These documents provide
an overview of current EPA authority, policies, guidance, and program management issues. lEc
also conducted a literature review to identify other documents that could inform this evaluation,
including the RCRA Corrective Action process map, guidance for expediting RCRA Corrective
Action, the use of streamlined consent orders, information about EPA's Integrated Cleanup
Initiative, and general information on measuring the extent and quality of public participation.
A bibliography of reviewed documents is attached as Appendix A.
Preliminary findings from the evaluation of EPA's Community Engagement Initiative. For
a separate project, lEc is currently conducting an evaluation of the Community Engagement
Initiative. The project team has conducted interviews with a variety of stakeholders on the
nature and extent of community engagement, including interviews with Corrective Action
stakeholders. We draw on preliminary results from the Community Engagement Initiative
evaluation to inform our evaluation of the RCRA Corrective Action program in Region 2.
Budget and Staffing Data
Region 2 provided RCRA Enforcement and Permitting Assistance (REPA) expenditure data since March
2002. Region 2 also provided data on RCRA Corrective Action full-time equivalents (FTE) supported by
EPA grants. In addition, lEc received a draft version of a Corrective Action Program Workload Report
(March 2013) from EPA Headquarters, which describes Corrective Action resources at the national level.
We use this information for a high-level assessment of Region 2's staffing and resources for Corrective
Action, and we present Region 2's resource situation within the broader national budget context.
RCRA Info
RCRAInfo was a key data source for this evaluation. EPA uses RCRAInfo to track information about
entities regulated under RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste). RCRAInfo includes facility information,
permit or closure status, compliance with federal and state regulations, and cleanup activities. We used
RCRAInfo to calculate the time required to reach various milestones in the RCRA Corrective Action
process, identify which steps take the longest, and attempt to explain variance across sites. Details about
our analytical approach are included in the following section ("Analytical Approach").3
Benchmarking Data
We used two main benchmarking sources:4
Lean Event. lEc participated in the RCRA Corrective Action Lean Event for Regions 3 and 7
in February 2013. The Lean Event included a detailed process mapping exercise, which focused
on the RFI and CMS, and documented the time required to complete various steps in the
Corrective Action process. We reviewed background materials and outputs associated with the
Lean Event. We used the Lean data for general benchmarking purposes, as discussed in the next
section ("Analytical Approach").
3 We also explored the possibility of collecting data from the New Jersey Environmental Management System (NJEMS); however, after further
discussions with New Jersey, we determined that the most relevant information available for our evaluation was captured in RCRAInfo.
4 In addition to the data sources discussed in the body of this section, we investigated two other potential sources of benchmarking data: 1) We
looked for results data for EPA's Integrated Cleanup Initiative, and 2) we asked other regions that we interviewed if they had any benchmarking
data they could share with us. However, these lines of inquiry did not yield additional benchmarking data.
2-2
-------
Other benchmarking data. We were not able to benchmark across regions using the raw data
in RCRAInfo, because different regions report to RCRAInfo in different ways. The time and
resources available for this evaluation did not permit lEc to conduct a comprehensive study of
how each region uses RCRAInfo. However, during the scoping phase of the evaluation, we
learned that Headquarters ORCR has conducted a benchmarking exercise that builds on
RCRAInfo and accounts for reporting differences across regions. ORCR provided lEc with
internal benchmarking reports that summarize trends in the data. While the data are preliminary
and we are not able to cite detailed findings, we obtained general insight into Region 2's
performance in a number of key metrics relative to other regions. This provides a clear and
simple overall comparison of Region 2 to all other EPA regions.
Central Project Files
The project files contain rich descriptive information about Corrective Action cases that is not stored in
any database or other systematic format. The files include: correspondence between Corrective Action
sites and project managers, notices of public participation, and case notes about the reasons for delays in
the process. However, the project files are entirely in paper copy, and are stored in the file room at EPA
Region 2's New York office. Given limited time and resources, we were selective about the number of
files that we reviewed and the type of information that we looked for in the files. lEc worked with EPA to
select 20 sites for file review using the purposive sampling criteria below. Purposive sampling provides
insights into specific cases or areas of interest; however, because the sites are not randomly selected, the
results may not be generalizable to the full universe of GPRA 2020 sites. Nonetheless, purposive
sampling allowed us to focus limited evaluation resources on cases that provide relevant information for
addressing the evaluation questions. The sampling criteria included:
High environmental concern. Eighteen of the 20 selected sites were included in the original
2005 GPRA Corrective Action baseline.
Known or perceived concerns with cleanup progress. Only two of the selected sites have
achieved site-wide remedy construction.
State/federal program implementation variability. Three of the selected sites in New Jersey
have EPA Corrective Action permits, and the other five are state-lead. Two sites selected in
New York have joint state/EPA orders, and the other four have state orders or permits. In Puerto
Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, two of the selected sites are under an EPA order, three have
an EPA permit, and one has no enforceable instrument.
Vapor intrusion concerns. Two sites have case study level vapor intrusion concerns, and four
have known or suspected concerns.
Transfer to Superfund Division. Two sites are now fully managed by the Superfund Division,
and one is in transition to full management by the Superfund Division.
We reviewed the central project files looking for specific information that would complement our other
data sources, including: whether or not the files contain a project schedule; correspondence between the
facility and the remedial project manager (RPM); EPA/state's rejection or acceptance of facilities' studies
and proposed remedies; notices of public participation; and any identifiable delays or instances of non-
compliance that might have been prevented by taking an enforcement action. The quantity and usefulness
of documentation varied significantly across the 20 sites. All told, lEc reviewed 834 documents, which
2-3
-------
we summarized in an Excel workbook to facilitate analysis across sites. Details about how we used the
analysis to address specific evaluation questions are included below in the "Analytical Approach" section.
Appendix B lists the 20 sites selected for the file review.
NEW DATA COLLECTIONS
New data collection efforts focused on two categories: 1) interviews and 2) collecting information to
update the process map.
Interviews
Interviews played an essential role in this evaluation. All told, we interviewed 64 individuals.5 The
interviews addressed questions about the adequacy of public participation, use of administrative orders
and other enforcement actions, adequacy of resources, and the root causes of delays in the Corrective
Action process. Exhibit 2-1 summarizes the number of interviews that we conducted by category. The full
list of interviews is included as Appendix C. The interview guides are attached as Appendix D.
EXHIBIT 2-1. NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS BY CATEGORY
INTERVIEW CATEGORY
EPA Headquarters Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery
EPA Headquarters Office of Site Remediation Enforcement
EPA Region 2 Division Directors and Senior Management
EPA Region 2 Corrective Action Program Managers
EPA Region 2 Legal Counsel and RCRA Enforcement
EPA Region 2 Public Affairs Staff
Remedial Project Managers, Program Management Section, RCRA Corrective Action
Program, EPA Region 2
Remedial Project Managers, Corrective Action Section, RCRA Corrective Action
Program, EPA Region 2
Remedial Project Managers, Emergency and Remedial Response Division, EPA Region 2
Remedial Project Managers, Caribbean Environmental Protection Division, Response and
Remediation Branch, RCRA Corrective Action Program, EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2 Comptroller's Office
EPA Region 2 RCRAInfo Data Specialist
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Non-governmental Organizations and Public Officials in EPA Region 2
Facilities in EPA Region 2
EPA Region 3: Land and Chemicals Division
EPA Region 5: Land and Chemicals Division; and Office of Regional Counsel
EPA Region 7: Air and Waste Management Division; Waste Remediation and Permitting
Total
NUMBER OF
INDIVIDUALS
6
2
5
5
2
3
6
5
3
9
1
1
2
2
3
3
1
3
2
64
' lEc conducted several group interviews; therefore, the number of individuals interviewed exceeds the number of interview sessions.
2-4
-------
Process Map
During the literature review, lEc discovered a 1994 version of the RCRA Corrective Action process
map.6 We subsequently merged the 1994 version with an updated version provided by EPA Headquarters
ORCR to develop the diagram in Exhibit 1-1. Though not technically a "data source," lEc used the
process map as an analytical tool in our evaluation. Region 2 confirmed that the process map represents a
reasonable starting point for analyzing the Corrective Action process in 2013. In addition, we understand
that the general process and key milestones are consistent across regions, although authorized states may
exceed the minimum guidelines. We refined the process map based on our discussions with Region 2 and
other interviewees, and we use the revised process map and related visuals as a tool for communicating
evaluation findings in Chapter 3.
ANALYTICAL APPROACH
This section describes how we used the data sources discussed in the previous section to answer the
evaluation questions. Exhibit 2-2 provides a crosswalk of evaluation questions, data sources, and
analytical approaches. The "Data Sources" columns indicate whether each data source is of primary (*) or
secondary (x) importance for answering each evaluation question. The notes in the "Analytical Approach"
column on the far right indicate how we used each data source, and the role of each data source in our
analysis (primary, secondary, verification, or explanatory information). By "primary," we mean the data
source(s) most crucial and informative for answering each evaluation question; by "secondary," we mean
other data sources that were helpful but not of as high importance for answering that particular question.
We cross-checked our findings against "verification" data sources, to validate our findings or identify
areas that required further investigation. Finally, we used "explanatory" data sources to contextualize and
interpret our findings. As shown in Exhibit 2-2, we triangulated across existing and new data, using a
combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis, to answer each evaluation question.
Quantitative methods involved the use of RCRAInfo data, and included analyses of the time required to
achieve selected milestones in the Corrective Action process. We calculated descriptive statistics
(including minimum, maximum, mean, median, and mode) overall and for major categories of facilities
(e.g., facility location, sector, and EPA vs. delegated authority). To the extent allowed by the data, we
also conducted statistical analyses (e.g., t-tests and regressions) to explore the association between
selected variables and the achievement of selected milestones in the Corrective Action process. Other
quantitative data included regional benchmarking data from the Lean Event and EPA Headquarters. The
benchmarking data allowed us to conduct high-level comparisons across Region 2 and the other EPA
regions.
Beyond RCRAInfo and the benchmarking data, our analysis was primarily qualitative, focusing on more
than 60 interviews and a limited number of file reviews. Broadly speaking, the interviews explored
stakeholder perceptions about the Corrective Action process, root causes of delays and opportunities to
accelerate the process, environmental protectiveness of remedy decisions, and the effectiveness of public
participation. We also conducted file reviews for the 20 sites identified in the previous section. Following
the crosswalk table below, the rest of this chapter discusses the data sources and analytical approaches
that we employed to answer each evaluation question.
' U.S. Department of Energy, A Comparison of the RCRA Corrective Action and CERCLA Remedial Action Processes, Figure 1. February 1994.
2-5
-------
EXHIBIT 2-2. CROSSWALK OF EVALUATION QUESTIONS, DATA SOURCES, AND ANALYTICAL APPROACHES
EVALUATION QUESTION
KEY:
* = PRIMARY DATA SOURCE
X = SECONDARY DATA SOURCE
DATA SOURCES
S1N3W
-nDoa
BUDGET
DATA
11
LU %
i- [3
y ^
d LU
LL. a:
Process Questions: Is Region 2's RCRA Corrective Action program
1a. Within current EPA authority,
policies, guidance and resources
what actions could the Region take
to accelerate the time it takes to
reach a remedial decision?
1b. What are the differences in
efficiency between federally-
managed sites versus state-
managed sites?
1c. Are decisions made in a timely
manner?
1d. Do we have a schedule for the
projects and are we holding
facilities accountable to the
schedule?
2. Are the resources adequate to
support the program? Are the
resources allocated effectively?
*
X
*
*
*
X
*
X
*
*
*
X
X
X
*
z z
_l LU
opera
*
PROCESS
AAAP
ANALYTICAL APPROACH
ting efficiently?
X
Primary 1: Reviewed national guidance documents, national policies, and Region 2 budget and
staffing data to determine what actions are possible within existing authority and resources
Primary 2: Interviewed Region 2 managers, RPAAs, EPA Headquarters staff, and other regions on the
causes of delays and suggested/tested solutions
Primary 3: Reviewed findings from the Corrective Action Lean Event for Regions 3 and 7
Verification: Consulted central project files for insights on causes of delays and potential remedies
Explanatory: Used the process map as a communication tool to identify and describe where delays
occur and possible areas for reform
Primary: Calculated statistics for federally-managed vs. state-managed sites in RCRAInfo
o Tested for statistically significant differences across groups
Secondary: Interviewed HQ RCRA managers, Region 2 program managers, and state Corrective Action
managers
Verification: Validated RCRAInfo data in interviews and file reviews (selected sites)
Primary 1: Calculated statistics on time required to reach key milestones in the Corrective Action
process, overall and by key parameters (e.g., state)
o Tested for statistically significant differences across groups
Primary 2: Conducted group interviews to brainstorm on causes of delays and possible solutions
Explanatory: Followed up with program managers to gather additional data for selected sites, as
needed
Verification: Validated perceptions through select file reviews
Primary 1: Interviewed selected RPAAs, Region 2 managers, state program managers, and external
community stakeholders on perceptions of accountability
Primary 2: Looked for project schedules in the central project files for the 20 selected sites
Primary 1: Used high-level budget data to characterize level and distribution of program resources
Primary 2: Conducted interviews with groups of RPAAs, R2 and HQ managers, and state Corrective
Action managers on the adequacy/implications of resources
Verification 1: Checked RCRAInfo for insights into work load
Verification 2: Validated against national trends in resources available for Corrective Action as
reflected in national studies - e.g., HQ's RCRA Corrective Action Program: Workload Report
2-6
-------
EVALUATION QUESTION
DATA SOURCES
ANALYTICAL APPROACH
KEY:
* = PRIMARY DATA SOURCE
X = SECONDARY DATA SOURCE
u
CO
LJ
o:
;2£
3. Are there identifiable delays in
the projects or identifiable non-
compliance that might have been
prevented by the issuance of a
RCRA Corrective Action order or by
taking some other enforcement
action?
Primary 1: Compared progress at sites with and without the use of administrative orders and
enforcement actions (RCRAInfo)
Primary 2: Interviewed HQOSRE (Enforcement) and regional managers on when/how they would
consider using administrative orders and enforcement actions
Primary 3: Interviewed RPAAs about their perceptions and experience of using administrative orders
and enforcement actions
Primary 4: Drew on Lean Event discussion and interviews with Regions 3 and 7 about the use of
administrative orders and enforcement actions in these regions
Secondary: Interviewed other regions that have used administrative orders and enforcement actions
Verification: Consulted EPA guidance documents and project files to verify cases where
administrative orders or other enforcement have been, or could have been, used
Note: In comparing the efficiency of sites with and without administrative orders and other
enforcement actions, we were not able to control for underlying differences in facility characteristics.
4. Benchmarking with other
regions: How does the efficiency of
Region 2's program compare to
other regions?
Primary: Used EPA Headquarters' (internal) cross-regional benchmarking reports to conduct high-
level benchmarking comparison between Region 2 and all other EPA regions.
Secondary 1: Benchmarked efficiency of the RCRA Facility Investigation and Corrective Measures
Study between Region 2 and Regions 3 and 7 using Lean Event data (high-level comparison).
Secondary 2: Obtained anecdotal information from key informant interviews with HQ, regions
Outcome Questions: Is Region 2's RCRA Corrective Action program operating effectively?
5. Is the Region's selection of
interim corrective measures and
final remedies consistent with
national guidelines and directives?
Is the Region considering interim or
final remedial alternatives beyond
those proposed by facilities, as
necessary?
6. What is the opinion of various
stakeholders on the effectiveness
of the Corrective Action program?
What are their views on public
participation?
7. Should the Region implement
any changes to improve
communication with external
stakeholders for high profile
facilities or facilities located in
communities with environmental
justice considerations?
Primary 1: Interviewed Region 2 managers, RPAAs, states, and industry representatives to understand
the remedy selection process
Primary 2: Interviewed NGOs and public officials to understand whether proposed remedies at
selected sites were sufficiently protective from the public's perspective
Primary 3: For selected sites, reviewed central project files for correspondence between RPAAs and
the sites, including acceptance or rejection of initial measures proposed by the site, and internal
memoranda that indicate deliberation about proposed measures
Verification: Validated against national guidelines and directives, process map
Primary 1: Interviewed regional managers and public affairs staff, RPAAs, NGOs, and public officials
Secondary 1: Reviewed central project files for indicators of public participation; e.g., number of
public meetings, letters from the public, etc.
Secondary 2: Drew on early findings from EC'S evaluation of EPA's Community Engagement Initiative
Explanatory: Explored areas where public participation could be enhanced, in light of national
guidelines and key steps in the process map
Primary: Interviewed stakeholders within and outside the Agency (see above)
Secondary: Drew on early findings from EC'S evaluation of EPA's Community Engagement Initiative
2-7
-------
1. Within current EPA authority, policies, guidance and resources what actions could the
Region take to accelerate the time it takes to reach a remedial decision? What are the
differences in efficiency between federally-managed sites versus state-managed sites? Are
decisions made in a timely manner? Do we have a schedule for the projects and are we
holding facilities accountable to the schedule?
We used a combination of quantitative and qualitative analysis to answer this evaluation question, using
the following methods and data sources:7
RCRAInfo: RCRAInfo was our primary data source for understanding the time required to
reach various milestones in the Corrective Action process and to compare efficiency across
federally-managed and state-managed sites.8 Our approach to analyzing the RCRAInfo data is
summarized in Exhibit 2-3. The first section of this table shows the key phases we used to
measure how sites progress through the RCRA Corrective Action process. Most of these phases
measure the duration between the start date when a site enters the Corrective Action process
(CA070YE or CA1009) through achievement of key milestones, including the remedy decision,
remedy construction, human exposures under control, groundwater contamination under
control, and Corrective Action process terminated. Others, however, track time within phases,
including the duration from CMS imposition to CMS completion, RFI initiation to RFI
completion, and remedy decision to remedy construction.
We also used RCRAInfo to determine whether sites have completed these key phases and the
time it has taken them to do so, to the extent the data allowed. For sites that have multiple
instances of the same milestone, we used the first instance of the milestone to consider that
component of the RCRA Corrective Action process complete at the site. EPA Region 2 tracks
progress towards meeting its GPRA goals in a similar fashion; goals are marked complete when
a process step is completed at a site for the first time. We generally adopted the same approach,
as repeat instances of a previously completed step are likely a result of work conducted at a
subsequent stage of the process. For example, in tracking the time between remedy decision and
remedy construction, we used the first date entered for remedy decision and the first date
entered for remedy construction.10
7 In addition to the data sources discussed in the main text, we examined whether budget and staffing data might indicate differences in efficiency
between federally-managed sites and state-managed sites. We analyzed RCRA Enforcement and Permitting Assistance (REPA) expenditures since
March 2002, and RCRA Corrective Action FTEs supported by EPA grants. Although useful for analyzing the adequacy and distribution of resources
(see Question 2 below), the data were not sufficiently detailed to support an assessment of state and federal efficiency in site management.
8 We analyzed facilities' progress at the site level. However, the analysis attempts to explain how sub-site events relate to overall cleanup progress
at the site.
9 CA070YE stands for "Investigation is Necessary," while CA100 stands for "Investigation Imposition." After an initial review of the data, we found
that many sites enter both of these codes, with CA100 entered first about half the time and CA070YE entered the other half. Region 2's data
specialist advised us that where two codes are entered, we should use the earlier code as the start date. Where only one of the two codes is
entered, we use that code as the start date.
10 In contrast, EPA Headquarters' internal benchmarking data counts the last instance of the milestone to consider a component of the RCRA
Corrective Action process complete at a site. To ensure consistency in our analysis, we adopted EPA Headquarters' convention for our regional
benchmarking analysis in Question 4.
2-8
-------
EXHIBIT 2-3. RCRA INFO DATA ANALYSIS
KEY PHASES IN THE RCRA CORRECTIVE
ACTION PROCESS
Investigation Necessary => Investigation Complete
(CA100) => (CA200)
CAAS Imposition => CAAS Complete
(CA250) => (CA350)
Investigation Necessary or Imposed => Remedy
Decision
(CA070YE) or (CA100) => (CA400)
Investigation Necessary or Imposed => Remedy
Construction
(CA070YE) or (CA100) => (CA550)
Remedy Decision => Remedy Construction
(CA400) => (CA550)
Investigation Necessary or Imposed => Human
Exposure Under Control
(CA070YE) or (CA100) => (CA725)
Investigation Necessary or Imposed =>
Groundwater Contamination Under Control
(CA070YE) or (CA100) => (CA750)
Investigation Necessary or Imposed => Corrective
Action Process Terminated (CA070YE) or (CA100)
=> (CA999)
EXPLANATORY VARIABLES
Location State
Date entered into GPRA Universe
Facility Priority
Facility Size
Financial Assurance Required
Orders or Decrees Used
Implementing Agency
Operator Type
Interim Measure Decisions
Interim Measure Construction
Multiple Instances of One Event Code
Air Release Indicated
Groundwater Release Indicated
Soil Release Indicated
Surface Water Release Indicated
Date for Public Notice on Proposed Remedy
ISSUES/ASSUMPTIONS
Process time is measured from the first CA100 code to the latest CA200 code, if
multiple dates are entered. Codes for intermediate actions in the RFI process are not
required in RCRAInfo.
Process time is measured from the first CA250 code to the latest CA350 code. Codes
for intermediate actions in the CMS process are not required in RCRAInfo.
None.
Analysis treats CA550, CA550NR, and CA550RC codes equally.
Analysis treats CA550, CA550NR, and CA550RC codes equally. Sites that enter CA550
before CA400 are considered as having negative process times.
None.
None.
None.
ISSUES/ASSUMPTIONS
None.
All sites are assigned a "GPRA Designation" year based on the first year they are
placed within any GPRA goal universe. GPRA 2005 sites have a designation year of
1999, 2008 sites of 2006, and 2020 sites of 2009.
Facilities' current priority levels are used.
None.
"Yes" if FA is required, "No" if not. Does not consider type of FA required.
"Yes" if an action at a site has ever been implemented through a consent order,
consent decree, judicial decree, judicial order, or unilateral order, "No" if not.
None.
None.
"Yes" if any interim measure decision has been reached at a site, "No" if not.
"Yes" if an interim measure has been constructed at a site, "No" if not.
Counts the number of times an event code is entered after the first instance.
Not a required field in RCRAInfo.
Not a required field in RCRAInfo.
Not a required field in RCRAInfo.
Not a required field in RCRAInfo.
Not a required field in RCRAInfo.
Notes:
1. Facilities may have Corrective Action events linked at a sub-site level. The analysis attempts to explain how sub-site events relate to
overall cleanup progress.
2. Process times are measured using the difference between the first date entered for each event code specified, unless noted above.
For the investigation phase and the CMS phase, we analyze time from start to finish within the phase; therefore we use the first date
entered for the initiation code and the latest date entered for the completion code.
3. The analysis also measures the time required to complete milestone events in the Corrective Action process using the date a facility is
entered into the GPRA universe as a "Corrective Action Start Date."
4. A separate analysis investigates the relationship between the explanatory variables listed above and the likelihood that facilities have
completed various milestone events.
2-9
-------
We conducted the following analyses with the RCRAInfo data:
o Summary statistics for key phases. lEc looked at the data gleaned from RCRAInfo on a
macro level across the 332 GPRA 2020 sites to determine how long it generally takes Region
2 sites to complete key phases of the Corrective Action process. We generated summary
statistics, including the average, median, mode, and standard deviation, for the number of
years it takes all Region 2 RCRA Corrective Action GPRA 2020 sites to complete each key
phase. These summary statistics benchmarked how Corrective Action sites typically progress
through each milestone. This exercise provided an estimate of how long each Corrective
Action phase typically takes and which phases typically take the longest. Additionally, since
not every site has completed each key phase, we calculated the percentage of sites that have
not yet completed key phases, and the time that has elapsed since these sites entered the
Corrective Action process.
o Histograms. We generated histograms to visualize data gleaned from RCRAInfo. lEc
generated one histogram for each key phase identified in Exhibit 2-3, showing the number of
sites that have completed each phase in annual increments. These histograms highlight key
distributions in the duration for RCRA Corrective Action sites to complete each phase of the
Corrective Action process. In addition, we examined the relationship between the
achievement of environmental indicators (human exposure under control and groundwater
contamination under control) and when sites entered the GPRA universe. To evaluate this
relationship, lEc generated a histogram that shows the number of sites completing each
environmental indicator by the number of years since their GPRA designation.
o Potential outliers. We looked at individual sites to identify outliers that have taken
significantly longer than others to reach certain milestones. These outliers shed light on
factors that may delay cleanup progress.
o Regression analyses. We conducted regression analyses to try to explain why some sites take
longer than others to complete the Corrective Action process. These regression analyses used
the explanatory variables listed in the bottom half of Exhibit 2-3 as independent variables.
We generated regressions using the presence of site-wide and sub-site explanatory variables
to assess their impact on both (1) whether or not a site has completed a key phase and (2) the
differences in the time required to complete key phases between sites that have completed the
phase. We report the results of regression analyses for each key phase, including F-statistic, r-
squared values, and any significant explanatory variables. These regression analyses identify
whether the explanatory variables as a whole can explain variance between sites, how much
variance they explain, and highlight any specific variables that have statistically significant
effects on the RCRA Corrective Action process. The regression results are summarized in
Chapter 3; additional details are provided in Appendix E.
While we were able to conduct a number of analyses with RCRAInfo, it is also important to note that
RCRAInfo has some limitations:
o Missing key explanatory variables. While RCRAInfo contains a number of important
facility characteristics, it does not include some essential characteristics that may impact
cleanup progress, such as facility bankruptcy, changes of ownership, and contamination
confirmed on-site. Therefore, the explanatory power of our regression analyses was generally
2-10
-------
fairly low. In any case, the interviews provided ample opportunity to probe these and other
factors that affect cleanup progress. Although the interview data were not, in general, able to
be linked directly to specific sites in RCRAInfo, they provided useful qualitative information
to complement our quantitative analysis.
o Inability to use as a benchmarking tool. We were not able to use RCRAInfo as a tool to
benchmark with other regions and states, because other regions and states do not report to
RCRAInfo in a consistent way. lEc's interactions with EPA Headquarters staff at the Lean
Event suggest that other regions may have different reporting protocols for RCRAInfo,
affecting data consistency across regions and preventing comparisons. Therefore, as
discussed in the previous section, we looked to other data sources to obtain benchmarking
data.
o Inability to map individual sites to the process map. Individual sites rarely have event
codes that correspond to every key phase of the RCRA Corrective Action process.
Additionally, many sites do not complete key phases in a linear fashion. Therefore, we were
not able to track how each individual site progresses through the RCRA Corrective Action
process in a linear fashion.
EPA guidance documents and policies: After establishing how long the process actually takes
for different types of facilities, we considered what the Region could do to accelerate the
process under current authority. lEc reviewed national program guidance and policies to
determine what could or could not be done.
Interviews: lEc interviewed a variety of stakeholders to develop a better understanding of the
root causes of delays and ways to accelerate the process. Region 2 managers, RPMs, state
Corrective Action managers, and EPA Headquarters staff were the primary informants for this
question; however, we also asked NGO and industry stakeholders about their perceptions of the
process. In addition, we anchored our interviews with RPMs in specific cases that took an
unusually long or short time to resolve. It is important to note that this was not a "statistically
valid" sample, and the results may not be generalizable to all 332 sites in the GPRA 2020
Corrective Action universe. However, we believe that our purposive sampling approach was
appropriate for examining the factors that influence how quickly sites move through the
Corrective Action process. We used group interviews to gain insight into the causes of delays
and how to accelerate the process; we also inquired about differences in efficiency between
federally-managed sites and state-managed sites, and perceptions of accountability. In addition,
lEc interviewed contacts in other regions and in EPA Headquarters to understand actions that
have been, or could be, taken to accelerate Corrective Action under current authority, including
through the use of administrative orders or other enforcement actions.
Central project files: The project files contain information that cannot be obtained from any
other data source, including project schedules and the RPM's notes about why a site is
experiencing delays. We "sampled" project files for 20 sites, which were generally the same
sites that we discussed in interviews with the RPMs. However, lEc was not able to conduct a
full file review for 20 sites with the resources available; therefore, we looked for very specific
data fields in our analysis for the 20 sites. For this evaluation question, we looked to see
2-11
-------
whether or not the files contained a project schedule.11 We also looked for indications of delays,
such as copious "back-and-forth" correspondence between the facility and EPA or state
authority.
Process map: The "event codes" in RCRAInfo generally correspond to the events and
milestones in the process map. We used the process map as a basis for discussing areas where
the Corrective Action process gets delayed and where it could be accelerated. We also use the
process map and related visuals as a communication tool when presenting the evaluation
findings in Chapter 3. lEc refined the process map during the course of the evaluation based on
data collected from the interviews and file reviews.
Lean Event: The Lean Event for Regions 3 and 7 mapped the current process in those regions,
and developed recommendations to accelerate the Corrective Action process. lEc reviewed the
outputs of the Lean Event for ideas about actions that might be used to accelerate the process in
Region 2. In addition, we interviewed Region 3 and 7 contacts from the Lean Event to
understand the current implementation of the recommendations and their assessment of the
prospects for significant reforms.
In summary, RCRAInfo and interviews were our primary data sources for describing the timeliness of
remedy decisions and other cleanup milestones as well as differences between federally-managed and
state-managed sites. For selected projects, file reviews and data collected from RPM interviews were our
primary data sources in determining whether facilities have a project schedule and are being held
accountable to the schedule. Interviews, guidance documents, and findings from the Lean Event were our
primary data sources for understanding what actions Region 2 could take, under current authority and
guidance, to accelerate the time it takes to reach a remedy decision. We attempted to verify and explain
our findings with these and other data sources, as discussed in the preceding table and text.
2. Are the resources adequate to support the program? Are the resources allocated
effectively?
To address this evaluation question, we used a quantitative and qualitative approach that drew on both
existing and new data to describe general trends in funding and workloads, and to gather impressions on
the extent to which resources are adequate to support the program. In the absence of site-specific budget
data, we were not able to calculate efficiency at the site level. However, we solicited the opinions and
experiences of program managers on how adequately resources are allocated across sites. We also
conducted a high-level workload comparison between Region 2 and the national Corrective Action
program using interviews and documents:
Budget data: As previously noted, Region 2 provided RCRA Enforcement and Permitting
Assistance (REPA) expenditures since March 2002 and information on RCRA Corrective
Action FTEs supported by EPA grants. We used this information to document trends in funding
and workloads and distribution across key sites. We also used REPA expenditure data to
characterize the types of sites to which Region 2 has directed substantial resources. In addition,
we analyzed annual FTE data for New York and New Jersey, which provides some indication
of trends in program resource levels.
For sites with project schedules, we attempted to cross-reference the schedule against the actual times reported for that site in RCRAInfo.
2-12
-------
Interviews: We interviewed regional program managers, RPMs, state Corrective Action
managers, and EPA Headquarters staff to understand the perceived adequacy or inadequacy of
resources, trends in resource levels over time, and the connection between the level of funding
awarded to states and progress at state-lead Corrective Action sites. We cross-referenced our
interview notes with the budget and staffing data provided by Region 2. Of particular interest in
the interviews was allocation of resources across different types of sites (e.g., high priority vs.
low priority), and the extent to which current allocations appear to be aligned with progress or
affect program efficiency.
RCRAInfo: We checked RCRAInfo to supplement the budget data for our efficiency
calculations. For example, we looked at sites that received a significant share of REP A funding
to see if they were the most complex or time-consuming sites.
Documents: The U.S. GAO's report Early Goals Have Been Met in EPA 's Corrective Action
Program, but Resource and Technical Challenges Will Constrain Future Progress (July 2011)
and U.S. EPA's RCRA Corrective Action Program: Workload Report (Draft, March 2013)
provided useful context for understanding Region 2's available resources and constraints.
In summary, our primary data sources for answering Question 2 included budget data and interviews. We
verified our findings with RCRAInfo and national workload reports.
3. Are there identifiable delays in the projects or identifiable non-compliance that might
have been prevented by the issuance of a RCRA Corrective Action order or by taking some
other enforcement action?
To address this question, we used primarily qualitative methods that drew on both existing and new data
sources, and used a range of different sources to verify and/or add specific insights to inform the findings.
We attempted to identify delays through: 1) RCRAInfo data confirmed by interviews, 2) interview data,
and 3) a combination of RCRAInfo or interview data confirmed by file reviews. Anecdotal information
obtained in the interviews and file reviews provided insight into the causes of delays.
Documents. To identify the range of enforcement options available to program staff, we
reviewed national policy and guidance documents, including U.S. EPA's Transmittal of the
National Enforcement Strategy for RCRA Corrective Action (April 2010) and Assessment of the
National Enforcement Strategy for RCRA Corrective Action (September 2012). These
documents summarize current EPA policy and guidance on the use of administrative orders and
enforcement actions in the RCRA Corrective Action program.
Interviews. We identified non-compliance primarily through interviews. To the extent that
interviews directed us to project files, we verified interview data with the written record. We
interviewed individuals in several different categories to glean insights on the experiences that
Region 2 and other regions have had with different enforcement strategies at Corrective Action
sites. To start, we interviewed U.S. EPA Headquarters ORCR (RCRA program) and OSRE
(enforcement) managers to understand when administrative orders and enforcement actions
have been and could be used, consistent with national guidance. We also interviewed program
managers in Region 2 to understand the outcomes when they have actually used administrative
orders and enforcement actions; whether they believe (in retrospect) that enforcement actions
might have prevented delays or non-compliance; and the types of sites/situations (if any) where
2-13
-------
they believe that increasing the use of administrative orders and other enforcement actions
could be helpful going forward. In addition, we interviewed RPMs to see whether their
experience and opinions regarding administrative orders and enforcement actions confirmed
management's perceptions. Finally, we interviewed other regions that have used enforcement
actions more extensively than Region 2 to understand their experience, and what has and has
not been helpful in those regions.
It is important to note that we cannot know with any certainty whether or not the use of an
enforcement action would have expedited cases that have already passed, or whether
enforcement actions have helped or could help in cases that are still in progress. We relied on
participant judgment and expert opinion, which we triangulated with the other analytical
approaches described in the following bullets.
RCRAInfo: We compared efficiency at sites with and without the use of administrative orders
or other enforcement actions as a general verification of what we learned from interviews.
Drawing on our analysis for Question 1, we looked for patterns in the time required to move
through the Corrective Action process for sites that have and have not used administrative
orders and other enforcement actions. However, we note that RCRAInfo results are not by
themselves conclusive. For example, finding that sites with administrative orders and
enforcement are faster may simply mean that the permitting process is too slow; it does not
necessarily mean that administrative orders and enforcement are the right solution. Moreover,
we do not know the counterfactual - i.e., what would have happened at those sites if
administrative orders and enforcement actions had not been used. For example, even if a site
with administrative orders or other enforcement action moved slowly, it might (or might not)
have moved even more slowly if these actions had not been used.
Central project files: In some cases, the project files include information on the use of
enforcement actions that goes beyond the data available in RCRAInfo. We worked with Region
2 to select a limited number of sites that have used enforcement actions for inclusion in the file
review. The file review sought to explore the circumstances under which enforcement actions
were used, and the RPM's notes on whether or not this was effective. We also interviewed the
RPMs for these sites to understand their experience, and whether or not the same or similar
enforcement actions could be used effectively at other sites. We also identified sites that
encountered significant delays or non-compliance, but were not under an order or other
enforcement action, and interviewed the RPMs for these sites on whether they believe the use of
an administrative order or enforcement action would have prevented problems.
Lean Event: The background materials and discussion during the Lean Event suggest that legal
issues, including administrative orders and enforcement actions, may delay rather than expedite
progress at sites in Regions 3 and 7. Using the summary materials from the Lean Event, we
documented the experience of Regions 3 and 7, and followed up with Region 3 and 7 contacts
to understand their experience in light of the specific circumstances of their respective regions.
This gave us a more solid basis to determine whether, and under what circumstances, the
experience of Regions 3 and 7 could be relevant to Region 2.
In summary, in answering Question 3, we consulted four primary data sources: RCRAInfo, interviews
with Region 2 RCRA Corrective Action program managers, interviews with RPMs, and information
2-14
-------
obtained at the Lean Event. Interviews with EPA Headquarters and with other regions that have used
administrative orders and other enforcement actions for Corrective Action sites provided secondary data.
Documents and file reviews helped verify expert opinion and perceptions about the feasibility and
potential benefits of using administrative orders and enforcement actions.
4. Benchmarking with other regions: How does the efficiency of Region 2's program compare
to other regions?
We addressed this question using regional benchmarking reports provided by EPA Headquarters ORCR
to examine Region 2's performance in a number of key metrics relative to other regions. This provided a
clear and simple overall comparison of Region 2 to all other EPA regions. To supplement this general
assessment, we also examined information from the recent Lean Event and streamlining effort undertaken
by Regions 3 and 7 to improve the Corrective Action process as it is implemented in those regions. This
included attendance by lEc at the Regions 3 and 7 Lean Event, as well as follow-on discussions and data
collection with Region 3 and 7 representatives, and information from interviews with Region 2 staff. The
details of our analytical approach are discussed below:
Documents: We were able to benchmark Region 2 to other EPA regions in general terms using
information from EPA Headquarters. The Headquarters information reflects a rolled-up analysis
using cross-regional data from RCRAInfo; we therefore used this information rather than
separately conducting a cross-regional comparison of data within RCRAInfo. Although the
RCRAInfo data are not of sufficiently high resolution to quantitatively benchmark Region 2 to
other regions,12 we used Headquarters' information to contextualize our findings for Region 2.
Lean Event: As part of the Lean Event, Regions 3 and 7 mapped the Corrective Action process
and the time required to achieve key events and milestones. lEc staff attended the Lean Event,
reviewed reports from the event, and conducted follow-up interviews with staff in Regions 3
and 7. Because the Lean Event focused only on two specific stages of the process (RFI and
CMS), we did not have benchmarking data for the entire process, but only for the portions of
the process covered in the Lean Event. We used the Lean data to conduct a high-level
benchmarking comparison with Region 2.
Interviews: Anecdotal information and process insights offered by EPA Headquarters, Region
2, and other EPA regions shed light on the efficiency of the RCRA Corrective Action program.
The interviews generated qualitative insights into some of the similarities and differences across
regions.
In summary, regional benchmarking reports from Headquarters were our primary data source for
Question 4, along with the Lean Event data for Regions 3 and 7. Interviews provided secondary data to
address this evaluation question.
See the discussion for Question 1 above regarding the limitations of RCRAInfo.
2-15
-------
5. Is the Region's selection of interim corrective measures and final remedies consistent
with national guidelines and directives? Is the Region considering interim or final
remedial alternatives beyond those proposed by facilities (e.g., an interim measure
different from the one proposed by the facility, a final remedy different than the
facility's preferred final remedy, or enhancements to the facility's preferred final
remedy), as necessary?
This question aims to understand whether Region 2 is following a process that evaluates what is really
needed to protect human health and the environment, rather than approving sites' proposed remedies by
default. RCRAInfo does not include an event code for when EPA rejects a proposed interim or final
remedy. Therefore, we obtained this information from other data sources, primarily interviews and file
reviews.
We note also that the Lean Event with Regions 3 and 7 identified a tension between process efficiency
and extensive or repeated review cycles during the RFI and CMS stages of the Corrective Action process.
We were therefore attentive both to the concern about the appropriateness and stringency of final
remedies, and to the potential impact of additional remedies and the review cycle on the efficiency of the
Corrective Action process as identified in Question 1.
Interviews: We interviewed regional managers, RPMs, state Corrective Action managers, and
industry representatives to understand the process (intended and actual) for selecting remedy
decisions, and to identify specific examples (if any) when the Region has rejected or proposed
modifications to remedies suggested by facilities. We also interviewed NGOs and public
officials to understand whether proposed remedies at selected sites were environmentally
stringent from the public's perspective.
Central file reviews: We looked for correspondence between the RPMs and the sites, including
any indications that initial measures proposed by the site were rejected. We also looked for
internal (within EPA or the state authority) memoranda that indicate deliberation about the
interim corrective measure or final remedy proposed by the facility.
Documents and process map: We validated findings from the interviews and file reviews
against national program guidance, EPA policy, and the process map.
In summary, interviews were our primary data source for answering Question 5, along with file reviews
for selected sites. We verified data obtained from interviews and file reviews with the RCRA Corrective
Action process map and EPA's national guidelines and directives.
6. What is the opinion of various stakeholders on the effectiveness of the Corrective Action
program? What are their views on public participation?
To address this question, we used a qualitative approach that relied primarily on new data collected from
interviews.
Interviews: lEc interviewed regional program managers, regional public affairs staff, state
program managers, RPMs, NGOs, and public officials to understand their perceptions of
whether or not public participation was deemed sufficient and their assessment of the
effectiveness and efficiency of the Corrective Action process. The list of interviews generally
corresponded to the list of sites selected for the file review; we tailored our questions for
2-16
-------
specific interviews/sites to help anchor the discussion. We interviewed many of the RPMs who
manage these sites, as well as selected industry representatives. lEc also asked Headquarters
RCRA staff about guidance and best practices regarding public participation.
Central file reviews: We looked for documentation that public participation took place for our
selected sample of sites. We aimed to quantify the amount of public participation by, for
example, counting the number of public meetings, letters from the public, etc. In addition, we
cross-referenced the project files with our interview notes to document the quality of public
participation, and the public's (and EPA's) satisfaction with the process.
Documents. We drew on preliminary findings from lEc's ongoing evaluation of EPA's
Community Engagement Initiative. lEc has conducted interviews with a variety of stakeholders
on the nature and extent of community engagement, including interviews with Corrective
Action stakeholders. We used the preliminary results from the Community Engagement
Initiative evaluation to inform our evaluation of the RCRA Corrective Action program in
Region 2. In addition, we looked to national guidance on public participation, including U.S.
EPA's RCRA Public Participation Manual (1996).
Process map: We understand that the Agency is required to hold a public comment period
before announcing a final remedy decision, and is also trying to get out to the public more often
when other milestones are completed (e.g., completion of the RFI). In conjunction with the
interviews, we used the process map as a basis for exploring other areas where the Region could
increase public participation in the Corrective Action process.
In summary, interviews were our primary data source for addressing Question 6. lEc's ongoing evaluation
of EPA's Community Engagement Initiative was a secondary data source, as were the file reviews. We
used the process map, along with national guidelines and directives, as explanatory data sources to
explore areas of the RCRA Corrective Action process where public participation could be enhanced.
7. Should the Region implement any changes to improve communication with external
stakeholders for high profile facilities or facilities located in communities with
environmental justice considerations?
To address this question, we used a qualitative approach that relied on new data collected from
interviews.
Interviews: Similar to the previous question, we used interviews as our primary data source to
answer Question 7. As noted above in Question 6, we interviewed a variety of stakeholders
within and outside the Agency, including industry representatives and community leaders, who
offered diverse perspectives on the effectiveness of the program, communication with EPA, and
suggestions to improve the process. The interviews also explored environmental justice
considerations, as reflected in the interview guides in Appendix D.
Documents: Similar to the previous question, we drew on preliminary findings from lEc's
evaluation of EPA's Community Engagement Initiative to characterize the effectiveness of the
Region's communication with external stakeholders regarding the Corrective Action process.
In summary, interviews were our primary data source for Question 7, and lEc's ongoing evaluation of
EPA's Community Engagement Initiative was our secondary data source.
2-17
-------
LIMITATIONS OF THE METHODOLOGY
Given available data, resources, timeframe, and the scope of the evaluation, the evaluation approach has
limitations, which we detail below.
Coverage. We address two aspects of coverage - site coverage and interview coverage:
o Site coverage. This evaluation focuses on Region 2's 332 "GPRA 2020" Corrective Action
facilities. It does not focus on the Region's 342 non-GPRA facilities, which have not
historically been EPA Headquarters' priority, and therefore have not been actively managed.
As a result, data are limited for most non-GPRA sites. (Nationally, EPA is working to finalize
a strategy for addressing the non-GPRA sites.) Nonetheless, interviews with EPA and state
program managers suggest that non-GPRA facilities may face issues and challenges similar
to GPRA sites.
o Interview coverage. Although we interviewed six individuals from communities or facilities
affected by the Corrective Action process, most interviews were conducted with EPA and
state program managers. Four factors constrained our interviews with community
stakeholders. First, the Paperwork Reduction Act limits systematic data collection from non-
federal entities to nine people/organizations, unless EPA obtains a formal Information
Collection Request (ICR). Project resources were not sufficient for obtaining an ICR. Second,
several individuals that we invited for interviews declined our requests. Third, EPA and lEc
have recently conducted a comprehensive national evaluation of EPA's Community
Engagement Initiative (CEI); this evaluation involved an extensive data collection effort and
provides relevant insights about the public participation process for Corrective Action in
Region 2 and other EPA regions. Fourth, as discussed in Chapter 3 (Findings), because the
majority of Corrective Action sites generate little or no public interest, it is often not possible
to identify active contacts in these communities. Despite this limitation, however, the insights
gained from our interviews and the CEI evaluation provide a consistent and clear set of
insights about the successes and challenges facing the RCRA program; these efforts generally
validate each other and provide a robust basis for conclusions and recommendations.
Lack of comparison groups. Several of the evaluation questions ask, either explicitly or
implicitly, whether sites could have been managed more efficiently. For example, Question 3
asks whether, in retrospect, the use of administrative orders and enforcement actions might have
prevented delays or non-compliance. Answering this question in a definitive manner would
require information about the counterfactual - i.e., what would have happened if the Region had
used administrative orders or enforcement actions. Similarly, while we were able to use
RCRAInfo to compare the efficiency of sites with and without the use of administrative orders
or other enforcement actions, we cannot say whether a site that used administrative orders or
other enforcement actions would have moved even faster or even slower if it had not used
administrative orders or other enforcement actions. The use (or not) of administrative orders
and other enforcement actions is one among many factors that may affect cleanup progress.
Therefore, even if we find a difference in efficiency between sites with and without
administrative orders or other enforcement actions, we cannot necessarily attribute this
difference to the use of the order or other enforcement actions.
2-18
-------
The "gold standard" for parsing out the effect of a treatment (e.g., use of administrative orders
or other enforcement actions) from other, confounding factors is to conduct randomized
controlled trials, which randomly assign some participants to receive treatment and withhold
treatment from others. If the only difference across the two groups is that one group received
treatment and the other group did not, we can attribute different outcomes between groups (e.g.,
speed of cleanup progress) to the treatment. Obviously, this approach would not be feasible for
the RCRA Corrective Action program; Region 2 cannot simply withhold enforcement action
from a site that is in non-compliance for purposes of conducting a social experiment. As a
"second best" approach, evaluators often use quasi-experimental designs, which do not use
random assignment but attempt to construct ex post comparison groups after the treatment has
been administered.
However, our ability to construct valid comparison groups for this evaluation was limited by:
the large number of variables that would need to be matched across groups (e.g., facility size,
sector, location, age, when they entered the GPRA universe, etc.); the relatively low number of
sites with each configuration of variables; and the absence of data for key factors that may
influence cleanup progress. Although we compared sites across variables for which we had data
and a large number of observations, we were not able to control for all confounding factors.
Therefore, our analysis focused less on demonstrating causality, and more on explaining the
factors that influence cleanup progress at Corrective Action sites. In addition, our methodology
relied on triangulating across a variety of methods, including expert opinion and participant
judgment, regression analysis, and file reviews for selected sites. If multiple data sources and
methods lead to the same or similar conclusion, this increases confidence in our findings.
Conversely, if data sources and methods generate conflicting information, this helps identify
areas of uncertainty and/or areas for future investigation.
In addition, our quantitative and qualitative data sources have certain limitations, which we
describe below.
Quantitative limitations: RCRAInfo was our primary source of quantitative data for this
evaluation. As discussed in the previous section, while we were able to conduct several analyses
with RCRAInfo, the data has limitations. To recap, these limitations include the following:
RCRAInfo does not store data on some key variables that might help explain cleanup progress,
such as bankruptcy and changes in ownership; we were not able to use RCRAInfo as a
benchmarking tool across regions, because other regions do not report to RCRAInfo in a
consistent way; and we were not able to map progress at individual sites to the process map,
because sites rarely proceed in a linear fashion or enter data for all event codes. To fill in the
information gaps and gain additional insight, we supplemented our analysis of RCRAInfo with
interviews and other qualitative data.
The budget data also presents certain limitations. Specifically, the budget data does not
generally map to specific sites, with the exception of a few high-profile sites that received
significant extramural funding. The inability to quantify the costs of Corrective Action at
specific sites limited our ability to assess efficiency at the site level. Instead, we analyzed
general trends in funding and workloads at the aggregate (regional and national) level.
2-19
-------
Qualitative limitations: Qualitative analysis, primarily interviews and file reviews, played a
crucial role in this evaluation. However, given the very large and diverse universe of 332 sites,
we were not able to conduct in-depth reviews of every site or interview every knowledgeable
stakeholder (e.g., industry, the public, and NGOs). For our file reviews, we conducted a
purposive sample to maximize learning opportunities. Similarly, we worked with EPA to select
individuals to interview based on their knowledge and experience pertaining to Corrective
Action. Our purposive (rather than statistically representative) selection method, and the limited
number of individuals/cases, limits our ability to generalize or replicate our findings. However,
we believe this approach provides the greatest potential insight into the efficiency and
effectiveness of the Corrective Action process in keeping with available evaluation resources.
In this chapter, we described the evaluation design, data sources, analytical approach, and limitations of
the methodology. The next chapter (Chapter 3) presents the detailed findings for each evaluation question.
2-20
-------
CHAPTER 3 | FINDINGS
This chapter presents the findings of our evaluation, and is generally organized by evaluation question.
However, the complexity of the RCRA Corrective Action program and the broad themes that emerged
during data collection demand a broader discussion of findings related to the program's overall structure
and process. We therefore begin this chapter with an overview of the Corrective Action process in the
context of different management objectives. This provides a framework and context for the detailed
findings associated with each of the specific evaluation questions below.13
HIGH-LEVEL FINDING: MULTIPLE MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AFFECT THE RCRA CORRECTIVE
ACTION PROCESS
In investigating the individual evaluation questions that Region 2 presented, we also examined the themes
that emerged among interview responses and other data sources across evaluation questions. In this
evaluation, respondents provided a set of observations about the structure of the program that were
striking in their consistency, and led to a central finding about the program structure and process.
Specifically, respondents observed that a key source of tension is responding concurrently to multiple
priorities for site management. The relative importance of these priorities has changed repeatedly over the
history of the program. Moreover, these priorities are difficult to reconcile and in some cases can
confound one another, particularly in the context of declining resources. Responses across questions and
across different stakeholder groups revealed that the challenge of managing multiple, and sometimes
conflicting, priorities often affects site progress.
To capture this broad finding, we developed a thematic diagram of the RCRA Corrective Action process
that illustrates where site management priorities demand different activities and resources. We first
present Exhibit 3-1 (repeated from Exhibit 1-1) to provide an overview of the general process that most
Corrective Action sites follow. In Exhibit 3-2, we identify four site management objectives, and describe
the activities that each requires for success. The objectives identified by interviewees most often are:
Completing sites in an efficient (i.e., timely) manner;
Ensuring through collaboration that states and responsible parties (RPs) maintain a central role in
site remediation;
Ensuring timely and adequate public participation; and
Requiring stringent, environmentally-protective remedies.
Consistent with the format and structure of the evaluation questions, some of our findings (particularly the findings for Questions 1A and 7)
identify options for addressing specific issues. While this type of language is typically reserved for evaluation conclusions and recommendations, we
include these direct responses to the evaluation questions as findings.
3-1
-------
EXHIBIT 3-1. REGION 2 RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS MAP
Phases
Key Actions
Typical
Activities
O
01
u
I
LU
~0
c
(D
ra
u
ro
4J
c
0»
c
O
LU
-------
EXHIBIT 3-2. KEY ACTIONS TO SUPPORT DIFFERENT RCRA CA MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
CA Phases
CMS
Efficient Site
Completion
Emphasize interim
measures, voluntary
cleanups where
appropriate
Collaboration
with States, RPs
Identify leads,
strategy, EPA
Enforcement rote
Public
Participation
EPA/state-driven
public outreach
EPA/state-driven
public outreach
Frequent EPA
coordination with
site lead to ensure
progress
Plan for limited EPA
review if IMs are
well crafted
Consider voluntary
agreements, IMs
Frequent EPA/state
interaction to
monitor progress
EPA coordination
with state as needed
to move schedule,
support state
technical needs
EPA support for,
coordination with
RP, state leads
Consider end use,
enforcement
approach early
Stringent
Cleanup
Threshold
Evaluate RP
resources, site
location, exposures
Enforcement focus;
voluntary options
limited
EPA notify public of
RFI work plans,
products
EPA, state agree on
end use, clearance
standards
Detailed EPA
technical review
EPA/state-lead
public meetings
Detailed EPA
technical reviev
EPA ensure full
public participation
CMI
Best site
options
EPA role limited to
oversight as
indicated by lead
Resources: limited
Time: early public
interest may speed
or delay, RPs may
delay; EPA does not
control schedule
Enforcement: may
add or save time,
resources
Future use may be
restricted
Simple/small sites
Industrial areas
Active RPs
Abandoned sites
EPA role limited to
oversight as
indicated by lead
Resources:
variable; states
may lack resources
Time: RPs, states
may delay;
schedule not driven
by EPA
Enforcement: may
affect relationships
Future use may be
restricted
Simple/small sites
* Industrial areas
Active RPs
Abandoned Sites
If indicated by public
interest, EPA/state-
lead updates on
Formal EPA
monitoring
progress
Resources: needed
for additional early -Resources:
outreach; technical technical, financial,
skills may be
important
Time: public
legal skills central
Time: review may
slow process
interest may slow -Enforcement:
or speed schedule Potential for
Enforcement:
potential for
adversaria] tone
adversarial tone;
requires resources
Large sites Large sites
Mixed-use/pristine Mixed-use/pristine
areas areas
Residential or off- Residential or off-
site contamination site contamination
Current practice
Not current practice
3-3
-------
For each objective in Exhibit 3-2, lEc notes activities identified as important to successful site
management, including activities that are not currently standard practice (noted in green). The exhibit also
draws on interview responses to note issues that arise in pursuing each objective, and site features
suggesting that a specific objective would be most appropriate. As the exhibit shows, the objectives that
EPA has identified for effective Corrective Action site management (reflected in the specific evaluation
questions) require different, and sometimes conflicting, approaches and resources. The most important
objectives are likely to differ across sites, based on specific site characteristics.
Certain site features are likely to affect both the success and the importance of a given objective. For
example, a site with complex contamination with off-site exposure is not likely to be resolved in a short
time. While efficiency may not be the best determinant of success for that site, public participation and
stringent clearance standards are likely to be critical. Similarly, an emphasis on collaborative approaches
may conflict with a specific emphasis on stringent clearance standards, since the latter implies that EPA
maintains not only a review role but a set of specific expectations for remediation. In a collaborative
process, federal enforcement may be a signal that collaboration has been unsuccessful (unless requested
by state leads), but in a process focusing on specific site cleanup objectives, enforcement may be an
appropriate primary approach for ensuring protective remedies (e.g., for residential areas).
Moreover, historical shifts in site management focus may affect EPA's ability to emphasize particular
management strategies going forward. A past focus on collaborative approaches, for example, may result
in communication records that are too informal to readily support a new focus on enforcement.
This general finding has important implications for each of the findings below, because answers to
questions about efficiency and effectiveness vary widely by site and by management priority. This finding
therefore provides important context for the conclusions and recommendations of this evaluation; any
discussion of the findings below should consider that past or current objectives and associated metrics
may not be best aligned for all sites. The specific findings discussed throughout this chapter often reflect
the impact of different site management priorities and objectives on results.
3-4
-------
QUESTION 1A: WITHIN CURRENT EPA AUTHORITY, POLICIES, GUIDANCE AND RESOURCES WHAT
ACTIONS COULD THE REGION TAKE TO ACCELERATE THE TIME IT TAKES TO REACH A REMEDIAL
DECISION?
Evaluation Question 1A addresses what actions EPA could take, within current authority, guidance, and
resources, to expedite the Corrective Action process. We begin by reviewing key Agency guidance
documents from 1990 through 2011. We find the guidance makes available a number of tools and
authorities to expedite the process, and grants significant flexibility to regions and authorized states to
select from the available menu of options. Next, we summarize our interviews with EPA Headquarters,
Region 2, and state program managers to understand the strategies and approaches that EPA Region 2,
New York, and New Jersey have adopted, within existing guidance, to advance their objectives. We also
present findings from the file review regarding factors that appear to cause delays in Region 2. We
conclude the section by looking beyond Region 2 to the improvement efforts currently underway in
Regions 3 and 7 following their Corrective Action Lean Event in February 2013.
Summary of Key Findings for Question 1A
-^ EPA guidance emphasizes flexibility and highlights a number of steps that regions and states
might take to accelerate the process. These include: adopting a holistic approach to site cleanup;
integrating cleanup authorities; focusing on results; streamlining the process, including remedy
selection; leveraging economic incentives; and taking enforcement action.
A The interviews with Region 2 and state staff confirmed that the process is basically the same at
the federal and state level, but they highlighted important differences in the strategic emphasis
and approach across jurisdictions. While the approaches used by EPA Region 2, New York, and
New Jersey differ, they are all consistent with Agency guidance for Corrective Action.
x Region 2 has implemented significant organizational changes over the past few years, including:
transferring the management of the majority of Corrective Action sites in the Caribbean to its
office in Puerto Rico and increasing the staffing of that office; reorganizing the branch and the
division that manage Corrective Action in the New York office; and transferring 16 RCRA
Corrective Action sites to the Superfund Division.
A New York State recently combined its RCRA Corrective Action and state Superfund divisions,
and is managing cleanups in an integrated way. The State of New Jersey has also taken steps to
reform the process, including the creation of the Licensed Site Remediation Professionals
program, and a law requiring facilities to complete site investigations by May 2014. The
respective approaches highlight the tradeoffs inherent in the program.
x Regions 3 and 7 are currently piloting a set of processes that are outcomes of a recent Lean Event
directed at streamlining the Corrective Action programs in those regions. These include design
and implementation of a Corrective Action Facility Agreement (CAPA) to clarify site cleanup
objectives and RFI parameters, development of standardized order/permit language to simplify
those processes, and coordinated incentives and communication tools to ensure effective
implementation of the CAFA and other streamlining efforts.
3-5
-------
Guidance Documents
We reviewed guidance documents provided by EPA Region 2 and EPA Headquarters Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery (ORCR), in addition to documents that lEc identified through a literature
search. Key Agency guidance documents include the Proposed Rule for RCRA Corrective Action (1990)
and the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM)/"Subpart S Initiative" (1996). EPA
promulgated a few elements of the 1990 proposal in 1993, but the majority of the proposal was not made
final. The 1996 ANPRM provided guidance on areas of the program not addressed by the 1990 proposal
and replaced it as the primary guidance for much of the Corrective Action program. EPA subsequently
withdrew the majority of the 1996 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. However, both proposals continue to
serve as guidance documents for the program. As such, the Corrective Action program operates based on
guidance and not on regulations. We also reviewed subsequent EPA guidance that was intended to
enhance the program's effectiveness and efficiency; enforcement guidance; ORCR's Getting to YES
training materials (2009); and the implementation plan (2011) for the Agency's Integrated Cleanup
Initiative (ICI), a three-year strategy to better use EPA's land cleanup programs to accelerate cleanups,
address more sites, and put sites back into productive use while protecting human health and the
environment. Finally, we also reviewed GAO's Corrective Action Workload Report (2011). Though not a
guidance document per se, the GAO report cites examples of innovative approaches that regions and
states have adopted to deal with scarce and declining resources.
As summarized in Exhibit 3-3, the guidance documents highlight a number of recommended actions to
accelerate cleanups at Corrective Action sites. In keeping with the evaluation question, the gray shading
in the table rows indicates areas where the evaluators feel that EPA Region 2 could be taking greater
advantage of existing authority and guidance to accelerate the time required to reach a remedial decision.
(This is not meant to imply that Region 2 never does these things, but our review suggests there may be
opportunities to further leverage existing tools in certain circumstances.) Key existing guidance includes
the following:
Take a holistic and flexible approach to Corrective Action. Agency guidance from 1990
through 2011 emphasizes the flexibility inherent in the RCRA Corrective Action process. In
fact, the decision to withdraw the majority of the 1996 proposal was based in part on the
Agency's intent to ensure a holistic and flexible program.14 The universe of Corrective Action
sites is large and diverse. A variety of factors - including size and complexity of the site, nature
and extent of contamination, compliance history, proximity to a residential area, financial
assurance, and cleanup costs - may influence the approach taken at an individual site. The
guidance articulated in the 1990 and 1996 proposals, and reaffirmed in subsequent guidance and
training materials, emphasizes that the Corrective Action process should be tailored for each
site. For example, cooperative sites with good compliance history, technical and financial
ability, and contamination contained onsite may merit consideration for a more flexible,
voluntary approach; on the other end of the spectrum, recalcitrant sites with poor compliance
history, financial difficulties (or bankruptcy), and offsite contamination may merit more federal
supervision and enforcement. Simpler sites may be able to combine process steps (e.g., conduct
the RFI and CMS concurrently), whereas sites in the latter category may need to follow a more
linear process with more intensive Agency review and technical input.
14 Federal Register I Vol. 64, No. 194 / October 7, 1999 / Proposed Rules.
3-6
-------
EXHIBIT 3-3. SUMMARY OF CORRECTIVE ACTION GUIDANCE
GUIDANCE
Take a holistic and flexible approach to
Corrective Action.
Prioritize action at the most environmentally
significant facilities.
Focus on performance and results, not process
and reports.
Conduct process steps concurrently rather
than sequentially (e.g., RFI and CMS).
Recognize and encourage economic incentives
to encourage voluntary or faster cleanups.
Use streamlined orders or voluntary
agreements to expedite progress at willing
and able facilities.
Streamline the remedy selection process; use
interim measures and presumptive remedies,
as appropriate.
Include enforceable language and schedules in
permits and take enforcement action, as
warranted.
Use integrated cleanup authorities (e.g.,
CERCLA orders) to accelerate site
investigation and remedial action.2
Continue to monitor sites after remedy
construction, and modify remedies based on
new technology and site uses.
PROPOSED
RULE
(1990)
S
S
S
S
S
NCAPS
(1993)
S
ANPR
(1996)
S
S
S
S
S
CREATIVE
SOLUTIONS
(2001)
S
EXPEDITING
RCRACA
(2001)
S
S
S
GETTING
TO YES
(2009)
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
NESCA
(2010)
S
S
S
S
GAO
REPORT
(201 1)1
S
S
S
ICI PLAN
(2011)
S
S
Key: In keeping with the evaluation question, the gray shading in the table rows indicates areas where the evaluators feel that EPA Region 2 could be taking greater
advantage of existing authority and guidance to accelerate the time required to reach a remedial decision.
Notes: (1) Though not an EPA guidance document, the GAO report cites examples of innovative approaches that regions and states have adopted to deal with limited
resources. (2) Region 2 transferred 16 sites to the Superfund Division, but they are still being managed as RCRA Corrective Action sites.
3-7
-------
Prioritize action at the most environmentally significant facilities. The primary goal of the
RCRA Corrective Action program has always been, and remains, to achieve cleanups that
protect human health and the environment. Historically, EPA emphasized "high-priority" sites,
which were thought to pose a greater risk to human and environmental health based on an initial
assessment of the facility. Similarly, the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
goals have historically emphasized project milestones referred to as environmental indicators
(Els): human exposures under control and groundwater migration under control. Over time,
EPA has expanded the GPRA goals to include medium- and low-priority sites, and final remedy
construction. The guidance has also evolved to place a somewhat greater emphasis on a site's
anticipated use. However, the primary goal remains to protect human health and the
environment.
Focus on performance and results, not process and reports. A frequent critique, both in the
project files that lEc reviewed as part of our evaluation, and in interviews conducted with
Region 2 and state staff, is that the program is overly "process heavy," with numerous studies,
reports, and review cycles. In this regard, EPA Region 2 has indicated that the overarching
focus of the program until the late 1990s was on process, as reflected in the permits and
administrative orders issued in the late 1980s through mid-1990s. The Els were among the
cleanup reforms of the late 1990s to early 2000s that were intended, in part, to focus on results.
In fact, Agency guidance strongly encourages RCRA Corrective Action managers to focus on
results, including the ultimate goal of cleaning up sites and returning them to productive use. As
noted in ORCR's Getting to retraining manual (2009), this requires project managers to be
risk managers, striking the appropriate balance between reducing uncertainty via data collection
and further studies and managing uncertainty via remedial actions and contingencies. Focusing
on performance also requires an upfront assessment, by the Agency and facility, of remedial
action objectives, milestones, endpoints, and performance expectations. Once agreement on the
cleanup objectives and approach has been reached, the Agency should focus on ensuring the
timely attainment of cleanup milestones and the effectiveness of interim and final remedies.
Conduct process steps concurrently rather than sequentially (e.g., RFI and CMS). The
program's flexibility and guidance imply that the process should be tailored to conditions at
each site. While most sites will pass through the four key phases shown in the process map -
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA), RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI), Corrective Measures
Study (CMS), and Corrective Measures Implementation (CMI) - these steps may not occur in
the same order, or at all, at every facility. In fact, the guidance documents suggest that sites
conduct processes concurrently rather than sequentially, to the extent appropriate. For example,
the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (1996) states that it may be appropriate to
combine the RFI and CMS stages, or to eliminate the CMS entirely if a desirable remedy can be
identified without this step. In general, the guidance notes that if EPA and the facility already
have a strong sense of what the final remedy is likely to be, the RFI should focus on gathering
data to validate or refine the remedy, as opposed to conducting an open-ended investigation for
the sake of gathering more data. A variation on this theme is the use of interim measures (IMs),
also known as interim corrective measures (ICMs), which facilities frequently implement prior
to completing the RFI and CMS. As discussed in Question 5 below, IMs often become the final
remedy, though they may delay the CMS and thereby push off the final remedy decision. The
3-8
-------
GAO's Corrective Action Workload Report (2011) noted that some regions and states have
eliminated the CMS for some sites.
Recognize and encourage economic incentives to encourage voluntary or faster cleanups.
The Proposed Rule (1990), RCRA Cleanup Reforms: Fostering Creative Solutions (2001), and
Getting to retraining (2009) encourage project managers to recognize and use economic
incentives to promote voluntary or faster cleanups. This depends on the nature of the site. If the
site owner's goal is to develop the land for investment, or to transfer the property, it is in their
interest to clean up the site quickly. For example, New Jersey's property transfer law requires
sites to develop a cleanup plan before they can be transferred. In a similar vein, EPA's guidance
encourages Corrective Action project managers to identify and leverage economic incentives
for sites to move through the process.
Use streamlined orders or voluntary agreements to expedite progress at willing and able
facilities. A number of guidance documents issued from 2001 through 2010 suggest that EPA
should consider using voluntary agreements or streamlined orders for sites that are capable and
motivated to implement Corrective Action. Streamlined orders specify performance standards
over process; they also typically contain less legal language than traditional orders, although
they are still enforceable instruments. Voluntary agreements also focus on performance
standards, but may not be enforceable. Therefore, voluntary orders and, especially, voluntary
agreements should be used selectively and only at well-qualified facilities. Well-qualified
facilities include those with good compliance history, strong financial assurance,
straightforward cleanup requirements, and a strong incentive to clean up the site. Given these
conditions, EPA may be able to play a less "hands-on" role, freeing up staff and financial
resources to focus on more challenging sites. Streamlined orders or voluntary agreements may
be especially useful for clearing lower priority sites that might not be receiving significant
management attention or resources, but are still subject to Corrective Action. Actual experience
in other EPA regions suggests that streamlined orders or voluntary agreements can be helpful,
but can also have drawbacks. Further discussion about streamlined orders, including experience
with these instruments in other EPA regions, is provided under Question 3 below.
Streamline the remedy selection process; use interim measures and presumptive remedies,
as appropriate. Agency guidance encourages project managers to identify potential remedies
early in the process and target the rest of the process to validating or refining those remedies.
Given the mature tenure of the Corrective Action program and EPA's prior experience, it may
be possible in some cases to use presumptive remedies. For example, the 1996 Proposed Rule
states that EPA expects presumptive remedies to be used at all appropriate sites; this guidance
has been repeated in various forms through the present. A variation on this theme is that the
CMS need not consider all potential remedies, but should focus on a single remedy (or set of
remedies) that is environmentally protective and feasible. Similarly, the guidance suggests that
IMs should be designed in such a way that they can become the final remedy.
Include enforceable language and schedules in permits and take enforcement action, as
warranted. On the other end of the spectrum, some facilities are not willing or able to take
Corrective Action, and may have a financial incentive to delay the process as much as possible.
Facilities that are recalcitrant, or financially marginal or bankrupt, may merit enforcement.
3-9
-------
However, enforcement depends on having several prerequisites in place, including enforceable
language and schedules in permits and orders. In addition, EPA must have adequate
documentation of delays and non-compliance to bring an effective enforcement case. Moreover,
if EPA seeks to bring an enforcement action, it should be clear that the delays were due to
inaction by facilities, not EPA or the state-lead agency. Finally, the guidance strongly suggests
that EPA exercise its enforcement authority, when appropriate, to compel cleanup in specific
cases, and to show the regulated community that enforcement is a real option in cases of non-
compliance.
Use integrated cleanup authorities (e.g., CERCLA orders) to accelerate Corrective Action.
The RCRA Corrective Action program contains robust enforcement mechanisms. However, the
Agency has long maintained that it may be appropriate to draw on other cleanup authorities in
certain situations. For example, the Guidance on Enforcement Approaches for Expediting
RCRA Corrective Action (2001) noted that, where appropriate, the Agency should consider
using CERCLA § 106(a) authority - which carries high penalties for non-compliance, and treble
damages if EPA incurs response costs due to the facility's inaction - for problematic sites in
certain situations. Agency guidance notes that such decisions should be well-supported and
well-documented. Region 2 program managers indicated that Region 2 counsel has looked into
the use of CERCLA §106 authority and noted some concerns. While CERCLA authority may
be used in very specific circumstances, Region 2 notes that the RCRA Corrective Action
program has its own robust authorities to compel cleanup actions (e.g., IMs).
More recently, the Agency's Integrated Cleanup Initiative has sought to leverage EPA's land
cleanup tools and authorities to accelerate cleanups and return sites to productive use. In this
vein, the National Enforcement Strategy for Corrective Action (NESCA, 2010) "strongly
encouraged" EPA and states to consider using CERCLA enforcement authorities (or the state
equivalent) to help further the GPRA 2020 goals. Notably, although the RCRA NPL Deferral
Policy has strict requirements for listing RCRA Corrective Action sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL),15 the NESCA notes that CERCLA enforcement tools may, in some cases,
be used at RCRA Corrective Action sites without an NPL listing.
Continue to monitor sites after remedy construction, and update remedies based on new
technology and site uses. Over time, as more sites have achieved their environmental
indicators and/or constructed remedies, the program guidance has evolved to focus more on
post-remedy construction monitoring and stewardship. As explained in ORCR's Getting to YES
training materials and discussed in interviews with ORCR staff, the Corrective Action process
does not end with final remedy construction. The Agency expects project managers to continue
monitoring sites after remedy construction to ensure that remedies remain effective. In cases
where remedies are no longer sufficient - either due to improvements in technology or changes
in site use - further corrective action may be required. Interviews with external stakeholders
found that communities and site owners may also wish to revisit remedy decisions, if, for
example, new technology indicates that the current remedy is not sufficiently protective or
15 The National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites; Deletion Policy for Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facilities, 40
CFR Part 300. Federal Register Vol. 60, No. 53, March 20, 1995.
3-10
-------
allows for a more cost-effective remedy. This requires project managers with limited time and
resources to continually monitor sites, or at least be willing and able to revisit sites that were
previously thought to be "finished."
Overall, the guidance points to the importance of Agency culture and adaptive management. The
flexibility inherent in the Corrective Action program necessitates strategic thinking, creativity, and sound
judgment. Unlike highly regulated and prescriptive programs, the Agency does not have a "formula" or
step-by-step manual for Corrective Action. Identifying the most appropriate objectives and methods for
individual sites depends on site-specific characteristics. It also requires EPA managers to set explicit
goals and priorities, and to indicate the relative importance and focus of those priorities across sites. As
discussed in the next section, the interviews find that EPA Region 2, New York, and New Jersey are
managing their options in different ways that are consistent with Agency guidance for Corrective Action.
Interviews
The interviews with Region 2 and state staff explored approaches that EPA Region 2, New York, and
New Jersey are using to manage their RCRA Corrective Action programs. The interviews confirmed that
the basic process steps-RFA, RFI, CMS, and CMI - are basically the same at the federal and state
level in Region 2. However, the interviews also highlighted important differences in management
strategy and approach across jurisdictions. As shown above in Exhibit 3-3, all of these various
approaches are consistent with Agency guidance for Corrective Action.
Distinctive features of the approaches used for managing RCRA Corrective Action facility cleanups in
New York, New Jersey, and the Caribbean include the following:
EPA Region 2: EPA Region 2 managers and staff observed that the RCRA Corrective Action
program was intended to be implemented by states, with EPA oversight. Still, Region 2 has a
hybrid structure that includes one authorized state (New York), one state that is not authorized but
has a work sharing agreement with EPA (New Jersey), and two territories where the program is
directly administered by EPA (Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands). EPA tends to be directly
involved as lead or in partnership with the state at the most complex or difficult sites, which are
inherently more contentious and resource-intensive. Overall, however, the majority of sites are
state-lead. Region 2's RPMs attempt to coordinate closely with their state counterparts, as well as
the facilities. Often, this is done through informal communication (phone and email), which is
perceived to be more efficient than formal letters and documentation. However, as discussed in
Question 3 below, the lack of documentation can complicate enforcement efforts. Interview
respondents reported that states and facilities are typically seen to "drive" the process, which can
result in a "lack of ownership" on the part of EPA project managers. Senior managers at EPA
Region 2 and the state agencies cited the "culture of the RCRA program" - including the
perceived lack of authority to push progress at sites - as a barrier to effective implementation of
the program.
Region 2 has implemented significant organizational changes over the past few years with the
goal of strengthening the program. The first major change was the establishment of the Puerto
Rico office in 2007, before that time, the Caribbean branch was managed out of the Region 2
headquarters office in New York. The Puerto Rico office has experienced "growing pains" typical
in a major reorganization. This transition coincided with a general decline in program resources
(see Question 2 below), which appears to have resulted in the Region 2 New York office not
3-11
-------
being able to provide the level of support to the Puerto Rico office that was initially planned.
Also, the Caribbean branch is the only branch in Region 2 that combines Corrective Action and
enforcement in the same division. Balancing limited staff and resources between enforcement and
Corrective Action is critical, and challenging. RPMs in Puerto Rico have managed these
challenges by developing an informal support system in which experienced RPMs work across
sites to help mentor those with less experience. However, technical capacity remains a challenge.
The second major change was the reorganization of Region 2's structure to establish a branch
that aligned resources based on the relative complexity of Corrective Action facilities, and a
division focused on air and waste. In 2011, the responsible New York office RCRA branch
reorganized from a geographic structure overseeing facilities in New York and New Jersey, to a
structure which focused on high priority sites and lower priority sites along with other base
program implementation functions. In 2012, its parent division (DEPP) reorganized to remove the
sizeable water program from its purview and focus on the air, sustainability, and waste programs
including Corrective Action. The new structure allows for more focus by senior managers on
specific RCRA-related issues and activities.
The third change was the Regional Administrator's decision to transfer 16 sites from the
Corrective Action Division to the Superfund Division as part of the 2012 reorganization
described above. The transfer is meant to leverage Superfund staff and lead to "cross
fertilization" between the Corrective Action Division and the Superfund Division. This is broadly
consistent with the Agency's focus on an integrated cleanup program. However, it is important to
note that these 16 sites are still being managed as RCRA Corrective Action sites; they are not on
the National Priorities List and are not being managed as Superfund sites. Therefore, EPA cannot
"cross-charge" Superfund resources for management and overhead expenses related to these 16
Corrective Action sites, and the program is using Corrective Action FTEs to cover management
and overhead expenses (see Question 2 below). Similarly, the Region is precluded from using
technical support resources available to address Superfund sites.
At a national level, the GPRA goals set annual targets for human exposures under control and
groundwater contamination under control (collectively known as environmental indicators, or
Els). According to Region 2's division directors, the GPRA goals have been very helpful in
motivating project managers to achieve environmental indicators. (Program managers in New
York and New Jersey also emphasized the importance of setting/tracking against annual targets.)
Not surprisingly, the focus at the national level and within Region 2 has been on the GPRA sites.
There is a currently a discussion at the national level about how to handle non-GPRA sites.
New York: The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC) has
taken a holistic approach to Corrective Action, as evidenced by the recent consolidation of its
RCRA Corrective Action and state Superfund divisions. NYDEC has been "unofficially"
managing sites in an integrated way for more than a decade, but within the past few years, the
state officially consolidated the two divisions into one integrated cleanup program. NYDEC's
RPMs typically manage a diverse portfolio of sites in different cleanup programs. NYDEC's
managers report that this arrangement has improved the sense of ownership and motivation to
remediate sites on the part of site managers. NYDEC's program managers indicated that, in
addition to drawing on state Superfund authorities as needed, the reorganization allows them to
3-12
-------
leverage "Superfund's philosophy" of "Don't take 'no' for an answer," which includes exercising
enforcement options. They expressed that Superfund takes a more holistic, long-term, and site-
wide view, whereas RCRA sites have historically tended to focus more on one solid waste
management unit (SWMU) at a time, and on gradual progress. Instead of focusing a few months
out on gathering more data and completing the next report, NYDEC focuses on managing sites
with an eye towards future site use. This approach requires a change in culture, which is still
underway. NYDEC managers also noted the importance of setting goals and recognizing
achievement in motivating RPMs to make progress.
New Jersey: The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) has taken a
different approach to Corrective Action than either New York or Region 2. The Site Remediation
Reform Act of 2009 created the Licensed Site Remediation Professional (LSRP) Program, which
is now starting to be fully implemented. Under the Site Remediation Reform Act and the LSRP
Program, sites requiring cleanup are required to hire an LSRP to conduct investigations and
propose a remedy. The LSRP Program shifts oversight responsibility from the state to licensed
professionals hired directly by the facilities. However, per negotiations with EPA, GPRA 2020
sites, Superfund sites, and federal facilities will receive enhanced oversight, including Agency
review of proposed remedies (we discuss different approaches to remedy selection under
Question 5 below). Although it is premature to assess the effectiveness of the LSRP approach at
the present time, it would be worth revisiting the data in a few years to assess progress and to
compare the LSRP strategy to the older approach.
The Site Remediation Reform Act requires all sites with pre-1999 discharges to complete their
remedial investigation phase by May 2014. Sites that fail to meet the May 2014 deadline will fall
under the state's direct oversight, and NJDEP will be able to select the remedy. NJDEP managers
expect this will create a strong incentive for sites to hire an LSRP and complete site
investigations. Although it is too soon to draw any definitive conclusions, anecdotal information
suggests that the deadline has already motivated some facilities to take action: Since the law was
passed, some sites that were previously stalled have expressed active interest in working with
NJDEP to meet the May 2014 deadline, and have hired LSRPs to help meet the requirements.
Though anecdotal, these accounts are consistent with information from the Corrective Action
Lean Event for Regions 3 and 7, which indicated that facilities can more easily access cleanup
resources from parent companies when they can point to a tangible cleanup requirement (e.g.,
enforceable deadline). Along similar lines, the 1983 Industrial Site Recovery Act requires sites
to develop a remediation plan before ceasing operations or transferring property.
New Jersey's program frames the tradeoffs between a flexible/voluntary approach and agency
oversight/approval authority to ensure environmental stringency. NJDEP's program managers
explained that the state manages sites along a "bell curve," with willing and able facilities at
one end, and recalcitrant/financially marginal facilities at the other end of the spectrum. They
expect the former category of sites will respond to incentives and enforceable deadlines, while the
latter may require more active supervision and enforcement.
Organizationally, NJDEP manages its cleanup program as "one program with different
divisions." Project managers draw on RCRA, Superfund, and any other appropriate tools to get
sites cleaned up. The state has found that assigning a mix of sites to RPMs works best, while
3-13
-------
program administrators should be well-versed in the requirements of their specific program.
NJDEP will focus on sites that rank highly in the state's remediation priority system - a GIS-
based system currently under development that examines the receptors around a site. NJDEP
anticipates that the 2014 requirements will help move lower-priority sites through the process.
On balance, we find that EPA Region 2, New York, and New Jersey are managing the Corrective Action
process differently, albeit in ways that are consistent with Agency guidance. All three programs have
taken steps to manage cleanups in an integrated fashion, but this has played out differently in each case.
New York seems to take a more holistic, long-term view towards cleanups; New Jersey aims to create
incentives that achieve program goals while reducing agency burden; and Region 2 focuses on balancing
its oversight responsibilities and its goal of protecting human health and the environment within the
structures of a largely delegated program.
Central File Review
The file review did not identify specific actions that can be taken to accelerate the process; however, by
identifying causes of delays, the files shed light on actions that might accelerate the process. The main
cause of delays that we found in the file review was extensions that EPA granted to facilities for studies
or other deliverables. Although extensions may be warranted in certain situations based on unforeseen
circumstances, the analysis suggests that on the whole, extensions are quite common and a major factor
contributing to delays. We analyze this issue in more detail in Question ID.
Lean Event
In February 2013, Regions 3 and 7 conducted a Lean Event that identified options for streamlining the
Corrective Action programs in those regions. The regions are currently implementing the
recommendations of the Lean Event as a pilot. The key recommendations include design and
implementation of a Corrective Action Facility Agreement (CAFA) to clarify site cleanup objectives
and RFI parameters, as well as development of standardized order/permit language to simplify those
processes, and coordinated incentives and communication tools to ensure effective implementation of
the CAFA and other streamlining efforts. The CAFA anticipates a meeting or a series of meetings with
EPA, state, and responsible party representatives to develop a brief written agreement, signed by senior
representatives of each organization, which will define key parameters for RFIs and other site activities.
The CAFA is designed to work within the current Corrective Action framework and is consistent with
existing guidance to emphasize early agreement on site cleanup objectives and priorities. Regions 3 and 7
are currently working to design the CAFA language and communicate the amended process to RPMs,
enforcement staff, state regulators, and, ultimately, responsible parties.
Region 3 and 7 staff noted several conditions that will affect project implementation. They do not
anticipate that the CAFA will be appropriate or feasible for all sites; responsible party interest and state
priorities will be important in selecting sites. They also note that the CAFA will require additional
resources at the initial implementation stage. While they anticipate that longer-term site schedules will be
shortened and resource demands will be reduced, they noted that it will be important to align resources
and incentives to encourage RPMs to undertake the CAFA process where feasible. Incentives may
include shifting of workloads in the short term to accommodate the preparation for and negotiation of the
CAFA.
3-14
-------
Regions 3 and 7 also noted that initial response to the CAFA concept has been strong enough among
responsible parties that they are likely to be able to meet a portion of the demand for the streamlined
approach. The criteria for sites will likely include financial strength, responsible party engagement, and
contamination types that are amenable to relatively standard approaches. The implementation of the
CAFA could potentially encourage facilities to improve financial assurance instruments and increase
engagement if they wish to participate in the CAFA process.
3-15
-------
QUESTION 1B: WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN EFFICIENCY BETWEEN FEDERALLY-MANAGED SITES
VS. STATE-MANAGED SITES?
Summary of Key Findings for Question 1B
x RCRAInfo was our primary data source for answering Question IB. Our analysis finds no
significant difference between the full duration of the Corrective Action process, or the time
required to achieve environmental indicators, at EPA-lead versus state-lead sites.
x However, EPA-lead sites take slightly longer to complete site investigations, remedy decisions,
and remedy construction, as measured from the start of the Corrective Action process. Observed
differences in process times between EPA-lead and state-lead sites are likely attributable to
characteristics of the sites themselves, rather than the means by which each agency deals with site
cleanups.
A The RCRAInfo results are consistent with the interviews, which suggested that EPA typically
deals with more challenging (slower) sites.
A In general, the project files did not provide enough information to validate the times recorded in
RCRAInfo. Other findings related to the file review suggest this reflects more on the
completeness of the central files rather than RCRAInfo.
RCRAInfo
We drew extensively on RCRAInfo data to address this evaluation question.
Of the 310 Region 2 sites on the GPRA 2020 baseline for which RCRAInfo lists a lead agency, 210 are
state-lead and 100 are EPA-lead. This evaluation question examines whether the efficiency of the
Corrective Action process differs across these state-lead and EPA-lead sites.
An initial review of data gleaned from RCRAInfo reveals a discrepancy in RCRA Corrective Action
process times between state and EPA-lead sites. Using the methodology outlined in the Methodology
Document, lEc calculated process times for completion of key phases of the RCRA Corrective Action
process for each site in Region 2. Exhibit 3-4 displays the average number of years required for sites to
reach key actions for both state-lead and EPA-lead sites, measured from the initiation of the Corrective
Action process.
3-16
-------
EXHIBIT 3-4. YEARS FROM START DATE TO KEY ACTIONS AT ERA-LEAD VS. STATE-LEAD SITES
Average Years to
Complete Action
1 A
19 -
1 n -
9 _
*.
^^
SS
,&r ^^FPA
^^^ r,tntn
RFI Initiation RFI Remedy Remedy
Completion Decision Completion
Action
These data show that, on average, EPA-lead sites take slightly longer to complete site investigations,
remedy decisions, and remedy construction, as measured from the start of the Corrective Action
process.16 Overall, EPA-lead sites require an average of 14.1 years to progress through these phases,
while state-lead sites require an average of 12.9 years. Exhibit 3-5 illustrates that, by contrast, state-lead
sites take slightly longer, on average, to achieve key environmental indicators.
EXHIBIT 3-5. TIME NEEDED TO REACH El'S AT EPA-LEAD VS. STATE-LEAD SITES
I Human
Exposure
iGroundwater
EPA
State
' However, as discussed below, EPA-lead sites take (ess time to reach Corrective Action terminated.
3-17
-------
While these statistics provide a useful snapshot of progress at Region 2 sites, a more rigorous analysis is
necessary to determine the extent to which process times are associated with lead agency. We therefore
perform t-tests to determine whether apparent differences in process times between EPA- and state-lead
sites are statistically significant.17 T-tests use the sample size and magnitude of process time differences
between EPA-lead and state-lead sites to determine whether these differences are likely caused by chance,
or by inherent characteristics of these sites. To quantify these differences we divide all sites based on
whether they have completed a given phase within one standard deviation above the mean number of
years for all sites.18 We use "one standard deviation above the mean" as a cutoff point beyond which sites
require significantly more time than average to complete any given process.19 We then create a ratio of
sites that meet this condition to those that do not. The statistical test compares these ratios between EPA-
lead and state-lead sites. Exhibit 3-6 summarizes the results of the t-tests.
EXHIBIT 3-6. T-TEST COMPARISON OF EPA-LEAD VS. STATE-LEAD SITES
ACTION
CA200
CA350
CA400
CA550
CA725
CA750
CA999
NAME OF ACTION
Site Investigation
Complete
Corrective Measures
Study Complete
Remedy Decision
Remedy Construction
Complete
Human Exposure Under
Control
Groundwater
Contamination
Under Control
Corrective Action
Process Terminated
FEDERAL
# OF SITES IN
SAMPLE
76
75
66
50
79
75
38
% SITES
ABOVE MEAN
+ 1 STD. DEV.
59%
87%
77%
54%
13%
23%
68%
STATE
# SITES IN
SAMPLE
168
166
159
114
189
183
77
% SITES
ABOVE MEAN
+ 1 STD. DEV.
45%
73%
53%
37%
8%
16%
77%
P-VALUE
0.0432
0.0183
0.0009
0.0405
0.2904
0.1938
0.3461
Key: shading = statistically significant at a 95% confidence level
17 Since skewness/kurtosis statistical tests determined that site process times were not distributed normally for key Corrective Action phases, t-
tests could not be performed using process times as a dependent variable. However, since the assumptions for conducting t-tests using binary
variables are less stringent than those using continuous variables, t-tests could be performed based on a binary indicator of site process times.
18 For this analysis, we only used sites that have had the opportunity to complete the phase in this timeframe. For example, if the mean and
standard deviation for a specific phase were five years and two years, respectively, sites that have not had at least seven years to complete this
phase were not included in the analysis.
19 Only sites that have reported an end date for a phase were used to calculate the mean and standard deviation for that phase. Sites that have not
reported an end date were included in the sample that falls "one standard deviation above the mean," if the amount of time since the initiation of
the phase exceeded the "mean + one standard deviation" cutoff. We find that a majority of sites fall above this threshold for most phases. There
are two possibilities: (1) Sites that have not reported an end date actually require more time to complete the phase, or (2) these sites actually
completed the phase, but did not report an end date. We use the same analytical approach for t-tests and the probit analyses discussed below.
3-18
-------
The results for the CA725, CA750, and CA999 variables indicate that no significant difference could be
found between the full duration of the Corrective Action process, or the time required to achieve
environmental indicators, at EPA-lead versus state-lead sites. For CA725 and CA750 (Els), the close
proximity of the ratios across groups seem to have prevented the test from detecting a statistically
significant difference between EPA-lead versus state-lead sites. For CA999 (Corrective Action process
terminated), the result seems to be driven primarily by the small number of sites that have terminated the
Corrective Action process.
In contrast, we find a statistically significant difference between EPA-lead sites versus state-lead sites
for the other phases of the process that we tested (CA200, CA350, CA400, and CA550), with EPA-lead
sites likely to take longer. This result implies that some characteristic of EPA-lead sites - whether
relating to the lead agency, the sites themselves, or some other factor - lengthens the Corrective Action
process at these sites. For example, the interviews with Region 2 indicate that EPA often assumes
responsibility for sites that are inherently difficult or complex to manage. If true, this could explain why
EPA-lead sites take longer than state-lead sites.
To investigate why EPA-lead sites sometimes take longer than state-lead sites, lEc conducted a number of
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and probit regressions. These regressions are designed to isolate the
individual significance of sites' lead agency on site process times, while controlling for the effects of
other site characteristics.20 Although we ran a number of regressions using different variables, only one
regression's results are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Specifically, a probit
regression using the remedy decision as the dependent variable assigns a statistically significant and
positive coefficient to the binary variable denoting EPA-lead sites. This indicates that EPA-lead sites are
less likely than state-lead sites to reach a remedy decision within one standard deviation above the mean.
In every other iteration of the probit analysis that we conducted, statistical significance is not consistently
assigned to the lead agency. This suggests that observed differences in process times between EPA-lead
and state-lead sites are likely attributable to characteristics of the sites themselves, rather than the
means by which each agency manages site cleanups.
Interviews
The interviews support the finding that EPA typically manages sites that may be inherently more time-
consuming and/or require enhanced coordination with the states. The interviews suggest that, compared to
New York and New Jersey, EPA Region 2 has a lead role at both the most difficult sites as well as
numerous lower-priority sites that are still stuck in the process.
New York has a legacy program that has recently focused on clearing lower-priority sites (the "low-
hanging fruit," as one manager put it).21 New Jersey is also aiming to clear sites while using minimal
agency resources, by providing incentives for sites to hire an LSRP and penalties for not completing the
investigation phase by a date certain. At this point, it is too early to tell how sites will respond.
In contrast, for a variety of reasons, EPA is typically involved in the management of higher profile and
more difficult sites. Also, EPA aims to coordinate the process with the Agency's state counterparts and
facilities, which can further increase the time required to complete the process. In addition, EPA retains
20 For a more thorough description of regressions run, variables included, and results, see the discussion for Question 1C.
21 The primary focus of New York's legacy program has been to reevaluate sites with prior final remedy determinations to rule out vapor intrusion.
3-19
-------
oversight authority even at state-lead sites. Finally, unlike New York and New Jersey, EPA has not yet
finalized a strategy for clearing lower-priority sites. The 2011 branch reorganization was implemented in
part to address this issue, and staff are currently examining these sites. Combined, these factors help
explain why EPA-lead sites in the data reflect longer times than state-lead sites in some versions of the
model.
Central File Review
We tried to use the project files to validate the dates in RCRAInfo. We found a handful of files that
provided the dates when specific milestones were completed, and we were able to verify these dates in
RCRAInfo. However, the files generally did not provide enough information to confirm or amend the
RCRAInfo data. As discussed in the following sections, we attribute this result to the completeness of the
project files available for review rather than RCRAInfo.
3-20
-------
QUESTION 1C: ARE DECISIONS MADE IN A TIMELY MANNER?
Summary of Key Findings for Question 1C
x Overall, from the start of the Corrective Action process, sites that have completed the process
have taken 5.0 years on average to complete the RFI, 10.2 years to select a site-wide final
remedy, and 13.1 years to construct a site-wide final remedy. It appears that Puerto Rico
completes the RFI at a slower rate than sites in other parts of Region 2.
A Many more sites have achieved their environmental indicators (Els) than have constructed, or
even selected, a site-wide final remedy. Many sites achieve their Els by adopting interim
measures (IMs) for specific contamination early in the remediation process. In contrast, final
remedy selection occurs at the end of the CMS phase, which typically comes later in the
Corrective Action process.
A The vast majority of sites achieve their Els within six years of GPRA designation. The analysis
confirms Region 2 and New York's stated focus on the GPRA goals. The results indicate that
New Jersey's sites take longer to achieve their groundwater El; this may reflect less of a focus on
the GPRA goals in New Jersey, the state's stringent groundwater cleanup requirements, the
nature of sites and hydrogeological features in New Jersey, and/or some other factor.
A The RCRAInfo data suggests that IMs generally increase the time required to complete the
facility investigation (RFI), but decrease the time required to reach final remedy selection and
construction. This result is consistent with the interviews, which indicate that IMs are frequently
adopted retroactively as the final remedy.
x We found widespread, though not unanimous, agreement that the process takes "too long" - this
perception was shared strongly by all interview groups except RPMs, who were more mixed in
their assessment. Deliberate delays by sites, discovery of new contamination, and lack of Agency
resources and/or staff were the most frequently identified causes of delays. These factors are
generally not tied to a specific process step, but can occur at any step in the process. Although
delays can occur at any time, once a delay occurs, it can have downstream effects on the rest of
the process.
A EPA guidance suggests that sites are "stuck" if they have not made meaningful progress in the
past three years. In half of the site files that we reviewed (10 of 20 sites), we found 14 instances
where there was no documentation for at least three years. In subsequent discussions with Region
2, we found that many "files" reside at individual workstations or in emails, outside of the central
filing system.
3-21
-------
RCRA INFO
Overview
lEc calculated summary statistics on the percentage of sites and time required to complete key steps in the
Corrective Action process, measured from the initiation of the Corrective Action process through the
completion of each step. The results are shown in Exhibit 3-7. Overall, from the start of the Corrective
Action process, sites that have completed the process have taken 5.0 years on average to complete the
RFI, 10.2 years to select a site-wide final remedy, and 13.1 years to construct a site-wide final
remedy.22 These averages do not include sites that are still in process; the average duration will likely
increase over time as these "lagging" sites reach completion. On the other hand, the large standard
deviations suggest that outliers (sites that progressed especially slowly) may be pulling up the average.
Notably, many more sites have met each environmental indicator than have constructed, or even
selected, a site-wide final remedy. Approximately 73 percent and 64 percent of sites have met the human
exposure and groundwater indicators, respectively, while only 41 percent of sites have selected a final
remedy. These findings are consistent with the process map in Exhibit 3-1. The process map shows that
sites can achieve their Els at any point during the process by adopting interim measures to address
immediate risks. In contrast, final remedy selection only comes following public consultation at the end
of the CMS phase, which typically occurs later in the process. Furthermore, the threshold for meeting the
Els is lower than the threshold for final remedy selection.
EXHIBIT 3-7. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF RATES AND TIMES TO COMPLETE KEY ACTIONS
ACTION
RCRA Facility Investigation Imposed
RCRA Facility Investigation Initiated
RCRA Facility Investigation Complete
Corrective Measures Study Initiated
Corrective Measures Study Complete
Final Remedy Selected
Remedy Construction Complete
Human Exposure Under Control
Groundwater Contamination
Under Control
Corrective Action Process Terminated
# SITES1
243
195
156
39
68
136
133
242
212
44
% SITES1
73%
59%
47%
12%
21%
41%
40%
73%
64%
13%
MEAN
(YEARS)2
5.0
2.8
5.33
10.2
13.1
13.5
13.4
10.0
MEDIAN
(YEARS)2
4.0
1.4
4.3
9.8
14.5
14.0
14.1
13.6
STANDARD
DEVIATION
(YEARS)2
4.6
3.2
4.1
6.5
6.7
4.5
4.6
9.2
(1) Considers all sites that have completed the specified action.
(2) Considers only sites that have recorded both the specified action and a start date for the Corrective Action process.
(3) Some facilities reported the CMS start date and end date on the same day, which pulls down the average time
required to complete the CMS. This could occur if an Interim Measure was retroactively adopted as the final remedy;
alternatively, the result could simply reflect how data was reported in RCRAInfo.
22 These figures are cumulative (not additive) - i.e., it has taken 13.1 years, on average, from the start of the Corrective Action process to achieve
final remedy construction.
3-22
-------
Exhibit 3-8 illustrates trends in the time required to complete various steps in the Corrective Action
process. Exhibit 3-8A shows the number of years from the initiation of the Corrective Action process to
the construction of a final remedy. The exhibit displays data for all sites that have reported a date for both
the start of the Corrective Action process and the construction of a site-wide final remedy.23 These sites
have a mean of 13.1 years and a median of 14.5years to completion.24 As shown in Exhibit 3-8A, sites
tend to construct a final remedy in five years, or in 18 years, but are less likely to construct a remedy
closer to the overall mean of 13 years. Within this timeframe, most sites will have completed the RFI,
CMS, and remedy decision. Distributions for these intermediate phases are shown in Exhibits 3-8B - 3-
8D. The distributions of the data suggest that sites that complete one phase of the process slowly are
likely to complete other phases of the process slowly.
Similar distributions are also presented for the attainment of each environmental indicator in Exhibits 3-9
and 3-10. Whereas Exhibit 3-9 reveals a wide range of years required for sites to meet these goals since
initiating Corrective Action, Exhibit 3-10 shows that a large majority of sites achieve their Els within six
years ofGPRA designation. Note that a larger distribution of times is expected in the first graph, since
many sites initiated the Corrective Action process long before the creation of the GPRA universe in 1999.
However, had these sites already controlled human exposure and groundwater contamination, the GPRA
process time in the second graph would be recorded as zero or negative. Instead, we see that most sites
met the GPRA goals shortly after GPRA designation. This could suggest that their inclusion in the GPRA
universe prompted an efficient effort leading to the completion of the GPRA goals. Alternatively, sites
may have met these environmental goals prior to their inclusion in the GPRA universe, but recorded this
fact several years after their designation.
As discussed earlier in this section, IMs can play an important role in helping sites achieve their Els. In
fact, the data show that many sites that have achieved their Els have constructed more than one IM. To
further explore the connection between IMs and Els, we conducted the analysis shown in Exhibit 3-11.
The exhibit compares the average number of IMs at sites that have achieved their Els versus sites that
have not achieved their Els. As shown in Exhibit 3-11, sites that have achieved their Els have about
three times the number of IMs, on average, as sites that have not achieved their Els. The results are
statistically significant. This analysis provides a further indication of the association between IM
construction and the attainment of Els. Also, as discussed in the regression analysis later in this chapter,
we find that interim measures generally decrease the time required to select and construct a final remedy.
23 Note that 81 sites have recorded both a Corrective Action start date and remedy construction date. This differs from the 133 sites (shown in
Exhibit 3-7 above) that have recorded remedy construction complete.
24 This is based on the 24 percent of sites in Region 2's GPRA 2020 Corrective Action universe that entered both a Corrective Action start date and a
final site-wide remedy construction date. Region 2 has reported that 31 percent of sites constructed a final remedy by the end of 2012. The
discrepancy (24% vs. 31%) is likely due to our exclusion of sites without a start date.
3-23
-------
EXHIBIT 3-8. TIME REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PROCESS
A - YEARS UNTIL FINAL REMEDY CONSTRUCTION
AFTER INITIATING CORRECTIVE ACTION
B - YEARS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE RCRA
FACILITY INVESTIGATION PHASE
IT
m
** Ci+Ac fi
9 _
Q
1
1 1
-20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
# Years
?n
ia
ifi
1 9
M ci+Ac 1 n
9 _
n .
i
-3 -1 1
II
llhi,, ,
3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
# Years
C - YEARS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE
CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY PHASE
D - YEARS REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT A REMEDY,
ONCE A REMEDY HAS BEEN SELECTED
8
7
6
5
# Sites 4
3
2
1
0
2345
# Years
70
fin
An
# Sites
m
Q
1
-15 -12 -9 -6 -3 0 3 6 9 12 15
# Years
Note: The negative numbers indicate that some sites recorded milestones before their Corrective Action start
date. The negative sign is difficult to interpret in this context, and may reflect reporting anomalies in RCRAInfo.
Despite these anomalies, the patterns that emerge from the figures are clear enough to provide general insights
for the program.
3-24
-------
EXHIBIT 3-9. YEARS NEEDED TO MEET El'S, ONCE AN RFI HAS BEEN IMPOSED
# Sites
Reaching El
-4-20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
I Human Exposure
IGroundwater
Contamination
EXHIBIT 3-10. YEARS NEEDED TO MEET El'S, ONCE ADDED TO GPRA UNIVERSE
# Sites
Reaching El
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1
I
I Human
Exposure
IGroundwater
Contamination
# Years
3-25
-------
EXHIBIT 3-11. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN El'S AND IM'S
Human Exposures
Under Control
Groundwater
Migration Under
Control
El ACHIEVED?
Yes
No
Yes
No
AVERAGE NO. OF
IM'S AT SITE
1.244
0.427
1.307
0.521
Outlier Analysis
We hypothesize that site characteristics are related to the time required to complete the Corrective Action
process. To test for a correlation between slow-moving sites and various site attributes, lEc conducted an
outlier analysis for sites falling within the slowest 25th percentile for completing four or more key phases
of the process. Compared to the characteristics of all sites in Region 2, these 11 sites were
disproportionately more likely to:25
Have been added to the GPRA universe in 1999 (rather than in 2006 or 2009)
Be state-lead
Have contaminated groundwater and soil
Be given a high priority National Corrective Action Priority System (NCAPS) ranking.
Due to the small number of sites that fall within the slowest 25th percentile, we were not able to conduct
statistical analysis to determine whether these factors are statistically significant. Therefore, the results
should be treated more as anecdotal information than general conclusions about factors that influence
cleanup times.
Regression Analysis
While the outlier analysis described above suggests several site characteristics that may slow down the
Corrective Action process, a more rigorous regression analysis is helpful in evaluating these correlations
in a more systematic way. In particular, regression analysis can isolate the impact of individual site
characteristics on site process times by controlling across many other variables. Appendix E provides
descriptive statistics for the primary explanatory variables included in our regressions and presents the
regression output tables, along with the caveats and limitations of our analysis.
We ran two types of regressions:
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS): The OLS regressions considered factors that affect the number
of years required to complete key phases of the Corrective Action process. The following
variables were statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level:
o Sub-site IM decisions tended to increase the time required to complete the RFI phase.
5 See Appendix E for additional details about the outlier analysis.
3-26
-------
o Sub-site remedy construction tended to increase the time required to reach a final remedy
decision.
o Use of orders or decrees tended to increase the time required to control groundwater
contamination.
o EPA-lead (rather than state-lead) tended to decrease the time required to achieve the
Corrective Action process terminated milestone.26
o Surface water contamination tended to decrease the total duration of the Corrective
Action process.
o Repeating the same step multiple times tended to decrease the time required to reach
remedy decisions, remedy construction, and Corrective Action process terminated. This
finding appears counterintuitive, and we discuss possible interpretations at the end of this
section.
Probit analysis: The second set of regressions (probit) uses a binary variable (yes/no) that
captures whether or not a site takes a long time to complete key phases of the process.27 Key
results from the probit analysis include the following:
o IM decisions have a negative (i.e., time-reducing) effect on process times for corrective
measures studies, remedy decisions, and remedy construction.28 This finding suggests
that IMs generally decrease the time required to reach remedy decisions and
construction. For regressions involving remedy construction, this result may reflect the
fact that sites will often retroactively determine a previously-constructed IM to be
sufficient as the final remedy.
o Being located in New York and New Jersey (rather than Puerto Rico) has a negative (i.e.,
time-reducing) effect on the time required to complete the RFI. This result suggests that
sites in Puerto Rico may complete the RFI at a slower rate than sites elsewhere in
Region 2.
o In contrast, being located in New Jersey has a positive (i.e., time-increasing) effect on
the time required to achieve the groundwater El. This could be due, in part, to New
Jersey's relatively stringent water standards. However, as discussed in Appendix E, this
finding may also reflect unobserved characteristics of sites in particular geographic
jurisdictions, rather than the agency or means used during site cleanups.
26 "Corrective Action process terminated" is a distinct event code from final remedy construction. The analysis in Question 1B above found that
EPA-lead sites take slightly longer, on average, to reach final remedy construction and to complete the intermediate steps. In contrast, the present
analysis shows that EPA-lead sites take less time to reach Corrective Action process terminated.
27 As in our previous analyses, our cutoff between "fast" and "slow" sites was one standard deviation above the mean (average) process time.
Factors associated with greater speed tended to increase the likelihood that a site completed a phase or milestone in less than one standard
deviation above the mean; in contrast, factors associated with slower progress tended to decrease the likelihood that a site completed a phase or
milestone within one standard deviation above the mean.
28 Note this finding is different than the results of the OLS regression discussed above. The OLS regression suggested that sub-site interim measures
increase the time required to complete the RFI. The probit analysis indicates that interim measures decrease the time required to reach remedy
decision and construction.
3-27
-------
o "Medium priority"29 or "high priority" NCAPS ranking tended to increase the time
required to construct a final remedy.30
o Use of orders and decrees tended to increase the time required to construct a final
remedy.31
o Financial assurance requirements tended to increase the time required to construct a final
remedy.32
o EPA-lead tended to increase the time required to select a remedy.
o Groundwater contamination tended to increase the time required to select a remedy.
o Soil contamination tended to decrease the time required to select and construct a
remedy.33
o As with the OLS regressions, repeating the same step multiple times was found to
decrease the time required to complete a phase. This finding seems counterintuitive
and seems to contradict our interview findings, which indicate that "do-loops" increase
the time required. Our regression results may reflect that within a facility, individual
SWMUs and/or parcels went through the process on different tracks. The results might
also indicate that sites that that have had to revisit portions of the Corrective Action
process multiple times have become more efficient with each subsequent "re-do," or have
revisited phases with progressively less contamination needing to be addressed.
Alternatively, the results could simply reflect anomalies in the data.
In summary, the RCRAInfo analysis provides an overview of the time required to complete important
phases and milestones in the Corrective Action process, and identifies variables that seem to accelerate or
delay progress. On average, sites that have completed the process have taken more than a decade to select
and construct a final remedy. However, the vast of majority of sites achieve their Els within six years of
GPRA designation. IMs generally increase the time required to complete the RFI, but decrease the time
required to reach final remedy selection and construction. This result is consistent with the interviews,
which indicate that IMs are frequently adopted retroactively as the final remedy. The next section
explores the interview findings, and summarizes perceptions about the timeliness of the process and the
causes of delays.
Interviews
We found widespread, though not unanimous agreement that the Corrective Action process takes "too
long" - this perception was shared strongly by all interview groups except RPMs, who were more
mixed in their assessment. However, with very few exceptions, all of the RPMs we interviewed were
29 As compared to "low priority" sites. This result held for the remedy construction phase and remedy construction as measured since the start of
the Corrective Action process.
30 Process times were measured from the Corrective Action start date.
31 Process times were measured from the Corrective Action start date.
32 This result held for the remedy construction phase and remedy construction as measured since the start of the Corrective Action process.
33 Process times were measured from the Corrective Action start date.
3-28
-------
able to identify factors that cause the process to take longer than it would ideally take. Exhibit 3-12
summarizes: the reason for delays, in order from those cited across the largest number of interview
categories to the least; which category or categories of interviewees identified each delay; and the phases
of the process that the delays affect.34 (See the process map in Exhibit 3-1.) Lack of agency resources
and/or staff was the only delay identified by respondents across all seven interview categories.
Deliberate delays by sites, lack of "big picture" focus, discovery of new contamination, and agency
turnover also ranked high on the list. As we move down the list, some factors appear contradictory - for
example, lack of data to make decisions seems to contradict lack of "big picture" focus. These apparent
contradictions reflect which type of interviewee made the comment, as well as the competing priorities
and inherent tradeoffs in the process. As denoted by the asterisks, there was some disagreement expressed
within the community stakeholder group with respect to whether community input slows down the
process, and within the state category with respect to competing priorities between EPA and states.
Notably, the causes of delays identified in Exhibit 3-12 are generally not tied to any particular process
step, but can occur at any time during the Corrective Action process. For example, lack of agency
resources and staff, deliberate delays by sites, and lack of "big picture" focus do not arise from a
particular process step. Rather, these cross-cutting "thematic" factors depend on the general budget
situation and the characteristics of the lead agency and facility. A recurring theme from the interviews is
that these factors can "derail" the process at any time, regardless of how much or how little progress has
already been made. For example, facility bankruptcy can be a problem whether it occurs in the RFI or
CMI stage. Similarly, an uncooperative facility can impede progress at any time during the process.
Delays can build on and reinforce each other, creating a downward spiral. For instance, initial
disagreement between the lead agency and facility about the scope of the site investigation may
eventually give way to mutual understanding; however, by the time the facility finishes its site
investigation, the original RPM may no longer be working on the case. The new RPM may not be
familiar with the case, and may reopen questions that were already decided with the previous RPM,
further delaying the process. In the meantime, the site may change ownership, and the new owner may
require additional time to get up to speed on the cleanup. Although delays can occur at any time, once a
delay occurs, it can have downstream effects on the rest of the process.
In contrast to the maj ority of delays listed in Exhibit 3-12, three factors in the exhibit do appear to be tied
to specific phases of the Corrective Action process. These three factors include: lack of data to make
decisions (RFI), lack of technical knowledge of the agency or contractors (RFI and CMS), and
community comment (RFI and CMS). Some interviewees indicated that project managers are unwilling to
make decisions with imperfect information. This may reflect the inadequacy of information submitted by
some facilities, and/or a risk-averse agency culture that discourages decision-making under uncertainty.
Lack of technical knowledge of the lead agency or contractors also affects the efficiency of the RFI and
CMS. In particular, lack of knowledge in specialized areas such as hydrology and geology may impede
expeditious review of site investigation reports and proposed remedies. Finally, community comment
may delay the process, according to RPMs, states, and some NGOs (however, opinion among NGOs was
mixed). RPMs, in particular, reported that public comments at the end of the CMS phase -just prior to
34 We asked the question in an open-ended manner and provided prompts to spur discussion. Exhibit 3-12 captures factors that different categories
of interviewees identified and affirmed during our semi-structured discussion. However, the absence of a "check" mark should not necessarily be
interpreted to mean that a factor is not important to a particular category of interviewee.
3-29
-------
announcing a final remedy - can delay the final remedy decision, and may even require reopening the
RFI, depending on the comments received. These statements may reflect a belief that public participation
is an "add-on" to the Corrective Action process rather than an integral part of it. If appropriate and
realistic timeframes for public outreach and comment were factored into the Corrective Action planning
process, they would simply be accepted phases of the work and would not be considered delays.
EXHIBIT 3-12. CAUSES OF DELAYS IDENTIFIED BY INTERVIEWS
REASON FOR DELAYS
Lack of agency resources
and /or staff
Deliberate delays by sites
Lack of "big picture" focus
Discovery of new
contamination
Agency staff turnover
Lack of data to make
decisions
Lack of enforcement
Lack of attention from
agency staff (1)
Lack of technical knowledge
of agency or contractors
Change in site ownership
Community comment
Different priorities between
EPA and states
Lack of company resources
Legal issues, including issuing
or modifying orders
INTERVIEW CATEGORY
HQ
/
S
S
/
/
S
/
R2
MGMT
S
S
S
S
S
RPMS
/
/
S
/
/
S
/
/
s
s
/
/
STATES
S
S
S
S
S
*
S
OTHER
REG.
S
S
S
S
NGO
/
/
S
/
/
S
S
*
^
SITES
S
S
S
S
S
S
PHASE
RFA
/
S
S
/
S
S
/
S
/
/
RFI
V
V
S
S
V
V
S
S
V
V
S
S
V
V
CMS
V
V
S
S
V
S
S
V
V
S
S
V
V
CMI
V
V
S
S
V
S
S
V
S
V
V
Notes: (1) Lack of attention from agency staff could be related to lack of agency resources and/or staff.
Legend:
^- denotes either general agreement by interview category or applicability of a reason to a certain phase of the Corrective Action
process
* - denotes general disagreement within interview category regarding the stated reason
Overall, the interviews found widespread agreement that the Corrective Action process takes "too long,"
and identified the perceived causes of delays. We attempted to validate the perceptions expressed in the
interviews by conducting a review of selected project files. The next section summarizes the relevant
findings from our file review for Question 1C.
3-30
-------
Central File Review
One intended purpose of the file review was to assess whether decisions are made in a timely manner.
EPA guidance suggests that facilities are "stuck" in the Corrective Action process if they have not made
any meaningful progress in achieving their remedial objectives for three years.35 As part of our file review
of 20 selected sites, we looked for gaps in the documentation of three years or longer. We initially
planned to use three-year gaps in the written record as an indicator that sites were "stuck." Subsequent
discussions with Region 2 revealed this may not be a valid indicator of progress, for reasons discussed
below; however, the file review findings are instructive for other reasons.
Findings from the file review for Question 1C include the following:
In half of the project flies that we reviewed (10 of 20 sites), we found a total of 14 instances
where there was no documentation for at least three years.36 Of these 14 instances of three-year
gaps, 11 took place after February 1997. Pinpointing the cause of the gaps is difficult because
some files were missing from the central archives. However, these instances all occurred after e-
mail became a prominent form of communication, and it is possible that recent communication
occurred (and remains stored) electronically. Also, Region 2 staff note that project files for active
sites may be kept at individual workstations, rather than the central archives.
Facilities do not appear to progress at a constant pace throughout the Corrective Action
process. Instead, the files appear to have periods of heavy correspondence between the lead
agency and the facility, and periods with little correspondence. This may mean that progress is
not steady, or that some stages of the process require less correspondence than others.
The most active periods of correspondence tend to focus on specific solid waste management
units rather than sites as a whole. Though anecdotal, this finding is consistent with comments
offered by Region 2 staff and other interviewees indicating that sites have traditionally been
managed on a SWMU-by-SWMU basis, rather than holistically.
Subsequent to our file review, Region 2 indicated that some of the apparent gaps in correspondence
reflect how the files are archived. For example, RPMs sometimes keep the project files for active sites at
their individual workstations, and frequently communicate with facilities over email. Although the central
file is supposed to contain all site-related documentation - including email correspondence - the Region
is still developing electronic storage protocols, and we found little email correspondence in the files that
we reviewed. Similarly, the central file is supposed to contain all correspondence between facilities and
state agencies, but in some cases this may be missing. Therefore, the three-year gaps that we identified in
our file review may reflect more on the quality of the central file than the actual progress at the sites.
35 U.S. EPA, National Enforcement Strategy for RCRA Corrective Action, April 27, 2010.
36 For all but one of these instances, we verified in RCRAInfo that no major site-wide milestones were achieved during the three-year gaps. Progress
may have been made at the sub-site level, and/or not recorded in RCRAInfo.
3-31
-------
QUESTION 1D: DO WE HAVE A SCHEDULE FOR THE PROJECTS AND ARE WE HOLDING FACILITIES
ACCOUNTABLE TO THE SCHEDULE?
Summary of Key Findings for Question 1D
x The interview findings reflect a perception that facilities are able to significantly delay the
process. However, we found less agreement on how to reduce delays.
A Our file review did not find any comprehensive project schedules covering the entire Corrective
Action process. It appears that companies are almost always given short-term schedules;
however, facilities frequently requested - and received - extensions.
Interviews
As shown in Exhibit 3-12 above, "deliberate delays by sites" was one of the most frequently cited causes
of delays. Some interviewees - especially Region 2 senior management and community stakeholders -
explicitly cited lack of accountability (or variations on that theme) as a significant problem.
While many interviewees seem to feel that facilities are able to extend existing deadlines more than they
should, we found far less agreement on how to ensure timely cleanups. Some stakeholders strongly
encouraged more active enforcement. Others argued that enforcement slows down the process, both
internally (legal review) and externally (facilities may stop work while the action is being challenged).
Program managers noted that "accountability" goes beyond simply adhering to EPA's project schedule,
particularly for state-lead sites. Several RPMs have found it more productive to work collaboratively with
facilities than to initiate enforcement; in a similar vein, participants at the Lean Event for Regions 3 and 7
stated that enforcement causes delays. (Other enforcement-related issues are discussed in Question 3
below.) Still others felt the best way to hold facilities "accountable" was to provide economic incentives
to accelerate Corrective Action. As discussed throughout this chapter, our analysis indicates that various
approaches might be more or less useful in different situations, depending on facility characteristics and
the Agency's priorities for the site.
Central File Review
Our file review did not find any comprehensive project schedules outlining the entire RCRA Corrective
Action process. While it is possible that such schedules exist, they were not in the project files that we
reviewed. It appears that EPA or the state almost always assigns deadlines for facilities to meet short-term
project goals. However, for the 20 sites that we reviewed, we found eight instances of companies
requesting extensions to short-term deadlines - and EPA or the state granted all requested extensions.
Extensions ranged from 30 days to six months and averaged approximately 73 days. Requests for an
extension were typically due to imprecise estimates of how long tasks would take or unforeseen events.
For example, in 1999, EPA granted a 30-day extension when a facility discovered that it needed to
recover archived information to complete a task appropriately. In 1994, EPA granted an extension to
another facility to complete Task 1, Phase 2 of its RFI because of poor weather and soil conditions. The
longest extension (six months) was to allow a facility to procure "unbiased, representative data" for its
Detection RFI Sampling Results Submittal. However, in one case, EPA granted an extension because of
inaction by a state-lead agency. Specifically, in 1992, a facility received an extension for constructing an
IM due partly to the state agency's delay in approving a necessary permit.
3-32
-------
QUESTION 2: ARE THE RESOURCES ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT THE PROGRAM?
This evaluation question addresses the adequacy of EPA and state resources to support the Corrective
Action program in Region 2.37 We consider three aspects of "resource adequacy": (1) adequate staff and
funding levels to achieve the GPRA 2020 goals on time, (2) access to technical expertise to ensure the
quality of remedy decisions, and (3) ability to reach lower priority and non-GPRA sites.
We draw on three data sources to answer this question. First, we review two reports, one by the
Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the other by ORCR, to glean insight into nationwide
trends in Corrective Action resources and workload. Second, we analyze budget and staffing data
provided by Region 2 to understand the situation in the Region, and the extent to which Region 2 mirrors
national trends. Third, we summarize interview findings related to the adequacy of program resources.
Summary of Key Findings for Question 2
A Federal and state resources for Corrective Action have declined over the past decade, while the
program's goals have become increasingly ambitious. While earlier goals have been met,
analyses conducted by GAO and EPA suggest that meeting the GPRA 2020 goals will be
challenging given budgetary and technical constraints.
A The resource situation in Region 2 mirrors the nation as a whole. EPA faces several resource-
related challenges involving technical expertise, community outreach, staffing, and
organizational changes. Declining program resources are forcing difficult management decisions
about tradeoffs among speed, environmental stringency, and public participation.
A New York and New Jersey have lost some EPA grant-supported FTE for Corrective Action; at
the same time, state resources have also declined. The two states have responded to resource
limitations in very different ways, reflecting the tradeoffs inherent in the program.
Documents
We reviewed two reports that address the adequacy of resources for Corrective Action nationwide:
GAO's Hazardous Waste: Early Goals Have Been Met in EPA's Corrective Action Program, but
Resource and Technical Challenges Will Constrain Future Progress (July 2011) and EPA ORCR's
Corrective Action Program: Workload Report (Draft, March 2013):
GAO: The GAO report notes that EPA has set a series of progressively more ambitious goals
over the past decade and expanded the number of facilities that must meet them.38 It finds that
37 This question does not address the adequacy of facilities' resources; however, the documents and interviews indicate that problems related to
inadequate financial assurance and bankruptcy can significantly delay cleanups.
38 The 2005 GPRA goals aimed to control human exposures at 95 percent of the 1,714 high-priority facilities, and control groundwater migration at
70 percent of these facilities. The 2008 GPRA goals increased the total number of high-priority facilities from 1,714 to 1,968; the goals for these
facilities were: a) control human exposures at 95 percent of these facilities, b) control groundwater migration at 80 percent of these facilities, c)
select final remedies at 30 percent of these facilities, and d) complete final remedy construction at 20 percent of these facilities. The 2020 GPRA
goals further expanded the GPRA universe to 3,747 facilities, which includes medium- and low-priority facilities; the goal is to control human
exposures, control groundwater migration, and complete final remedy construction at 95 percent of these facilities by 2020. GAO 2011, op. cit.
3-33
-------
EPA and authorized states have made considerable progress in meeting the El goals, but
meeting the 2020 goal will be challenging.39 Most EPA and state officials interviewed by GAO
agreed that the 2020 goal of construction complete 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. 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. In response to
GAO's recommendation, EPA ORCR is conducting a workload analysis for the Corrective
Action program, as discussed in the following bullet.
ORCR: In response to GAO's recommendation, ORCR is currently developing a report on the
Corrective Action workload. As of March 2013, this report was in draft form, and while specific
results are not yet available, the report documents a decline in federal and state resources
available for Corrective Action. The report finds that between 2004 and 2011, federal resources
available to the program decreased significantly, and EPA full-time employee (FTE) staffing
levels also decreased. Although EPA lacks specific data on actual funding and staffing trends for
state Corrective Action programs, a 2011 report indicated that state overmatches for the entire
RCRA Subtitle C (RCRA-C) program (including permitting and other activities beyond just
Corrective Action) fell from approximately $59 million in 2006 to approximately $34 million in
2009. The report also noted that from 2006 to 2009, state RCRA-C FTEs decreased 19 percent,
representing a loss of approximately 400 state FTEs out of about 2,000.40 Concurrent with these
resource reductions are other challenges: increased workloads; programs losing experienced staff;
difficult facilities remaining to be addressed; later steps in the process being more difficult to
address than earlier steps; post-construction monitoring; economic hardship and bankruptcy
complications; large, complex federal facilities; and renewed emphasis on community
involvement. EPA's analysis suggests that achieving the 2020 goals, particularly final remedy
construction at 95 percent of facilities by 2020, may be negatively affected by resource
constraints.
In the following section, we place Region 2 within the national context of declining resources and being
asked to do more with less. As discussed below, Region 2 faces the same resource constraints as the
program nationwide, including tight budgets, declining FTEs, and increased workload.
Region 2 Budget and Staffing Data
This section presents our analysis of the budget and staffing data provided by Region 2:
Budget data. Region 2 provided data on RCRA Enforcement and Permitting Assistance (REPA)
expenditures for REPA 3 (March 2002 - May 2007), REPA 4 (March 2007 - March 2012), and
39 By the end of FY 2005, 96 percent of the 1,714 facilities had controlled human exposures, and 78 percent had controlled groundwater migration.
By the end of FY 2008, 96 percent of the 1,968 facilities had controlled human exposures, and 83 percent had controlled groundwater migration.
Also by the end of FY 2008, final remedies had been selected at 43 percent of these facilities and construction was completed at 35 percent of
them. For the 2020 universe, 72 percent have controlled human exposures, 63 percent have controlled groundwater migration, and 37 percent have
constructed final cleanup remedies. Ibid.
40 Presentation by Stephen A. Cobb. June 14, 2011. "State of the States." Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials
(ASTSWMO), as cited in the March 2013 draft Corrective Action Workload Report.
3-34
-------
REPA 5 (May 2012 - present). REPA is a contract vehicle that funds projects supporting the
Region's direct implementation of the Corrective Action program. EPA funds the REPA contract
with extramural funds and, under certain conditions, State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG)
funds. REPA does not include FTE costs, which are discussed in the following bullet point
(staffing data).
Overall REPA expenditures over the period covered by the data (March 2002 - present) totaled
slightly under $2.8 million. Incurred costs per period ranged from about $1.1 million in REPA 3
to $180,547 in REPA 5; however, this simple comparison is misleading because REPA 5 was still
in its first year when the data was provided. A more meaningful metric is how resources have
been allocated across task orders and work assignments. Exhibit 3-13 shows REPA expenditures
from March 2002 through the present across six categories: El support and review, Caribbean
multi-site support, land revitalization support, hydrologic/RFI/other document review, other
multi-site support, and support for three individual sites.41 These three Corrective Action sites
account for 39 percent of total REPA expenditures; one of the three sites accounts for 23 percent
of total expenditures. This analysis confirms interview data suggesting that Region 2 devotes a
high share of resources to a small number of high-profile and/or technically complex sites.
El support/review accounts for just over one-quarter of the allocation, reflecting EPA's
traditional emphasis on environmental indicators; in contrast, land revitalization support
reflects less than one percent of the total. It is also notable that sites in the Caribbean, and
hydrologic review, each received a relatively small share of funding (11 percent and four percent,
respectively). Interviewees cited concerns about resource adequacy for the Caribbean office; they
also cited difficulties accessing technical expertise and staying apprised of recent technological
developments affecting Corrective Action cleanups. The interview analysis (see below) discusses
these issues in more detail.
1 IEc defined the categories based on our review of the raw data and grouped expenditures in each category.
3-35
-------
EXHIBIT 3-13. ALLOCATION OF REPA EXPENDITURES
Land revitalization
support
Caribbean Multi-
support
11%
Other Multi-site
support/ Review
20%
ti-Site
Hydrologic, RFI,
and other docs
4%
* The three individual sites are: Naval Station Roosevelt Roads/Naval Academy Puerto Rico, HOVENSA, and
DuPont Pompton Lakes.
Staffing data. EPA provided Region 2 Corrective Action Project Manager staffing data for 2003-
2013. In 2013, EPA Region 2's Corrective Action program had 14 project managers in the New
York office (11 in the program division and three in the Superfund division), which translates to
13.8 FTE. The Puerto Rico office had an additional 7 FTE, bringing the regional total to 20.8
FTE. This is a slight increase (11%) over the approximately 19 regional FTE that the program
had in 2003. However, over the same time period, the number ofGPRA Corrective Action sites
managed out of Region 2's offices increased by 137 percent -from 140 sites in 2003 to 332
sites in 2013 - as the Agency expanded the GPRA universe. Put differently, the number of sites
per Corrective Action FTE more than doubled, from 7.4 sites per FTE in 2003 to 15.8 sites per
FTE in 2013. These findings are in line with the national-level analyses presented above.
Though not the primary focus of our analysis, EPA also provided some state-level staffing data.
The data shows the number of Corrective Action FTE supported by EPA grants (federal grant
plus state match) for 2002-2012. During the past decade, the states have seen a significant decline
in their Corrective Action FTE. As shown in Exhibit 3-14, New Jersey's FTE for Corrective
Action declined by 20 percent, and New York's declined by 17 percent, between 2002 and
2072.42<43
42 NJDEP receives funding via a three-year Performance Partnership Grant and did not break out FTE by program for the years 2002-2004. EPA
Region 2 estimated FTE for 2002-2004 using actual FTE figures for 2005-07, holding salary, fringe, and indirect costs constant. If cost increases were
taken into account, the actual decline in resources would be even greater than shown in the figure.
43 According to New York, the EPA grant supports about 40 FTE. This includes staff that do not work full-time on Corrective Action. As discussed
elsewhere in this chapter, New York recently consolidated its RCRA Corrective Action division with its other land cleanup programs. Under this
setup, staff manage a mix of Corrective Action sites and other sites.
3-36
-------
EXHIBIT 3-14. CORRECTIVE ACTION FTE SUPPORTED BY EPA GRANTS
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Note: NYDEC received additional federal funding in 2008-09 and provided the additional matching funds
during these years, and was thus able to support additional FTEs.
Interviews
We asked interviewees to describe the adequacy of resources to support the program. Respondents from
EPA Headquarters, Region 2, the states, and communities identified lack of agency resources and/or lack
of staff as a major cause of delays, as shown in Exhibit 3-12 above. Some respondents noted that the lack
of resources may affect not only the speed of the process, but also the quality of remedy decisions, as well
as the extent/quality of public outreach and participation. Respondents identified several specific
priorities/needs that are adversely affected by lack of resources, which we summarize in the remainder of
this section. Most of this discussion focuses on EPA Region 2; however, the last bullet explains how New
York and New Jersey are addressing their resource constraints.
Access to technical/scientific expertise: Several program managers and project managers cited
lack of access to technical and scientific expertise as a serious constraint. In particular,
respondents reported that both the timeliness of review and the quality of remedy decisions would
benefit from easier access to hydrologists, geologists, risk assessors, and other technical experts.
Unlike Superfund, which has dedicated hydrologists and other experts, the RCRA Corrective
Action program does not. One senior manager noted that without this expertise, EPA is at risk of
getting "jerked around" by facilities, and needs to rely heavily on the states. Alternatively, the
Agency may simply take a long time to respond to reports and proposals, as staff get up to speed
on new technologies or wait for technical assistance. Given Region 2's focus on efficiency and
collaboration, it is worth noting that the Agency's technical challenges have not been lost on the
regulated community. One facility manager that we interviewed stated it took EPA "two years" to
review a deliverable, and attributed this to the Agency being "terribly under-resourced."
Support for community outreach: Community engagement is a priority for EPA and the
Corrective Action program - but unlike Superfund, Corrective Action does not have community
engagement (or environmental justice) staff dedicated full time to the program. According to
3-37
-------
Region 2 directors, the Public Affairs Division never turns away requests from RCRA Corrective
Action sites. However, as discussed under Question 6 below, the Region's strategy for outreach
in the Corrective Action program is responsive to needs at specific sites - and very few sites
generate public interest. In fact, the regional public affairs staff only deals with two Corrective
Action sites on a regular basis. At less high-profile sites, either the RPMs or the states take the
lead on community engagement. However, effective community engagement requires a
specialized type of expertise. Moreover, states may not necessarily give community engagement
the same weight as EPA, particularly when faced with staff reductions and other resource
limitations.
Staff recruitment, development, and retention: Region 2 senior management and directors
reported that attracting and retaining staff in the RCRA Corrective Action program is difficult.
They noted that Superfund is better-known and better-resourced, and generally viewed as a more
desirable program in which to work. During the three RPM interview sessions that we conducted
at EPA Region 2 headquarters, we only met one recent hire; most RPMs had one, two, or nearly
three decades of experience. While this experience is valuable, it may be difficult to transfer,
particularly as people retire. Puerto Rico was an exception; the office has fewer experienced staff,
and they have developed an informal mentoring system that pairs experienced RPMs with less
tenured RPMs. In terms of staff development, RPMs noted they have fewer opportunities to
attend training than in the past, which is consistent with observations by Headquarters ORCR.
Finally, staff retention has been challenging. This is likely due, at least in part, to the fact that
Superfund has a higher salary structure (i.e., a higher staff automatic career ladder on the General
Schedule) than RCRA Corrective Action. According to managers, Superfund routinely attracts
well-qualified RPMs away from the Corrective Action program.
Comprehensive site management: EPA's Corrective Action program has traditionally
emphasized the GPRA goals, which traditionally focused on the Els for human exposure and
groundwater migration. Over the past few years, the Agency has expanded the GPRA goals to
include final remedy selection and final remedy construction, which typically occur later in the
process after the Els. The Agency is also placing greater emphasis on ongoing monitoring and
site stewardship following final remedy construction. These newer, more ambitious goals have
been added to the already-existing Els. Achieving these longer-term goals will further stretch
existing resources, as noted in the analyses conducted by GAO and ORCR. According to Region
2 management, due to resource constraints, Region 2 removes sites from "active" management
after they achieve the GPRA goals. It is unclear how quickly these sites will achieve longer-term
goals if they are not actively managed. Moreover, EPA (nationally and in Region 2) has not yet
fleshed out a strategy for clearing non-GPRA sites, although this effort is underway. While these
sites may not represent the same level of effort as some GPRA sites, they will require some level
of staff time and resources.
Transfer to Superfund Division: The Regional Administrator recently transferred 16 RCRA
Corrective Action sites to the Superfund Division (see Question 1 above). Three FTE were
transferred to the Superfund Division along with the sites. The transfer has benefits and
challenges. On one hand, relieving the Corrective Action Division of 16 complex and challenging
sites allows them to focus on other sites. Many of the transferred sites are being managed by
Superfund staff that can bring their own experience, knowledge, and skills to the sites. On the
3-38
-------
other hand, the transfer has costs for both divisions. The RCRA Corrective Action Division has
lost three of its best-qualified FTE. The Superfund Division, meanwhile, has expressed concerns
that the additional workload is heavier than the number of allocated FTE. Although the Superfund
program is better-resourced than Corrective Action, Corrective Action sites are not able to access
these resources. Specifically, the rules prohibit Superfund staff and managers from "cross-
charging" their time to work on Corrective Action sites. As a result, the program is investing FTE
to duplicate overhead costs (to avoid cross-appropriations), at the expense of program
implementation. In addition, the Superfund Division is precluded from using for RCRA
Corrective Action sites the technical resources (e.g., hydrogeologists, risk assessors, etc.)
available to address cleanups at Superfund sites. An interviewee with extensive knowledge of the
situation described it as a "zero-sum game": Either the Corrective Action Division will need to
transfer additional FTE to Superfund, or the Superfund Division will need to scale back efforts on
the transferred sites to fit within the three currently allocated FTE. The "resolution" will depend
on management's decision about where to invest scarce resources.
States: New York and New Jersey have also taken steps to respond to declining resources:
o New York: New York's recent consolidation of its cleanup programs effectively tripled
the number of staff available to work on Corrective Action. This is especially helpful in
light of the decline in dedicated Corrective Action FTE supported by EPA grants over the
past decade (see Exhibit 3-14 above). In addition, New York's legacy program cleared a
number of lower-priority sites (the "low-hanging fruit"), freeing up the state's attention to
focus on more complex sites.
o New Jersey: New Jersey has taken a different approach. New Jersey's Licensed Site
Remediation Professionals (LSRP) Program requires sites to directly hire an LSRP,
shifting the cleanup burden from the state to the facilities. However, this reduces the
state's direct oversight role. In response to concerns raised by EPA, New Jersey has
agreed to continue providing direct oversight for the GPRA 2020 sites. While this added
layer of scrutiny supports the objective of a stringent cleanup threshold, it may conflict
with the objective of efficient site completion.
In summary, analyses conducted by GAO and ORCR, Region 2 budget and staffing data, and interview
results suggest that existing resources may not be adequate to support the program. Resources for
Corrective Action have declined over the past decade, while the program's goals have become more
ambitious. The budget situation is forcing difficult decisions by EPA and the states about where to focus
their limited resources.
3-39
-------
QUESTION 3: ARE THERE IDENTIFIABLE DELAYS IN THE PROJECTS OR IDENTIFIABLE NON-
COMPLIANCE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY THE ISSUANCE OF A RCRA CORRECTIVE
ACTION ORDER OR BY TAKING SOME OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION?
This question addresses the use of administrative orders and other enforcement actions to compel cleanup
at Corrective Action sites. As discussed under Question 1A above, EPA guidance has long encouraged
agencies to consider using enforcement for Corrective Action - most recently, in the National
Enforcement Strategy for Corrective Action (2010). Region 2 senior management also is interested in the
potential to increase the use of enforcement in the Corrective Action program. Question 3 aims to provide
insight on when enforcement could be useful in reaching timely remedy decisions.
To address this evaluation question, we begin with RCRAInfo data for Region 2, comparing progress at
facilities with and without the use of an order or decree. The remaining evaluation findings are
qualitative, focusing mostly on interviews, and to a lesser extent on the file review. It is important to note
that we cannot know, with any certainty, whether or not the use of an enforcement action would have
expedited cases that have already passed, or whether enforcement actions have helped or could help in
cases that are still in progress. We rely on participant judgment, expert opinion, and enforcement
experience in other regions to guide our thinking and inform our findings.
In the analysis that follows, it is important to understand the different uses of the word "enforcement."
Enforcement is an umbrella term that can have very different meanings in different contexts. For
example, EPA can issue administrative orders on consent (AOCs), which are based on a negotiated
agreement with a facility, or unilateral orders. Orders or decrees may require site investigation and
cleanup; alternatively, enforcement actions may be taken when facilities fail to complete required actions
in specified timeframes. When Region 2 uses enforcement, it tends to be AOCs. The Region does not
typically issue unilateral orders or initiate enforcement action for cases of non-compliance. An additional
nuance is that states may issue their own orders without going through EPA. In fact, our research suggests
that New York issues more orders than EPA Region 2 - which is not surprising for an authorized state in
a highly delegated program. Many state laws include enforcement authorities that are analogous to those
under RCRA and CERCLA. EPA retains independent enforcement authority even after a state is
authorized for the RCRA base program or Corrective Action.
RCRAInfo
To address this question, we first used RCRAInfo data to compare Region 2 facilities with and without
orders or decrees.44 Of the 332 GPRA sites in RCRA Region 2, 113 have implemented at least one
instance of Corrective Action under an order or decree, rather than through a permit action or on a
voluntary basis. After further focusing the analysis only on sites completing certain key actions at a site-
wide level, we are left with 93 facilities that have used orders or decrees. This analysis seeks to determine
whether orders and decrees are associated with faster or slower site cleanup.
An initial glance at the RCRAInfo data suggests there may be a slight difference in process times between
sites that have used orders and decrees as compared to sites that have not used them. Exhibit 3-15 shows
the process times for key stages, and years to achieve Els (from the start of the Corrective Action process)
at sites with and without orders or decrees.
44 Our analysis includes Administrative Orders on Consent (AOCs) as well as non-consent based orders. This analysis does not distinguish between
orders vs. decrees.
3-40
-------
Summary of Key Findings for Question 3
x Regressions with the RCRAInfo data generally did not find statistically significant differences
in process times between sites with and without the use of orders. The two cases where this
variable was statistically significant found that it increasedthe process time. However, this
does not prove that orders slow down the process; sites with orders may be inherently more
difficult, and therefore take longer, than sites without orders.
A A wide variety of considerations come into play in deciding whether and how to use
enforcement. Positive considerations include: streamlined consent orders, compelling site
investigations, integrated cleanup authorities (e.g., Corrective Action and Superfund),
recalcitrant or financially marginal or bankrupt facilities, and financial assurance. Negative
considerations include: legal review, concerns about over-filing states, threat of facilities
appealing the order and stopping work, lack of enforceable language in permits and orders,
lack of adequate documentation of facility non-compliance, evidence that EPA informally
extended schedules for facilities, limited time and resources to issue an order or build an
enforcement case, and lack of coordination with states. The interview results suggest that
Region 2 is working to balance positive and negative considerations in its approach to
enforcement.
A The interviews found a difference of opinion within and across Region 2 on the adequate level
of enforcement activity. Region 2 division directors, managers, and RPMs indicated that the
current level of enforcement is generally appropriate. In contrast, other interviewees (internal
and external to the Agency) stated that enforcement activity in Region 2 is lower than it could
be. They indicated that, in at least two cases, the Region has not taken enforcement action at
sites that were good candidates for enforcement.
x The file review did not find any instances where sites outright refused to comply with EPA's
requirements, although we did identify delays. Overall, we found several apparent gaps in the
documentation in the central file, as well as multiple instances where EPA extended deadlines.
Incomplete documentation - and evidence that EPA allowed facilities to extend schedules -
constrains the Agency's ability to make a strong case for enforcement.
A EPA Headquarters and Region 2 identified Region 5 as a leader in using innovative
enforcement approaches. EPA Region 5 is using a performance-based model order, and other
enforcement tools, to advance progress at Corrective Action sites. Region 5's experience
provides insights that may be informative for Region 2.
3-41
-------
EXHIBIT 3-15. YEARS TO ACHIEVE CORRECTIVE ACTION MILESTONES AT SITES WITH AND WITHOUT ORDERS OR DECREES
EXHIBIT 3-15A. PROCESS TIMES AT SITES WITH AND WITHOUT
ORDERS OR DECREES
# Years from
Corrective
Action Start
Date 6.0
Order
No Order
EXHIBIT 3-15B. YEARS TO ACHIEVE El'S AT SITES WITH AND
WITHOUT ORDERS OR DECREES
Years from
Corrective
Action Start
Date to
GPRA Goal
Completion
Order
No Order
I Human Exposure BGroundwater
14.2
14.0
3-42
-------
The data show that facilities with orders or decrees take an average of 0.8 years longer to achieve each El,
as compared to sites without orders or decrees. By contrast, sites that have used orders or decrees take an
average of 0.8 years less to construct a final remedy.
Despite the slight difference in process times between facilities with and without orders or decrees,
further analysis (t-tests) found that these differences are not statistically significant at a 95 percent
confidence level.45 This finding might reflect a variety of different factors. It is possible that using orders
or decrees has no effect on the duration of key phases in the Corrective Action process. Alternatively,
sites that use orders and decrees may be inherently more complex and time-consuming than sites that do
not use orders and decrees. The available data do not indicate whether such sites would have progressed
faster or slower without the use of an order or decree.
To isolate the effect of orders and decrees while controlling for other facility characteristics, we ran a
series of OLS and probit regressions. We ran several versions of the regression model, controlling for the
effects of contamination type, lead agency, priority level, and other characteristics. Overall, the results of
our regressions were not statistically significant. However, two regressions detected a statistically
significant difference, with longer process times at sites with orders or decrees. Specifically, a
statistically significant OLS regression showed that an order or decree is associated with an increase of
0.96 years in the time required to control groundwater contamination. A statistically significant probit
regression found that the use of orders or decrees increases the time required to construct a final remedy.
These findings may or may not indicate that orders and decrees are inherently slower mechanisms for
implementing the Corrective Action process. On one hand, several interviews suggested that
administrative orders and related authorities are more time consuming to draft and enforce, due largely to
the lengthy negotiation process often involved. On the other hand, it is important to note that our
regressions were not able to account for all other facility characteristics that affect process times and that
may be correlated with the use of orders or decrees, such as the extent of contamination. We are therefore
not able to determine whether such facilities may have taken even longer to complete a phase without an
order or decree. The RCRAInfo analysis alone is not sufficient to answer this question.
In the rest of this section, we turn to the interviews and the file review for additional insight into the
effects of administrative orders and other enforcement actions. These data sources suggest that the effects
depend on the specific context in which an enforcement action is taken.
Interviews
Interviews were our main source of information for Question 3. To answer this question, we focus
primarily on interviews with Region 2 managers and RPMs, but also EPA Headquarters Office of Site
Remediation Enforcement (OSRE), ORCR, state program managers, and community stakeholders in
Region 2. We also draw on Lean Event and interview data for Regions 3 and 7, and interview data for
Region 5. First, we discuss factors affecting the use of enforcement. Second, we assess the level of
enforcement activity in Region 2. Third, we summarize lessons learned from Region 5's experience using
enforcement for Corrective Action.
45 As with the analogous tests run for the EPA-lead variable described in Question 1 above, these tests are based on a binary variable that indicates
whether or not a site required more than one standard deviation above the mean process time for any given phase of the Corrective Action process.
3-43
-------
Considerations in the Use of Enforcement
A wide variety of considerations come into play in deciding whether and how to use enforcement. As
shown in Exhibit 3-16, positive considerations for using enforcement include: streamlined consent orders,
compelling site investigations, integrated cleanup authorities (e.g., Corrective Action and Superfund),
recalcitrant or financially marginal/bankrupt facilities, and financial assurance. Negative considerations
include: legal review, concerns about over-filing the states, threat of near-term delays due to facilities
appealing the order and stopping work, lack of enforceable language in permits and orders, lack of
adequate documentation of facility non-compliance to support enforcement actions, evidence that EPA
informally extended project schedules, limited time and resources to issue an order or build an
enforcement case, and lack of coordination between the RCRA Corrective Action division and the
Enforcement division. Enforcement culture can be positive or negative, depending on prevailing norms
within regions, states, and programs.
The interviews suggest that Region 2 is working to strike an appropriate balance across positive and
negative considerations in its enforcement approach. On one hand, enforcement can be useful for
compelling site investigation and cleanups. This is particularly true for interim status facilities, where
Corrective Action cannot proceed through a permit modification. Region 2 has also used negotiated
orders at facilities that change ownership or transfer property. For example, Region 2 recently issued a
3008(h) order for a site in Puerto Rico that sold off a parcel of land. Finally, orders may be useful for
compelling actions at sites that are not making adequate progress or are incapable of doing the work (e.g.,
bankrupt facilities). Region 2 managers also noted that the threat of enforcement can be useful for getting
facilities to the negotiating table. EPA Region 2 managers reported that the threat of enforcement is the
"800-pound gorilla" in the room - although other interviewees questioned whether the threat is credible
given how rarely the Region pulls the trigger. The data available do not track instances of effective (or
ineffective) coordination where EPA and states work together to encourage facilities to move faster to
avoid federal enforcement.
Region 2 managers and RPMs expressed a number of concerns related to the use of enforcement. Drafting
an order requires significant legal expertise, time, and resources, and can be especially time-consuming at
sites with long histories of collaborative management or state-lead activities. Even when the Corrective
Action program and enforcement were in the same division (which is no longer the case), the enforcement
branch was able to handle only a small number of Corrective Action orders per year. Part of the time
required is internal to EPA - i.e., drafting the order language.
In addition, negotiating AOCs with facilities can be time-consuming. The NESCA states that some
regions have successfully limited negotiation times by presenting facilities with the alternative of a
unilateral order, but this approach does not appear to be commonly used in Region 2. Beyond time and
resource constraints, the interviews raised concerns about coordination with states and sites. In New York
(fully authorized) and New Jersey (work-sharing agreement with EPA), RPMs are wary about "over-
filing" the state.46 This additional layer of coordination adds time and effort to the enforcement process.
RPMs also expressed concerns about issuing orders without prior agreement with facilities, because
* By "over-filing," we mean both the legal definition of over-filing from the RCRA Orientation Manual ("enforcing a provision for which a particular
state has authorization"), as well as the sentiment (expressed by managers and staff in Region 2) that EPA should consult with its state
counterparts before taking action at sites in those states.
3-44
-------
EXHIBIT 3-16. CONSIDERATIONS IN THE USE OF ENFORCEMENT
CONSIDERATIONS
IN THE USE OF
ENFORCEMENT
(+/-)
Streamlined consent
orders (+)
Compel site
investigation (+)
Integrated cleanup
authorities (+)
Recalcitrant or
bankrupt facilities (+)
Financial assurance
W
Legal review (-)
Over-filing / lack of
coordination with
states (-)
Facilities appeal/
delay action (-)
Lack of enforceable
language (-)
Lack of adequate
documentation (-)
Informally extend
schedules (-)
Limited time /
limited resources (-)
Lack of coordination
with Enforcement (-)
Enforcement culture
(+/-)
SOURCE
R3, RB, others
Ha R2, NJ,
others
NY, NJ, RB; and
R7, R8, R9, RIO
(perNESCA)
HQ, various
regions, R2
communities
HQ,RS
R2, R3, R7
R2, HQ
R2
HQ,R2
HQ,R2
HQ,R2
HQ,R2
R2, HQ
Ha R2, NY
CONTEXT
Preserve key provisions, but flexible
Large universe of sites (esp. in RB); time-
consuming to "reinvent the wheel"
Negotiated orders unlikely to be
challenged
Focus on performance/results, not
process
Can set deadlines for negotiations
Orders 3007 (information gathering) and
3013 (monitoring/testing) can compel RFI
NJ's Site Remediation Reform Act (SRRA)
requires sites to finish the RFI by May
2014
NY's consolidated cleanup program
integrates RCRA CA and SF orders
NJ SRRA covers RCRA CA, SF, and other
sites
R7,8,10 delegate CERCLA section 104e
(information request) to RCRA CA mgrs.
. R9 issued a joint RCRA 7003/CERCLA 106
order (imminent substantial danger)
Enhanced enforcement (e.g., CERCLA) may
be esp. useful for these types of facilities
Strongly suggested in the NESCA
May spur progress at "stuck" sites
NESCA suggests that regions have found
enforcement useful to ensure FA
RB's new model order has enhanced FA
Legal consultations slows down the
process
RCRA CA is a highly delegated program;
requires close coordination with states
NESCA emphasizes coordination across
EPA and with the states
Sites presented with an order may stop
work completely while they appeal
Critical to include enforceable language
and deadlines in orders and permits
If missed deadlines not well-documented,
may not be able to build a case
Informal extensions by EPA undermine
enforcement action for non-compliance
Significant expertise and time required to
prepare orders and enforcement cases
RCRA CA program needs to refer cases to
the Enforcement Division
Tradeoffs between enforcement vs.
cooperation with states and facilities
RCRA viewed by some as permit-driven
(not order-driven)
Stronger enforcement culture in SF
CONSIDERATIONS FOR REGION 2
Model language may save time and
resources in the long run
R2 has fewer sites than RB; "economies
of scale" may be limited
Preference for negotiated consent
orders vs. unilateral/enforcement
R2, HQ interested in this option
PR interested, but lacks resources
NJ law has penalties for not complying
with May 2014 deadline1
Consistent with R2's interest in using
orders to compel site investigation
Consistent with sr. mgt. priorities
Unilateral orders (e.g. CERCLA 106)
more difficult to issue than AOCs
EPA retains enforcement authority even
in authorized states
Concerned/frustrated citizens may
favor an enforcement approach
Requires clear determination (and
documentation) of recalcitrance
Lack of facility resources causes delays
in the CA process
Orders may help ensure FA
Limited staff with requisite expertise
R2 prioritizes cooperation with states
NY is fully authorized
Work-sharing agreement with NJ
Can take direct action in PR
RPMs concerned progress will cease
completely if enforcement taken
Lack of enforceable language makes
enforcement action difficult
R2's central files contain significant
gaps, missing information
R2's central files indicate that EPA
frequently grants extensions
Would be difficult to issue more than
five orders per year (per interviews)
RCRA CA and Enforcement are in two
separate divisions (except PR)
Sr. mgt. feels the CA program does not
value enforcement enough
RCRA CA mgrs. and staff concerned
about tradeoffs (over-filing, etc.)
Notes: (1) Facilities that do not comply with the May 2014 deadline will fall under direct NJDEP oversight. The sites will still need to hire
an LSRP, but NJDEP will be able to select the remedy and access the site's funding source for conducting the cleanup. NJDEP managers
believe this provides a strong incentive for facilities to comply with the law.
3-45
-------
facilities may stop work and enter a lengthy appeal process. Most RPMs would prefer to negotiate with
facilities than for the work to stop completely. A senior manager agreed, stating: "The [enforcement] tool
is available, but it's not our culture to use it when we've been having a dialogue with the company."
The collaborative approach that many RPMs take with their facilities reduces bureaucracy and delays, but
can also have the unintended consequence of undermining enforcement efforts. For example, several
RPMs stated that they prefer calling or emailing facilities, rather than issuing a formal letter. While this
approach may accelerate the process (at least in the short term), it has resulted in a lack of documentation
in the central project files. The lack of documentation makes it difficult to build a strong enforcement case
for a non-compliant company. Moreover, the documentation that does exist in the project files indicates
that EPA has in the past granted extensions to the project schedule with some frequency, in response to
requests from facilities. As various enforcement experts noted, this flexibility makes it difficult to argue
that a facility is being non-compliant.
The interviews also revealed philosophical differences about the use of enforcement at the senior
management level in Region 2. Top-level management is concerned that EPA is in a "paper chase" with
powerful and well-resourced companies, and sees enforcement as a tool that might bring closure to cases
that otherwise seem intractable. A similar sentiment was expressed by some community interviewees. On
the other hand, managers noted that RCRA, unlike Superfund, is a permit-based program and should only
use enforcement when it is not feasible to modify permits (interim status facilities, or facilities that are
making insufficient progress under a permit). At the same time, interviewees stated it is difficult to
include enforceable language in permits, especially given the distinction between the Corrective Action
program and the Enforcement division in Region 2 headquarters, and limited regional enforcement
resources. This particular issue does not apply in Puerto Rico, which combines the Corrective Action
program with Enforcement. However, some staff in the Puerto Rico office noted a difference of opinion
with the mainland about the use of streamlined orders, which the Puerto Rico office is interested in trying.
Level of Enforcement Activity in Region 2
Question 3 asks whether there are identifiable delays or cases of non-compliance that could have been
prevented by the issuance of an order or other enforcement action. Although we cannot answer this
question with any certainty, we asked experts and stakeholders in Region 2, EPA Headquarters, and
outside the Agency about the level of enforcement activity in the Region.47
The interviews identified differences of opinion within and across Region 2 regarding the adequate
level of enforcement activity. Region 2 division directors, managers, and RPMs indicated that the
current level of enforcement is appropriate, and added that most sites that are "good candidates" for
enforcement are already under an order. In contrast, other interviewees (internal and external to EPA
Region 2) stated that enforcement activity in the Region is lower than it could be. They indicated that,
in at least two cases, the Region has not taken enforcement action at sites that are good candidates.48
47 Question 3 considers the level of enforcement activity by EPA Region 2. It does not cover enforcement activity in New York and New Jersey. We
understand that New York has been relatively active with enforcement; however, we did not have the data or the mandate to explore New York's
enforcement activities in depth.
48 We do not know whether these two sites are currently under a state order.
3-46
-------
Some respondents perceived reluctance on the part of Region 2's Corrective Action program to refer non-
compliant facilities to the Enforcement division, particularly when facilities are in violation of their
schedules.
We consulted the Assessment of the National Enforcement Strategy for RCRA Corrective Action
(September 2012) for objective data on the level of enforcement activity since the NESCA was issued.
The NESCA Assessment found a notable increase in the number of enforcement actions issued in FY
2010 and 2011, following the dissemination of the NESCA in April 2010. During FYs 2010 and 2011,
EPA issued 43 orders that addressed Corrective Action. The report does not provide a breakdown of
orders by region; however, taking the simple average across the 10 regions suggests that each region
issued four to five Corrective Action orders, on average, during FY 2010-11. In contrast, Region 2
issued only one Corrective Action order during this two-year period. The one order that Region 2 issued
was not entirely "new," rather it modified an existing order at a facility in Puerto Rico to reflect new site
conditions. More recently, Region 2 issued one Corrective Action order in early FY 2013, and planned to
issue a second order by September 2013.49
To summarize, the interviews suggest that opinion is mixed about the use of enforcement. While no one
suggested that Region 2 should dramatically increase its enforcement activities, interviewees cited two
specific cases that they felt would be good candidates for enforcement. The interviews further indicated
that in any given year, there may be a few cases that would merit active consideration for enforcement.
Enforcement for Corrective Action in Region 5
Next, we look beyond Region 2 to the experience in Region 5. OSRE and Region 2 identified Region 5 as
a leader in enforcement, both in terms of the volume of enforcement actions taken and in using innovative
enforcement approaches. We interviewed Region 5 program managers and legal counsel to understand the
Region's approach to enforcement. The rest of this section summarizes Region 5's experience,
highlighting lessons that may be useful for Region 2.
Region 5 uses a performance-based model order; this differs from most other regions (including Region
2's older orders) which tend to focus on schedule and production of key investigations and reports, rather
than achievement of site remediation goals. The Region developed the original version of the order in
1999 as a streamlined, performance-based order. Specifically, Region 5's model 3008(h) order was meant
to avoid "reinventing the wheel" every time the Region negotiated an order. The model order included
more streamlined language and fewer penalties than a traditional order, and was simpler to negotiate and
execute. The model order emphasized performance over administrative process. In addition, it enabled
Region 5 to modify various components of the scope of work later on without reopening the entire order
to negotiation. Although the order could be issued at any point in the Corrective Action process, it proved
easier to issue a new order than to amend existing orders. Region 5 identified the following factors
affecting the Region's decision to pursue a streamlined order:50
Compliance/enforcement history of the facility
49 These orders are not for the two cases that other interviewees identified as good enforcement candidates.
50 Corrective Action Streamlined Consent Orders, Power Point presentation by Bob Greaves and Deb Goldblum (Region 3) and Tom Kruger (Region
5), undated. Region 3 borrowed and adapted Region 5's streamlined order.
3-47
-------
Status of Corrective Action/investigative activity at the facility
Cooperativeness, technical capability, and financial capability of the company
Complexity of the facility
Motivation of the facility to move forward quickly
Assessment of how much of the process can be expedited
State acceptance
Litigation risk of conventional approach
Public interest
Other factors
According to Region 5, the order was successful in helping some sites progress through the process faster
than under other approaches. At the same time, however, the Region has learned from its experience with
a variety of facilities over the course of more than a decade. In 2012, Region 5 revised its model order
based on its experience. The new model order is still performance-based, but is less streamlined than the
previous version. Specifically, the new model order makes three changes from the previous streamlined
order:
Requires Agency review and approval, and public participation, for interim measures. Like
Region 2, Region 5 found that interim measures often become the final remedy. Therefore, the
Region seeks to ensure adequate Agency review and public participation for IMs. The new model
order assures formal Agency involvement in determining IMs, and requires public participation
for large or otherwise significant IMs.
Clarifies EPA's approval authority and enhances enforceability. The new model order
includes a section describing EPA's review and approval authority. It includes more enforceable
language and strengthens the overall enforceability of the order, which is in keeping with the
NESCA guidance.
Requires financial assurance earlier in the process. Region 5 found that some companies
incurred significant costs on the investigation and interim remedies, and might not have had
adequate financial assurance if financial difficulties surfaced during the final remedy
design/construction stage. The new model order requires an estimate of financial assurance earlier
in the process.
In addition to its performance-based order, Region 5 uses other enforcement authorities, as warranted,
depending on the nature of each facility. Although the Region prefers to use AOCs, it has issued a few
unilateral orders. Region 5 has also used CERCLA authorities to address issues at some Corrective
Action sites. Overall, Region 5's experience highlights EPA's flexibility to use innovative enforcement
tools to accomplish Corrective Action cleanups. It also points to tradeoffs that Region 2 may wish to
consider as it assesses its own enforcement activities.
Central File Reviews
We examined the project files for any additional insights that may not have been captured in RCRAInfo
or reported in interview sessions. We did not find any instances where sites outright refused to comply
3-48
-------
with requirements, although we did identify delays as noted in Question 1C above. In keeping with the
NESCA's definition of a "stuck" site, we paid particular attention to sites with gaps in documentation of
three years or longer.51 As discussed in Question 1C above, at half the sites that we reviewed (10 of 20
sites), we found instances where was there was no documentation for at least three years. However, as
also noted above, the absence of documentation for three years does not prove that sites failed to make
meaningful progress. Progress may have been made but not documented, or documented in a less formal
manner (e.g., email) that did not make its way into the filing system. Also, the majority of interactions
between RPMs and facilities (and associated files) are likely occurring at the state level; particularly in
New York, it may be the case that EPA's oversight role limits the extent of the correspondence and
documentation in EPA's central file. We also found multiple instances where EPA granted extensions to
deadlines. Unfortunately for enforcement purposes, limited documentation is problematic regardless of
the cause. Poor documentation of facility non-compliance - or information in the files showing that EPA
let the facility extend the schedule - constrains EPA's ability to make a strong case for enforcement.
To summarize the findings for Question 3, our analysis suggests that Region 2 is weighing a variety of
positive and negative considerations about when and how to use enforcement for Corrective Action.
While enforcement is not appropriate in every situation, the interview results suggest there are several
cases that would be good candidates for federal enforcement, either to support state efforts or in absence
of them. To do this, Region 2 would need to address issues pertaining to adequate documentation and
approved extensions. Region 5's experience with enforcement provides insights that may be useful to
Region 2 as it considers how to exercise its enforcement authority.
51 The NESCA directs EPA to consider using enforcement at facilities that have not made any meaningful progress over the past three years. In
calculating the three-year statistic, we looked for sites where there was a complete lack of documentation for three years or more. We did not
attempt to make a subjective determination as to whether the existing documentation evidenced "meaningful" progress.
3-49
-------
QUESTION 4: BENCHMARKING WITH OTHER REGIONS: HOW DOES THE EFFICIENCY OF REGION 2'S
PROGRAM COMPARE TO OTHER REGIONS?
This evaluation question focuses on the performance of Region 2's Corrective Action program in the
national context. While sites and state programs vary considerably across EPA regions, it can be
informative to consider how Region 2's program compares to other regions in identifying potential areas
for improvement.
lEc addresses this question in two parts. We first use existing data collected by ORCRto examine Region
2's performance in a number of key metrics relative to other regions. This provides a clear and simple
overall comparison of Region 2 to all other EPA regions.
To supplement this general assessment, we also examine information from the Lean workshop and
streamlining effort undertaken by Regions 3 and 7 to improve the Corrective Action process as it is
implemented in those regions. This includes attendance by lEc at the Region 3 and 7 Lean Event, as well
as follow-on discussions and data collection with Region 3 and 7 representatives, and information from
interviews with Region 2 staff.
Together the findings provide an overview of Region 2's performance and may help determine whether
region-specific conditions or broader program structure might be the best focus for any efforts to improve
the program.
Summary of Key Findings for Question 4
^ Regional benchmarking data show that Region 2 appears to have a profile or result that is similar
to the other regions, or that falls somewhere in the middle of the distribution with respect to
features of the program (e.g., number of GPRA 2020 sites) and progress.
x The processes, challenges, and site features identified through the Lean Event activities confirm
that Region 2's overall experience is consistent with that of Regions 3 and 7.
A The forthcoming results of the Lean implementation effort - including the Corrective Action
Facility Agreement, the incentive structure, outreach materials, and updated permit/order
language - may provide insights that could be relevant to Region 2's efforts.
General Benchmarking Data: Region 2 and other EPA Regions
With the assistance of staff in EPA's ORCR, lEc reviewed a number of internal documents that present
the structure and performance of Corrective Action programs at a regional level, focusing on the GPRA
2020 universe of facilities. While the data are not yet publicly available and cannot be presented in detail,
they are structured from several ORCR analyses of RCRAInfo data and GPRA reporting information.
Overall, the data provided demonstrate that Region 2 does not appear to be a significant outlier in any of
the key metrics considered. Specifically, the data examined:
The number of facilities in the GPRA 2020 universe;
The distribution of sites by size;
3-50
-------
The years in which current sites were added to the 2020 universe;
The distribution of sites by industry sector;
The urban/rural site breakdown;
The number and distribution of sites achieving key milestones (e.g., CA 725, or human exposure
environmental indicator; CA 550, or remedy construction complete; and CA 900/CA999, or
cleanups completed); and
Time intervals in achieving key metrics such as human exposure environmental indicators.
While the results are preliminary and we cannot provide the detailed findings, for each of these metrics,
Region 2 appears to have a profile or result that is similar to the other regions, or that falls somewhere
in the middle of the distribution. This is true both for metrics that examine features of the program
(e.g., number ofGPRA 2020 sites) and for metrics examining progress. Only in the percentage of urban
facilities does the Region appear to be higher than all other regions, though even in this the overall
distribution of urban and non-urban facilities is fairly even across regions.
In short, our review of the regional data provided by ORCR did not reveal any specific areas in which
Region 2 appears to be very different from other EPA regions. This suggests that the experiences and
challenges that Region 2 has had with its Corrective Action program are similar to the experiences and
challenges encountered by other regions, and that region-specific factors are not creating notable
differences between Region 2 and other regions. The data is consistent with qualitative information
gleaned in interviews with Headquarters ORCR and EPA Region 2 senior management, who stated that
the issues facing Region 2's Corrective Action program are not unique to the Region.
Specific Regional Activities: Regions 3 and 7 Lean Event and Related Streamlining Efforts
In February 2013, Regions 3 and 7 conducted a Lean Event in Washington, DC that brought together
EPA Headquarters staff, regional staff, state program staff, and representatives of states, responsible
parties, and consultants. The event was developed to address a concern by Regions 3 and 7 that the
Corrective Action process, particularly during the RFI and CMS stages, is taking too long to complete.
The goal of this effort was to map the RFI and CMS processes for these two regions, and to identify
options for streamlining the RFI phase. The Lean Event produced a number of recommended actions that
are currently being piloted in the two regions. lEc staff attended the Lean Event and, in June 2013, spoke
with staff from Regions 3 and 7 who are charged with implementing the recommendations of the event.
Below we summarize the Corrective Action profiles in Regions 3 and 7, present key results and activities
of the Lean Event, and discuss the extent to which findings may be relevant to Region 2.
Like Region 2, Regions 3 and 7 include a mix of authorized and unauthorized states. The number of
GPRA 2020 Corrective Action sites in Region 2 falls between Region 7 (which has fewer sites) and
Region 3 (which has more sites). In terms of progress, the percentage of sites in Region 2 that have
achieved their human exposure and groundwater Els are roughly in line with the percentages in Regions 3
and 7:
EPA Region 3 includes Delaware, the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia,
and West Virginia. Delaware, Virginia, and West Virginia are fully authorized to conduct
Corrective Action; Maryland, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia are not authorized.
Region 3 has 588 facilities in its 2020 Corrective Action Universe, compared to 332 facilities in
3-51
-------
Region 2. Currently, 79 percent of Region 3's sites have met the human exposure El and 72
percent have achieved the groundwater El. By way of comparison, approximately 73 percent of
Region 2's sites have met the human exposure El and 64 percent have met the groundwater El.
By the end of FY 2012, 41 percent of sites in Region 3 had completed remedy construction,
compared to 31 percent in Region 2.
EPA Region 7 includes Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska. Missouri is the only state in
Region 7 authorized to implement the Corrective Action program. Region 7 has 205 facilities in
its 2020 Corrective Action universe, making it smaller than Region 2. Currently, 76 percent of
Region 7's sites have reached the human exposure El and 70 percent have reached the
groundwater El. We did not find any publicly available data on the number of sites in Region 7
that have constructed a remedy.
In February 2013, Regions 3 and 7 held a Lean Event to streamline the Corrective Action process,
particularly the RFI phase. The central finding of the Lean Event was that the Corrective Action process
in Regions 3 and 7 is slowed by the need for extensive (sometimes multiple) reviews by EPA and
resubmissions by the responsible party for each product in the RFI and CMS. This is often driven by
differing and evolving expectations and differences in tolerance for uncertainty among all parties. These
findings were echoed in interviews conducted for the Region 2 evaluation, including: long (sometimes
multiple) review processes, an overly "process-heavy" approach, and a risk-averse Agency culture.
The Lean Event participants agreed that the need for revisions to RFI work plans and studies could be
reduced by early agreement on clean-up objectives and site investigation approaches among EPA, states,
and responsible parties, and on better tools for tracking and sharing information throughout the process.
Recommended actions stemming from the Lean Event include the following:
Develop and pilot-test a Corrective Action Facility Agreement (CAFA). A CAFA is designed
to begin the Corrective Action process, but could be introduced at any stage. It is currently under
development, but is anticipated to be a short agreement, signed by representatives of EPA, states,
and responsible parties, which will document the key parameters of the site investigation and the
general goals for site remediation. This will reduce uncertainty about the extent of investigations
and proposed remediation later in the process, though the agreement will be crafted to adapt to
new findings (e.g., discovery of new contamination). The CAFA will be negotiated at a "CAFA
meeting" involving the RPM, state counterpart, facility, legal counsel (if needed), technical
experts (hydrologists, toxicologists), and potentially EPA management.
Formalize model permit/order language to increase effectiveness. Coupled with the CAFA,
the regions agreed that more standard and well-crafted language in permits and orders could help
guide the process; general or vague permit language often contributes to uncertainty in the
process by failing to establish accountability for quality projects and clear schedules.
Introduce incentives to speed the process. The regions are tasked with proposing and testing
incentives to help encourage a shift toward the CAFA and streamlined site management. These
are not final, but could include reallocating the workload for project managers that prepare the
CAFA; this recognizes that the CAFA will require significant time and planning in the initial
stages. Participants also noted that a broader cultural change will have to occur in their regions to
ensure that project managers embrace the new process.
3-52
-------
Regions 3 and 7 are currently in the process of designing the CAFA and crafting the communication and
implementation processes to accompany the new structure. In interviews regional staff noted that they are
focusing on clarifying the relationship between CAFAs and enforcement tools. The CAFA itself is not an
enforceable document as conceived, but instead provides a record of agreement to guide actions by all
parties. Regional staff also noted that interest in the process is very high among responsible parties who
want to move quickly on site completion, and that they are developing criteria to identify sites that would
benefit most from the process. Finally, a key implementation step will be working with states to adopt the
process. Both delegated and work-share states in the two regions must separately agree to integrate the
CAFA into their methods to ensure its success.
Both the Lean Event itself and subsequent activities by Regions 3 and 7 provide several insights relevant
to the benchmarking effort for Region 2:
The processes mapped at the Lean Event demonstrated the variability and complexity of the
Corrective Action process; data collected from Region 2 portray a similar complexity, with many
of the same issues extending schedules (e.g., lack of clear permit language, need for technical
review, and staff turnover).
While the Lean Event did not assess the variability of site progression and timing (the event
aimed instead to characterize a "75th-percentile" site in the regions), the data and discussions at
the event, supported by data from ORCR, indicate that Region 2's experience with the time
required for site cleanup is similar.
Participants at the Lean Event noted that enforcement can either speed or slow progress at a site,
and only a subset of sites are "good candidates" for enforcement. The event specifically excluded
discussion of enforcement efforts to limit the complexity of the process map.
Coordination with states (both delegated states and states with work-share agreements) is a key
management priority both in the current process and in successfully implementing the CAFA.
In general, the processes, challenges, and various site features identified through the Lean activities
confirm that Region 2's overall experience is consistent with that of Regions 3 and 7. This suggests that
the forthcoming results of the CAFA implementation effort, including the CAFA itself, the incentive
structure, outreach materials, and updated permit/order language, may provide insights that could be
relevant to Region 2's efforts to improve site efficiency.
3-53
-------
QUESTION 5: IS THE REGION'S SELECTION OF INTERIM CORRECTIVE MEASURES AND FINAL
REMEDIES CONSISTENT WITH NATIONAL GUIDELINES AND DIRECTIVES? IS THE REGION
CONSIDERING INTERIM OR FINAL REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES BEYOND THOSE PROPOSED BY
FACILITIES (E.G., AN INTERIM MEASURE DIFFERENT FROM THE ONE PROPOSED BY THE FACILITY,
A FINAL REMEDY DIFFERENT THAN THE FACILITY'S PREFERRED FINAL REMEDY, OR
ENHANCEMENTS TO THE FACILITY'S PREFERRED FINAL REMEDY), AS NECESSARY?
This question aims to understand whether Region 2 and the RPMs are following a process that truly
evaluates what is needed to protect human health and the environment, rather than approving sites'
proposed remedies by default. RCRAInfo does not include an event code for when EPA rejects a
proposed interim or final remedy. Therefore, we obtained this information from other data sources,
including guidance documents, interviews, and file reviews.
We note also that the Lean Event with Regions 3 and 7 identified a tension between process efficiency
and extensive or repeated review cycles during the RFI and CMS stages. We were therefore attentive both
to the concern about the appropriateness and stringency of final remedies, and to the potential impact of
additional remedies and review cycles on the efficiency of the process as identified in Question 1.
Summary of Key Findings for Question 5
x EPA guidance emphasizes environmental protectiveness, while noting the need to balance
environmental concerns with cost, feasibility, and land-use considerations.
A Region 2 is focused on protecting human health and the environment. Interviews with
stakeholders in and outside the Agency found mixed opinion about the remedy selection process.
x We found general agreement on the effectiveness of interim measures in addressing the most
pressing environmental conditions at sites. EPA guidance stresses that interim measures should
be stringent enough to become the final remedy, although it can take years to determine the final
remedy after the IMs are achieved.
A EPA Region 2, New York, and New Jersey often follow a process that effectively selects the
remedy before the CMS stage begins: Region 2 and New York emphasize interim measures, and
New Jersey seeks to emphasize presumptive remedies.
A Some community stakeholders and facilities feel that Region 2 has focused on environmental
stringency and has not given adequate consideration to other priorities, including anticipated site
use and economic needs in the community.
A The project files suggest that EPA frequently "pushes back" on deliverables; it does not appear
that Region 2 is "rubber stamping" facilities' studies and proposals.
Guidance Documents
As a first step in answering this question, we consulted Agency guidance for selecting remedies. We
looked primarily at the 1996 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. To document any changes that
may have taken place in the guidance since 1996, we also reviewed the 2009 Getting to retraining
manual. Although the two documents were prepared 13 years apart, the basic principles for selecting
interim and final remedies have stayed fairly constant for more than a decade. Overall, the guidance
3-54
-------
highlights the need for environmental stringency, balanced by considerations about feasibility,
reliability, cost, and process time.
Key principles include:
RCRA and CERCLA should operate consistently and result in similar environmental solutions
when faced with similar circumstances.
Use treatment, engineering controls, and institutional controls (in this order) to address
contamination, but balance environmental stringency against efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
Consider threshold criteria and balancing criteria in selecting remedies.
o Threshold criteria include: (1) protect human health and the environment; (2) attain
media cleanup standards; (3) control the source of releases to eliminate (to the extent
practicable) further releases that might threaten human health and the environment; and
(4) comply with waste management standards.
o Balancing criteria include: (1) long-term reliability and effectiveness; (2) reduction of
toxicity, mobility, or volume of waste; (3) short-term effectiveness; (4) feasibility; and
(5) cost.
Use interim measures as early in the process as possible to stabilize site conditions.
Presumptive remedies52 should be used at all appropriate sites to help ensure consistency in
remedy selection and implementation, and to reduce cost and time at similar types of sites.
Consider presumptive remedies developed under the Superfund program as potential remedies at
appropriate RCRA Corrective Action facilities.
In cases where EPA has identified a presumptive remedy, the purpose of the CMS should be to
confirm that the presumptive remedy is appropriate to facility-specific conditions. In cases where
EPA or a state is using performance standards or a similar approach, the Agency might not
require submission or approval of a formal CMS at all.
The CMS and RFI may be combined for: (1) "low risk" facilities, (2) facilities that have proposed
removal remedies; (3) facilities with straightforward remedial solutions or where presumptive
remedies can be applied; (4) facilities where few remedial options are available; and (5) facilities
where the remedy is phased.
Consider using innovative technology that offers comparable or superior performance, less
adverse impact, or lower costs for acceptable levels of performance.
Consider the site's anticipated future use, and consider updating the remedy over time as the use
changes, or as more-effective solutions become available.
52 "Presumptive remedies are preferred technologies for common categories of sites, based on historical patterns of remedy selection and EPA's
scientific and engineering evaluation of performance data on technology implementation. The Agency expects that presumptive remedies will be
used at all appropriate sites, including RCRA facilities, to help ensure consistency in remedy selection and implementation and to reduce the cost
and time required to investigate and remediate similar types of sites." Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for RCRA Corrective Action Regulations, May
1, 1996.
3-55
-------
The guidance further underscores the importance of taking timely interim measures to address serious
threats to human health and the environment. It also underscores the flexibility inherent in the process
- for example, by combining the CMS and RFI, eliminating the CMS phase, and/or using presumptive
remedies. Further, the guidance encourages remedies that reflect the anticipated use of the site and
respond to changing site uses and/or new technologies. In the following section, we summarize the
interview findings about whether Region 2's remedy decisions are consistent with the guidance.
Interviews
We interviewed EPA Region 2 senior management, division directors, program managers, and RPMs;
state program managers; community stakeholders; and facilities about Region 2's remedy selection
process. Key interview findings include the following:
EPA Region 2 is focused on protecting human health and the environment. Region 2 division
directors and managers are focused on the environmental stringency of remedies. Although the
process may take a long time, they noted that environmental protectiveness is their primary goal.
Some community stakeholders suggested that Region 2 provides greater oversight, and seeks
more protective remedies, than the states.
Opinions on the remedy selection process are mixed. Some respondents are comfortable that
the program is achieving quality remedies, but others expressed concerns that lack of technical
resources and overall resource constraints may be preventing the Agency from achieving
remedies that are fully protective. This may be a particular concern in the Puerto Rico office,
which has a mix of experienced and newer staff. Across EPA Region 2, a consequence of this
concern is that the Agency spends significant time reviewing technical studies and proposed
remedies to ensure they are not "missing something."
Opinions about the effectiveness of remedies at the state level also vary. Some community
stakeholders indicated that remedies at state-lead sites were not stringent enough; others voiced
concerns about the level of oversight and technological sophistication - in particular, concerns
that the Agency was slow to respond to vapor intrusion (VI) problems.53 Finally, several
community stakeholders expressed concerns that they did not have substantive input into remedy
selection decisions. As discussed in Question 6 below, public notice and comment typically occur
at the end of the CMS phase, after completion of the site investigation and corrective measures
study. For their part, RPMs noted the need for balancing efficiency concerns with public
participation, which can delay the process of approving a final remedy.
Region 2 has emphasized interim measures; approaches to the CMS vary at the federal and
state level. EPA Region 2 program managers indicated that IMs are the most effective part of the
cleanup process, and are in some ways even more important than cleaning up sites for final use.
The use of IMs is consistent with Agency guidance, which calls for taking action as soon as
possible to stabilize site conditions. Region 2's guidance is that IMs should be sufficiently
protective that they could ultimately become the final remedy. New York has also made
53 The issue of VI is complicated by advances in technology. It appears that at some sites, concerns that the Agency should have addressed VI
problems more quickly may be valid, but the science on VI has evolved in recent years. Older IMs and final remedies that predate the more-recent
knowledge about VI need to be revised, but they were not necessarily the "wrong" remedies at the time they were selected.
3-56
-------
significant use of interim measures, although some sites that began the process decades ago have
not yet reached a final remedy decision. New Jersey has focused on presumptive remedies and
has deemphasized the CMS as part of its process; however, GPRA 2020 sites are receiving
enhanced state scrutiny per agreement with Region 2. EPA Region 2 has not been comfortable
with presumptive remedies, although this option seems to fit within existing Agency guidance.
Some community stakeholders and facilities feel that Region 2 has focused on
environmental stringency, and has not given adequate consideration to other priorities,
including anticipated land use and economic needs in the community. As discussed in greater
detail under Question 6 below, some community and facility stakeholders expressed concerns that
EPA and state agencies have not given due consideration to the community's preferences and/or
the economic interests of the site developer, and generally have not taken a holistic long-term
view of the site's anticipated use. One respondent suggested that EPA accepted a less-than-ideal
remedy proposed by the initial site owner, and was not amenable to adopting a newer and more
effective remedy that would help achieve the new owner's vision for the site.
Central File Review
The file review indicates how often the lead agency comments on documents and plans proposed by the
facilities. Of the 232 documents that we reviewed in which the lead agency commented on a document
provided by the RP, the agency approved just 58, or 25 percent, without comment.54 Many of these
instances were documents that already went through one or more rounds of comment. Of the remaining
174 occurrences in which the lead agency provided comment, the lead agency provided minor comments
or approved the document contingent upon one or more comments 28 times. In the remaining 146
instances, or approximately 63 percent of the total opportunities for review, the lead agency provided
comments and would not approve the document until the comments were incorporated. Thus, it is clear
that the lead agency does not typically "rubber stamp" facilities' studies and proposals.
While this analysis provides some indication on how frequently agencies push back on facilities, it does
not necessarily speak to the actual stringency of the IMs and final remedies. It may be that agency
comments are typically minor tweaks to the same basic remedies proposed by the facilities, or that the
comments are administrative in nature. A more detailed analysis of Region 2's files would be necessary to
gauge whether the lead agencies are substantially affecting the stringency of IMs and final remedies
through their review of facility plans. Moreover, repeated rounds of review and feedback may reflect the
absence of upfront agreement on key objectives for the site, RPM turnover, or lack of shared
understanding between the facility and the agency.
Overall, the findings suggest that EPA Region 2 is paying close attention to the quality of remedy
decisions, particularly in light of concerns about the program's technical capacity and resources. At the
same time, EPA Region 2 needs to balance environmental stringency with efficiency, technical feasibility,
land-use consideration, and the needs of communities. Interim measures support pressing environmental
objectives and short-term efficiency, and frequently become the final remedy - although it can take years
or even decades to issue a final remedy decision. However, interim measures are typically not as strong
M We did not limit our analysis exclusively to IMs and final remedies, but also considered other instances where EPA was in a position to approve or
reject deliverables. Limiting the analysis solely to proposed IMs and final remedies would have significantly reduced the number of data points in
our analysis, and therefore would have limited our ability to draw conclusions based on the data.
3-57
-------
on public participation, and may not reflect a clear vision for returning the site to its anticipated use.
Question 6 below provides additional insight into community stakeholders' perceptions of the Corrective
Action program.
3-58
-------
QUESTION 6: WHAT IS THE OPINION OF VARIOUS STAKEHOLDERS ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
THE RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM? WHAT ARE THEIR VIEWS ON PUBLIC PARTICIPATION?
Question 6 addresses opinions about the effectiveness of the program and views on public participation.
As a first step in answering Question 6, we turn to EPA's guidance on public participation, and the
Corrective Action process map, which illustrates when the program typically conducts public outreach
activities. Our assessment of the quality of public participation is primarily qualitative, drawing on
interviews with non-governmental organizations (NGOs), public officials in communities with Corrective
Action sites, facilities, EPA managers and public affairs staff, and state program managers. In addition,
we summarize relevant preliminary findings from lEc's separate evaluation of EPA's Community
Engagement Initiative (CEI), which included a number of interviews with Corrective Action stakeholders
in Region 2 and EPA's nine other regions. Finally, we consult the project files for additional insight into
the nature and extent of community outreach.
Guidance
As a first step in answering Question 6, we consulted EPA's RCRA Public Participation Manual: 1996
Edition. The manual includes requirements as well as recommended practices. As noted elsewhere
throughout this chapter, Corrective Action can proceed by permit action or administrative order; public
outreach is required for the former but not the latter, although the Agency strongly encourages public
outreach in either case. In Region 2, EPA conducts public outreach for both sites with permits and sites
with orders. Under the permit process, public participation is required in at least two cases: when the
schedule of compliance is added to the permit, and when the permit is modified at the end of the
Corrective Action process. Under both an order and permit, the public should be allowed to comment
prior to a final remedy decision being issued. In addition, the guidance encourages the Agency to
provide opportunities for public input throughout the Corrective Action process, starting in the facility
assessment and investigation phases. The Manual also suggests tailoring public participation based on the
complexities of individual sites and the needs of surrounding communities.
Process Map
Exhibit 3-1, presented at the beginning of this chapter, illustrates the Corrective Action process in Region
2. Exhibit 3-1 also identifies the steps in the process where public participation typically occurs. As
shown in the process map, public notice and comment typically occur at the end of the CMS phase, prior
to the final remedy approval. This is consistent with the requirements described in the RCRA Public
Participation Manual. The process map also illustrates where public participation does not typically occur
- i.e., during the investigation phase and prior to selecting IMs. IMs can occur at any time in the
process, and although they often become the final remedy retroactively, there is not usually the same
level of public involvement for selecting IMs as for approving the final remedy. If IMs are designated
retroactively as the final remedy, the measures would typically be raised for public comment near the end
of the CMS phase. However, it may take years or even decades after the IM was implemented to reach
this point in the process. For unusually complex or highly visible sites, EPA Region 2 conducts additional
outreach throughout the process, which is also in keeping with the guidance to tailor community outreach
to the needs of the community. However, this more-intensive outreach is an exception to the norm.
3-59
-------
Summary of Key Findings for Question 6
-^ EPA Region 2 is meeting, and in some cases exceeding, the basic requirements for public
participation.
A The majority of Corrective Actions, including public participation, are conducted by the states.
x Most public outreach occurs at the end of the CMS phase, after the remedial investigation and
corrective measures study, and before approving the final remedy.
x Interim measures, which can occur at any time during the process, may or may not involve public
comment, depending on the nature of the IM and the potential impact on the affected community.
Although IMs are often determined to be the final remedy retroactively, it may take years or even
decades before IMs are raised for public comment at the end of the CMS phase.
x The interview findings for Region 2 suggest that, while a few Corrective Action sites generate
very high levels of public interest, the vast majority of sites generate little or no interest. Most
public outreach is conducted in response to concerns voiced by the public.
A Even in communities where the program has conducted significant public outreach efforts,
communities do not feel they have had substantive input into the decision-making process.
Community members expressed concerns that they were not engaged earlier in the process, such
as during the site investigation and remedy selection phase; by the time they were brought into
the process near the end of the CMS phase, the scope of the investigation and potential remedies
were already effectively decided. Others stated the community's priorities did not always align
with the objectives of the lead environmental agency (EPA or state agency).
A Preliminary findings from lEc's separate evaluation of EPA's Community Engagement Initiative
found similar issues relating to public participation in Region 2 and EPA's other nine regions.
The CEI evaluation found that communities hold mixed opinions on the quality of the technical
assistance that they received. Most interview respondents in the CEI evaluation cited limited
resources as a barrier to meeting community technical assistance needs within the RCRA
Corrective Action program - an observation echoed by Region 2.
x Our file review suggests that EPA and state-lead agencies adhere to the requirement to issue
public notices. Beyond what is required or otherwise performed by the agencies at major
milestones, the facilities conducted most of the public outreach at the sites that we reviewed.
While the Corrective Action process is basically the same at the federal and state level, we did notice
some differences in the relative emphasis that EPA, New York, and New Jersey give to public
participation. New York's emphasis is similar to Region 2's; however, with the recent merger of New
York's Corrective Action and Superfund programs, the state is conducting more initial outreach (which is
more typical of the Superfund program) at sites where they anticipate significant public interest. New
Jersey has a different focus. As discussed under Question 1A, New Jersey has sought to deemphasize the
CMS phase, focusing instead on presumptive remedies that meet the state's threshold for environmental
stringency. Deemphasizing the formal CMS phase reduces opportunities for public participation, because
3-60
-------
public outreach typically occurs at the end of the CMS. However, New Jersey's program does aim to
communicate with communities early in the process in cases that are likely to generate significant interest.
Interviews
We consulted EPA Region 2 managers and staff, state program managers, and community and business
stakeholders in Region 2. Looking across the interviews, we offer the following insights about public
participation and the perceived effectiveness of the program in Region 2:
While a few Corrective Action sites generate very high levels of public interest, the vast
majority of sites generate little or no interest. A few sites have generated very high levels of
public interest, and EPA has devoted significant public affairs resources to these communities.
This has included establishing community advisory groups and conducting regular public
meetings, along the lines more typical of the Superfund program. However, this is not typical for
Corrective Action. Several interview respondents stated that most RCRA Corrective Action sites
do not generate any public interest. Most interview respondents noted that communities are only
interested in sites when they perceive a threat to their health and well-being; typically this occurs
with offsite groundwater contamination, vapor intrusion, and plume migration. When issues are
contained within the boundaries of the site, or when the site is in a heavy industrial area,
communities tend to be less interested.
Region 2 uses a variety of public outreach methods, including fact sheets, press releases, public
meetings, and Twitter updates. In addition, as discussed under Question 7 below, transferring
most of the Caribbean Corrective Action sites from the New York office to the Puerto Rico
office resulted in the assigned Corrective Action staff being closer to the local community.
Overall, however, the Region reports that even where it has tried to conduct substantial public
outreach, uptake has been limited. In one community, for example, EPA organized a public
meeting with simultaneous translation, and only two members of the public attended.
Some NGO stakeholders suggested that the public would be more interested if they were more
fully aware of the environmental issues in their communities. They noted that Corrective Action
is a very complicated, and not well-understood, program, which poses barriers for effective
public participation. Because the program is relatively unknown, Corrective Action sites
typically generate less community interest than designated Superfund sites - even though the
contamination at Corrective Action sites may be equally serious. Some stakeholders suggested
that if the communities were better-informed about the situation, they would take a more active
interest in the cleanup process. Many (though not all) interview respondents felt that EPA was
forthcoming with information; in contrast, they expressed frustration about their difficulties
obtaining relevant information from state environmental agencies.
At the regional level, most public outreach is conducted in response to concerns voiced by
the public; Region 2 does not usually conduct the initial outreach typical of Superfund.
Most interview respondents, including staff in the EPA Region 2 office, stated that public affairs
efforts for Corrective Action sites are generally reactive. That is, EPA conducts public outreach
in response to interest expressed by the communities. Large community engagement efforts are
driven by environmental groups and concerned citizens, or by the facilities themselves. This can
largely be explained by the fact that there are no resources allocated for EPA Region 2 to
conduct public outreach at RCRA sites. EPA depends in large part on the states to conduct public
3-61
-------
outreach at the sites for which it has the lead, and pulls from limited staff resources to engage in
full and meaningful public engagement at sites with significantly affected communities. The
situation is somewhat different in New York, where the program is more able to conduct
outreach in response to anticipated public interest.
Even in communities where the program has conducted significant public outreach efforts,
communities do not feel they have had substantive input into the decision-making process.
We interviewed several community members - including concerned citizens, NGOs, and public
officials - in communities that have received significant public outreach from EPA and/or state
environmental agencies. While the interview respondents acknowledged the sustained high level
of engagement by these agencies, nearly all felt that the community's input did not substantively
affect the decision-making process. Specifically, community members felt that information and
decisions flowed from the environmental agency to the community, but not from the community
to the agency. Community stakeholders expressed concerns that they were not engaged earlier in
the process, during the site investigation and remedy selection phase, and by the time they were
brought into the process, the scope of the investigation and potential remedies were already
decided. Some community members also expressed concern that EPA and the states deliberately
used IMs to circumvent the need for public input. They stated that these interim measures were
negotiated "behind closed doors" by the lead agencies and the facility, and felt that subsequent
public outreach was perfunctory. In this regard, it should be noted that Region 5 has recently
required facilities to conduct public outreach during the IM stage as part of its revised model
order. Similarly, New York expressed interest in conducting outreach during the RFI stage,
which would be consistent with the Superfund approach.
Moreover, some interview respondents reported that their community's priorities did not always
align with the lead agency's priorities. For example, one individual noted that remedial actions
taken in her community "devastated" the town's landscape and character, and that the "cure" was
worse than the environmental problems it was meant to address. The remedy required soil
removal at homes in the surrounding community; however, the lead agency consented to allow
homeowners to choose whether or not to accept the remedy, following strong public expressions
of dissatisfaction. This particular community also did not agree with the state environmental
agency's focus on returning the groundwater on the industrial site to drinking water-level
standards. Similarly, a facility owner in another community reported that the "stigma" of being
on a contaminated site had prevented investment and job creation in the community.
Overall, community stakeholders indicated a higher level of satisfaction with EPA than with
state environmental agencies. However, they felt that EPA frequently deferred to the state
agencies, and in some cases, to facilities. This perception may also help explain why relatively
few communities express interest in the process: According to several interview respondents, the
perception that public input will not influence the Agency's decisions in a meaningful way may
discourage citizens from getting or staying involved in the Corrective Action process.
Resource constraints limit Region 2's ability to conduct more comprehensive public
outreach. Several interview respondents commented on the lack of available staff and resources
for public engagement, both at the regional and state level. EPA Region 2 public affairs staff
make themselves available to assist with outreach efforts whenever they are asked, but they do
3-62
-------
not often receive requests; moreover, existing resources would not support intensive public
outreach efforts at more than a small number of communities. Region 2 also does not have any
Environmental Justice staff dedicated full time to RCRA Corrective Action sites.
Having summarized the interview comments in Region 2, we turn next to lEc's separate evaluation of
EPA's Community Engagement Initiative (CEI). The preliminary results of the CEI evaluation indicate
that other regions face similar issues in terms of public participation and Corrective Action. The
interviews also provide some insight into steps that might be taken to enhance community engagement.
CEI Evaluation
lEc is conducting a formative evaluation of OSWER's Community Engagement Initiative (CEI). The
evaluation focuses on CEI's goals to improve technical assistance and information dissemination
practices across OSWER's cleanup programs. As part of the CEI evaluation, lEc interviewed community
engagement representatives from Superfund, RCRA Corrective Action, and Brownfields in the ten EPA
regions and EPA Headquarters. For Corrective Action, we also interviewed six community engagement
representatives in state environmental agencies, including New York. Finally, we conducted nine
satisfaction interviews with RCRA Corrective Action community members in communities that have
received technical assistance from state agencies.
lEc has completed the initial interviews and preliminary findings summary. We informed regional, state,
and community contacts that we would not attribute individual findings to them. The RCRA Corrective
Action interview respondent from Region 2 agreed to be cited directly for this report, but we cannot
attribute statements by New York staffer communities within Region 2 to these interviewees directly.
Regional and Delegated State Staff
Regional stakeholders confirmed that the Corrective Action program is required by statute to issue public
notices and provide public comment periods during key phases of the RCRA process - namely, during the
CMS phase at the point when the final remedy is selected. All regional and state staff interviewed
indicated that they comply with these requirements. EPA Region 2 produces a community newsletter for
select (high-profile) sites as an additional method of informing the public.
However, Corrective Action regional and delegated staff stated that there are no requirements for
technical assistance at Corrective Action sites. Technical assistance involves two-way communication
between a technical advisor and community members, as opposed to one-way information dissemination
between the agency (or facility) and the community. Although not required, technical assistance is
conducted on a site-by-site basis. Regions and states administering the RCRA Corrective Action program
make decisions about where to offer specific technical assistance based on community requests and staff
assessments of need. Every region and state interviewed, including Region 2, holds public meetings at
select RCRA Corrective Action sites with high levels of community interest. All six delegated states
contacted, and four of the ten regions (not including Region 2), mentioned that they have publicly-
available websites for some RCRA Corrective Action sites.
Most interviewees in the CEI evaluation stated that resource limitations are a barrier to meeting
community technical assistance needs within the RCRA Corrective Action program. Eight of the ten
regions interviewed, and EPA Headquarters, cited resource limitations as the reason that RCRA
Corrective Action technical assistance is not as extensive as it could be.
3-63
-------
Community Representatives
lEc asked nine individuals in RCRA Corrective Action communities nationwide that had received
technical assistance from state environmental agencies about their level of satisfaction with the technical
assistance they received. These satisfaction interviews asked interviewees to rate their level of
satisfaction, on a scale from one to six, with their technical advisor. The scores provided by
interviewees were mixed. On a scale of one to six from very dissatisfied to very satisfied, the average
among RCRA Corrective Action community members was 4.2. The majority of the interviewees (seven
of nine) gave at least a score of four out of six, but two communities gave scores of one, meaning they
were "very unsatisfied" overall with the technical assistance that they received. The two interviewees that
provided these low scores offered the following reasons:
Too much control is put in the hands of the responsible party;
States claim to have inadequate manpower to tackle problems; and
The delegated state agency does not listen to the community, other agencies, or EPA.
Together, the CEI interviews and the Region 2 Corrective Action evaluation interviews highlight a variety
of issues relating to public outreach and Corrective Action. In the remainder of this section, we examine
the project files for selected sites to explore some of the issues that were raised in the interviews.
Central File Review
We consulted the project files for information that would confirm or challenge selected topics that were
raised in the interviews. In particular, we looked for evidence that lead agencies are meeting their public
participation requirements, and we tried to understand who is "driving" the public outreach process:
It appears that the lead agencies adhere to the requirement to issue public notices. For
example, the file for one site that we reviewed had newspaper records indicating that public
notices were issued in 2001 for a permit issuance, 2002 for another permit issuance, and 2005 for
the closure of a SWMU. These public notices were issued in both English and Spanish. At
another site that we reviewed, public notices were issued in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, and
2010 for permit modification requests.
Beyond what is required or otherwise performed by the agencies at major milestones, the
facilities conducted most of the public outreach efforts at the sites that we reviewed. For
example, at four sites that we reviewed, the responsible party organized and led public meetings.
At one site, the company had a community relations plan in the early 1990s; the plan stated that
the company would maintain an information repository, identify relevant contacts, make routine
contact with local officials, prepare and issue fact sheets, hold public comment periods, hold open
house meetings, prepare responsiveness summaries, and develop a mailing list.
Overall, the file reviews, interview findings, and process map indicate that Region 2 is meeting and in
some cases exceeding the Agency's requirements for public participation. However, the findings also
point to issues concerning limited initial public outreach, the use of IMs without public comment,
opportunities for substantive participation, and resource challenges for conducting more-extensive
community engagement.
3-64
-------
QUESTION 7: SHOULD THE REGION IMPLEMENT ANY CHANGES TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION WITH
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS FOR HIGH PROFILE FACILITIES OR FACILITIES LOCATED IN
COMMUNITIES WITH ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE CONSIDERATIONS?
The findings for Question 7 follow from the results of Question 6. Question 7 explores what changes
Region 2 could implement to improve communication with external stakeholders, in light of the findings
for Question 6. Question 7 also addresses communication with external stakeholders for high profile
facilities or facilities located in environmental justice (EJ) areas. Our primary methods for addressing
Question 7 are the Region 2 interviews and the preliminary findings from the CEI evaluation.
Summary of Key Findings for Question 7
x The Region 2 interviews indicate that EPA Region 2 gives active consideration to EJ issues.
While Region 2 should continue to focus on EJ issues, a more immediate concern may be to
enhance the level of satisfaction with public participation across all types of RCRA Corrective
Action communities.
A The interviews point to several steps that Region 2 could consider to improve communication
with external stakeholders, including: conducting initial public outreach early in the process;
increasing transparency by making information publicly available and easily accessible; focusing
on providing meaningful opportunities for public participation; and considering, if and when
budget allocations allow, dedicating an FTE to RCRA Corrective Action.
x The CEI evaluation finds that successful community engagement consists of tailoring materials to
community needs and ensuring that communities are satisfied with the information provided. The
CEI evaluation proposes that each community that receives technical assistance from EPA or a
delegated state receive a satisfaction survey.
Interviews
The interviews indicate that EPA Region 2 gives active consideration to EJ issues.5S As discussed in
Question 6 above, EPA translates fact sheets and hires simultaneous translation for public meetings in
communities with large non-English speaking populations. Also, transferring most of the Caribbean
Corrective Action sites from the New York office to the Puerto Rico office resulted in the assigned
Corrective Action staff being closer to local issues. However, the findings also suggest that the level of
public interest in EJ communities and in Puerto Rico has been limited. Program managers noted that the
nature of each site and the level of community interest - not whether the site is located in an EJ
community - dictate the extent of public outreach.56 Those (atypical) communities with high profile
facilities receive technical assistance more typical of the assistance offered under the Superfund program.
While Region 2 should continue to focus on EJ issues, perhaps a more immediate concern is enhancing
over all satisfaction with public participation across all types of RCRA Corrective Action communities.
55 We also found this to be true in New York.
56 Region 2 staff also noted that they consider all sites that pose serious environmental hazards to the surrounding community as "EJ" sites,
regardless of the demographics of the community.
3-65
-------
The interview findings from this study and the CEI evaluation suggest mixed satisfaction with public
outreach activities. This finding holds for communities that receive intensive technical assistance, as well
as those that receive less intensive outreach. The interviews point to several steps that Region 2 could
consider to improve communication with external stakeholders, including stakeholders for high profile
facilities or facilities located in communities with EJ considerations:
Conduct initial public outreach early in the process. The evaluation results suggest that by the
time the process is nearing the end of the CMS phase, it is too late to engage the public in a
meaningful way. EPA Region 2, and state agencies, could consider conducting initial public
outreach at the start of the RFI phase, allowing the public to provide input on the scope of the
investigation and potential remedies. Similarly, some community stakeholders suggested the lead
agency could issue public notices and take public comment during the IM selection process. This
would also provide earlier opportunities for meaningful public input, and might ultimately
shorten the time required during the CMS phase. While EPA Region 2 notes that it already
conducts public outreach during the IM phase at selected sites, external stakeholders stated that
more outreach could be conducted earlier in the process. It may be instructive to see how the
process unfolds in Region 5, which is beginning to require enhanced community engagement
during the IM stage as part of its new model order.
Increase transparency by making information publicly available and easily accessible. Some
stakeholders expressed concerns about information that they felt was withheld or provided too
late in the process. EPA - as well as state agencies - could consider making more information
publicly available earlier in the process. This could involve establishing or updating a website
with relevant studies and other documentation, and/or conducting targeted community outreach
(e.g., public meetings or fact sheets) during the RFI phase. This would enhance the transparency
of the process and allow for more informed and meaningful public dialogue. This would also be
consistent with the Administration's focus on transparent governance.
Focus on providing opportunities for meaningful public participation. The interviews found
that, even in communities where EPA and/or state agencies have provided extensive community
outreach, community members feel they have not been able to contribute to the process in a
meaningful way. Taking the steps outlined in this section could help address this concern.
Consider allocating public affairs FTE for Corrective Action. In Region 2 and nationwide,
interview respondents identified lack of technical resources for community engagement as a key
barrier to effective public outreach in the Corrective Action program. While Superfund has
dedicated community engagement staff throughout the process, the Corrective Action program
has not committed full-time staff for public outreach. Dedicating one or more FTE to focus on
high profile Corrective Action sites might help improve communication with external
stakeholders. However, given the current budget situation, careful consideration would need to be
given to balancing the benefits of additional Corrective Action FTE with other priorities.
Overall, EPA is giving due consideration to EJ issues and communities with high profile facilities.
However, some external stakeholders have expressed concerns about various aspects relating to
community engagement. The interview findings suggest steps that the Region could take to enhance
communication with external stakeholders.
3-66
-------
CEI Evaluation
As discussed in Question 6 above, the CEI evaluation identified similar concerns as those voiced in
Region 2. As part of the CEI evaluation, lEc asked interview respondents three questions that are relevant
to Question 7:
What do you consider to be successful technical assistance and/or information dissemination?
What current metrics do you use to track community engagement?
What other metrics might help assess the extent to which the technical assistance and/or
information dissemination efforts conducted by EPA are successful?
For the RCRA Corrective Action program, the most common opinion of successful technical assistance
and/or information dissemination (offered by four often regions, including Region 2) was that successful
community engagement consists of tailoring materials to community needs and/or ensuring the
community is satisfied with the information provided. Two regions reported tracking some output
metrics of community engagement, such as the number of public meetings held or the number of
individuals on mailing lists. However, regions across programs stated that these metrics were not helpful
for improving community engagement activities. The most common response by RCRA Corrective
Action interviewees (four often regions, but not Region 2) was that RCRA Corrective Action could
conduct satisfaction interviews with community groups or individuals that had received technical
assistance regarding a RCRA Corrective Action site.
The CEI evaluation will propose several potential output and outcome measures for the RCRA Corrective
Action program to track and improve information dissemination and technical assistance. The output
measures proposed by the CEI evaluation include:
The proportion of RCRA Corrective Action communities that were recommended by a region for
technical assistance, but have not received assistance, and
The proportion of RCRA Corrective Action communities that have asked a state or region for
any form of assistance, but have not received assistance.
These measures would give EPA management an indication of the additional resources required to
address the needs of specific communities. In addition, the CEI evaluation proposes that each
community that receives technical assistance from EPA or a delegated state receive a satisfaction
survey. The proposed long-term outcome measures associated with these surveys are:
The proportion of communities that have received a satisfaction survey and are satisfied with the
information provided by EPA or the state throughout the cleanup process, and
The proportion of communities that have received a satisfaction survey and are satisfied with the
assistance provided by a technical advisor.
Overall, the interviews conducted for this study and the CEI evaluation identified steps that Region 2
could take to improve communication with Corrective Action communities, and metrics that EPA could
use to track community satisfaction.
3-67
-------
CHAPTER 4 | CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on our analysis of the data collected from RCRAInfo, EPA guidance and Region 2 Corrective
Action site files, and extensive interviews with a range of stakeholders, we offer the following
conclusions and recommendations for consideration. We believe that implementing these
recommendations could help Region 2 take steps to align resources and activities in the Corrective Action
program to focus on key management objectives, including timely site cleanups, effective use of
enforcement, and responsive public participation.
CONCLUSIONS
Two central conclusions provide important context for more specific conclusions, and also for
recommendations. First, as noted in Chapter 3, the challenge of managing sites with limited resources and
an array of competing management priorities is a theme that threads through the findings. In addition, as
we discuss at the end of this section, a number of recent changes in management and structure both at
EPA and in the states provide a platform for future improvement efforts. Major conclusions include:
Competing management priorities complicate site management and, in the context of
limited resources, can affect the program's efforts to make efficient progress at sites. While
stakeholders agree that many sites take longer to remediate than would be ideal, we did not
identify any other systematic or structural elements of the Region 2 program that appear to cause
delays across sites. Site management priorities within EPA, however, have historically varied
both across sites and overtime. This suggests several different "Corrective Action processes" that
may be appropriate at different types of sites (Exhibit 3-2). When management priorities are not
clearly aligned with site objectives, this can complicate efforts to enhance overall timeliness of
either decision-making or broader site remediation.
o While interview respondents universally agree that some sites do not move efficiently
through the Corrective Action process, they also note a number of reasons for slow progress
that do not directly result from Region 2's program. These include the delegated structure of
the RCRA program and EPA's oversight role (particularly in New York and New Jersey) -
which limits EPA's direct influence over many state-lead sites - and the need to forego speed
to ensure public involvement and the development of stringent site cleanup standards at
highly visible and/or technically complex sites.
o One reason cited for the slow pacing at some sites is the EPA RCRA program's emphasis on
solid waste management units (SWMUs) and localized cleanup, rather than site-level
remediation objectives (in contrast to Superfund's site-wide emphasis). This marks a key
difference in emphasis between EPA and the state governments in New York and New
Jersey, which are focusing on site-wide anticipated use goals in their cleanup programs.
4-1
-------
Interview respondents note that the unit-level approach can result in repetition of project steps
that could potentially be addressed concurrently.
o Although the strategic emphasis and approaches differ across jurisdictions (e.g., SWMU vs.
site-wide emphasis), the RCRA Corrective Action process is broadly similar at both the
federal and state level. Our statistical analysis of site progress to date found no significant
differences in the full duration of the Corrective Action process, or the time required to
achieve environmental indicators, between EPA-lead and state-lead sites. Factors affecting
site progress appear to be largely independent of jurisdiction and existing program structure.
o Interviews and file reviews suggest that meeting site cleanup schedules is difficult, and that
delays beyond initial schedules are common. In some cases patterns of delay result from old
permit language or long-established relationships among Responsible Parties (RPs), states,
and EPA, where EPA is strictly in an oversight role.
o Metrics and goals, when they reflect management priorities, are critical tools. In all contexts,
meaningful, well-targeted metrics and goals, including GPRA goals, seem to motivate
progress at sites. Though some interview respondents complained about "counting beans,"
most complaints arose where metrics were not aligned correctly with management priorities
for specific sites.
Exhibit 4-1 provides a conceptual diagram showing how different management priorities might
be emphasized at different types of sites.
EXHIBIT 4-1. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES AND SITE COMPLEXITY
More
Emphasis
Less
Emphasis
Stringent Cleanup Threshold
Good compliance history
Less controversial
Cooperative Responsible Party (RP)
Good financial options
Limited technical issues
Contamination contained on-site
Easier
More
Difficult
Poor compliance history
More controversial
Recalcitrant Responsible Party (RP)
Financial limitations
Complexcontamination
Offsite contamination
4-2
-------
Resources are not adequate to support the full range of management priorities outlined in
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. Furthermore, the recent transfer of 16 RCRA Corrective
Action sites to the Superfund Division has not relieved resource constraints due to requirements
involving cross-charging and overhead related to Superfund resources. 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, but site
history and relationships with states and RPs may also suggest an alternative approach. The
evaluation findings suggest that a commitment to significant increases in enforcement actions
would require a realignment of enforcement resources to the regional Corrective Action program
such that, similar to the Superfund program, the remedial project managers' responsibilities
would include an enforcement component. The integration of programmatic and enforcement
resources would ensure that sufficient resources are available to integrate enforcement actions
and Corrective Action requirements, including oversight.
Region 2's RCRA Corrective Action program is not notably different from programs in
other regions. Our benchmarking effort found that rates of progress at sites in the Region 2
RCRA Corrective Action program are similar to those in other regions, and that in general, the
region is near the center of the distribution in terms of the number and characteristics of
Corrective Action sites. Interviews with EPA Headquarters and Regions 3,5, and 7 confirm that
other regions face similar challenges in prioritizing activities and achieving site goals.
Region 2's selection of interim corrective measures and final remedies does not appear to be
a "rubber-stamping" exercise. Information from guidance, interviews, and file reviews
indicates that Region 2 reviews potential remedies and provides detailed comments on remedial
options. Resource constraints, including lack of access to technical expertise, may in some cases
limit the depth of technical review that can be performed in a timely manner for specific sites;
management priorities are important determinants for how sites would proceed in these cases,
since additional review and presentation of new options conflicts with an emphasis on more rapid
site progress. In addition, the Region does not emphasize the use of presumptive remedies, even
though this is a recommendation in EPA guidance. Overall, we could find no information that
suggests that the Region is not thoroughly considering the remediation options and alternatives
4-3
-------
presented by the RPs, 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. EPA has for many sites conducted additional
public outreach, but interview respondents noted a lack of meaningful opportunities to provide
input. Notably, third-party respondents, even when dissatisfied, appear to prefer to work with
EPA rather than with state agencies and RPs, who often have lead roles in public outreach.
In the context of examining these specific questions, we also examined how respondents viewed the
current operations of the program as a whole, and found that while specific issues are problematic,
respondents also expressed some optimism. In general, all respondents emphasized that the Corrective
Action program is constrained by the statutory structure that emphasizes an oversight role for EPA, by a
long history of evolving site management practices at many sites, and, more recently, by increasingly
constrained resources. Respondents and data suggest that the largest challenges facing Region 2's
program are generally the same as those experienced across the country. However, in spite of recent
budget constraints, interview respondents with many different perspectives also noted that program
management, communication, and coordination across EPA, state agencies, and some other communities
have seen several improvements in recent years. This appears to be at least in part a result of EPA's
reorganization of the program to establish the Caribbean office and reconfigure the program branches,
along with parallel changes in structure and personnel in both New York and New Jersey's Corrective
Action programs. This general theme of cautious optimism in financially difficult times informs the
various recommendations we lay out below.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the conclusions presented above, we offer the following recommendations to Region 2 to
address issues of efficiency and effectiveness related to the RCRA Corrective Action program.
Recommendation: Define management's highest priorities for every site in the Corrective Action
program, and focus resources and metrics accordingly.
As shown in Exhibit 3-2 in the preliminary findings chapter and Exhibit 4-1 above, management has set
several objectives for the RCRA Corrective Action program: efficient site completion; collaboration with
states and RPs; public participation; and stringent cleanup thresholds. Resource limitations necessitate
tradeoffs across these competing priorities. We recommend that Region 2 undertake a review of
Corrective Action sites in the Region and take several steps to more effectively align limited resources
with site management priorities:
Differentiate between different types of sites: Facilities fall somewhere along a spectrum, from
unwilling and unable RPs at high profile sites, to willing and able RPs at lower profile sites. For
each, clearly articulate which objective(s) will receive highest priority, second priority, or are not
feasible within the current budget environment. For sites with high profile, complex
contamination and difficult RPs, an enforcement-based approach may be appropriate; in contrast,
4-4
-------
Region 2 management should consider more flexible approaches for facilities with simple
contamination, strong state presence, and cooperative RPs.
Allocate resources according to priority: Consistent with the priorities identified for each site,
we recommend that Region 2 develop and communicate strategies to ensure that resources are
allocated appropriately to address the highest priorities. The relative emphasis across priorities
may vary depending on the nature of the site, but RPMs and other regional staff should be aware
of site priorities and should emphasize activities that further these.
Develop and apply metrics and goals: For each management priority, develop a limited number
of meaningful metrics and goals and employ these to measure success at relevant sites. To ensure
consistent focus in a context of limited resources, we recommend that Region 2 track metrics for
only one or two priorities at each site.
Develop a strategy for lower priority sites and non-GPRA sites: Region 2 is working with
national counterparts to develop a plan for clearing non-GPRA sites. We recommend that Region
2 continue these efforts, and work towards finalizing a regional strategy for the lower priority and
non-GPRA sites.
We recognize that budget constraints may prevent Region 2 from structuring this effort as a one-time
comprehensive review of all sites. It may be optimal to adopt this recommendation in stages.
Recommendation: In developing and implementing management priorities, build on existing efforts
and momentum in states and other regions to optimize resource use.
Several efforts are underway to improve the Corrective Action process both in EPA's regions and in
Region 2 states. Specifically, Regions 3 and 7 are implementing revisions to their processes based on the
outcomes of a recent Lean Event, and Region 5 recently developed a new model order for Corrective
Action. At the state level, New York has recently refocused its RCRA program to be integrated with its
Superfund program, and New Jersey has implemented a requirement that all sites complete their RCRA
facility investigation by May 2014. In addition, recent reorganizations within Region 2 itself appear to
have improved relationships among key stakeholders. All of these efforts are still in the early stages of
implementation, but in the next calendar year significant new data should emerge about the progress
under these efforts. We recommend that Region 2, in developing management priorities, consult carefully
with states and other regions and, if appropriate, allow time for existing efforts to mature before
identifying final management priorities or metrics at sites affected by these efforts.
Recommendation: Encourage efficient site completion by adopting a long-term strategy for
Corrective Action sites that emphasizes site-wide progress rather than process-based milestones.
The findings suggest that RCRA's traditional SWMU-based focus may be a factor in delaying site
schedules. We suggest that management:
Work with the states and facilities to identify options for focusing on site-wide objectives for
remedies, anticipated use, and schedules;
Consider developing a policy for presumptive remedies that could potentially be used for
different types of sites;
Continue to focus on performance metrics that emphasize cleanup progress and goals rather than
reports; and
4-5
-------
Consider updating remedies based on new information, new technology, and/or new anticipated
use.
Recommendation: Enhance enforcement capabilities to support appropriate use of enforcement
authority at sites that EPA and states identify as strong candidates for federal enforcement.
EPA's enforcement authority for Corrective Action has not been a historical emphasis for Region 2,
though it is important to note that states may in many cases be leading enforcement. The evaluation
findings, however, indicate that the Region's enforcement authority may be underutilized at a limited
number of sites, and that better integrating enforcement capabilities into site management at some RCRA
sites may be effective. Particularly for sites where enforcement appears to be a viable option, we
recommend that Region 2 management:
Update site files to ensure that physical and electronic files are complete and accessible;
Establish and adhere to a compliance schedule for each facility;
Work with RPMs at sites with high enforcement potential to ensure that correspondence and other
efforts are formal and "enforcement-ready";
Enhance coordination and communication with states regarding the use of enforcement to ensure
that EPA is leveraging state efforts;
Align enforcement resources in the Region to better support the RCRA program; and
Evaluate the potential to use CERCLA authorities where appropriate to pursue cleanup actions at
Corrective Action sites.
Recommendation: At sites with strong public interest or potentially high impact, strengthen
opportunities for meaningful, two-way public participation earlier in the process.
Region 2 is meeting and in some cases exceeding the requirements for public participation. However, a
number of community stakeholders have expressed concerns about some aspects of the process. We
recommend that Region 2 management:
Conduct initial public outreach earlier in the Corrective Action process, before the end of the
CMS phase, including the interim remedy selection phase;
Emphasize a "two-way" process with transparent, accessible information and opportunities for
meaningful public participation; and
Align public affairs staff, as resources allow, to high-priority Corrective Action sites.
4-6
-------
APPENDIX A. BIBLIOGRAPHY
"Assessment of the National Enforcement Strategy for RCRA Corrective Action (NESCA)." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Office
of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (2012, September 27).
"Corrective Action for Releases from Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities: Proposed Rule." Federal Register 64:194. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(1999, October?).
"Corrective Action for Releases From Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities: Proposed Rule." Federal Register 61:85. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
(1996, May 1).
"Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units at Hazardous Waste Management Facilities;
Proposed Rule." Federal Register 55:145. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (1990, July
27).
"Environmental Fact Sheet: The National Corrective Action Prioritization System." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (1993, January).
"Hazardous Waste: Early Goals Have Been Met in EPA's Corrective Action Program, but Resource and
Technical Challenges Will Constrain Future Progress." U.S. Government Accountability Office.
(2011, July).
"Integrated Cleanup Initiative Fact Sheet." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. (2011, April).
"Integrated Cleanup Initiative Quarterly Update." Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. (2012, April).
"Integrated Cleanup Initiative Quarterly Update." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. (2011, July).
"Integrated Cleanup Initiative: Introduction." U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid
Waste and Emergency Response. (2011, May 9).
"National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites; Deletion Policy for Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Facilities." Federal Register 60:53. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. (1995, March 20).
"RCRA Cleanup Reforms: Faster, Focused, More Flexible Cleanups." Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (1999, July).
"RCRA Cleanup Reforms: Reforms II: Fostering Creative Solutions." U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (2001, January).
A-1
-------
"RCRA Corrective Action Program: Workload Report" (Draft). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (2012, December).
"RCRA Corrective Action Training Program: Getting to YES! Participant Manual." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. (2009, November).
"RCRA Public Participation Manual: 1996 Edition." Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid
Waste, Permits Branch. (1996).
"State RCRA Subtitle C Core Hazardous Waste Management Program Implementation Costs - Final
Report." Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. (2007, January).
"Transmittal of Best Practices to Enhance Coordination in the RCRA Program." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. (2012, February).
"Transmittal of Guidance on Enforcement Approaches for Expediting RCRA Corrective Action." U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. (2001, January 2).
"Transmittal of the National Enforcement Strategy for RCRA Corrective Action." U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response. (2010, April 27).
A-2
-------
APPENDIX B.
LIST OF SITES REVIEWED
STATE
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
VI
FACILITY NAME - LOCATION
DuPont - Pompton Lakes
Amerada Hess - Port Reading
Chemtura/DBA Anderol - East Hanover
Exxon Bayway - Linden
Novartis - East Hanover
Inmont - Hawthorne
Merck - Rahway
Jersey Plating - Boonton
FMC - Middleport
General Electric - Hudson Falls
US Army Watervliet Arsenal - Watervliet
IBM - Endicott
IBM/Tech City - Kingston
Eastman Kodak - Rochester
Puma/CAPECO - Bayamon
Penuelas Technology Park/Union Carbide - Penuelas
Chevron Philips Chemical - Guayama
Bristol Myers Squibb, Humacao, PR
U.S. Army Fort Buchanan - Guaynabo
HOVENSA
EPA ID NO.
NJD0021 73946
NJD045445483
NJD0021 60208
NJD062037031
NJD002147023
NJD0021 65371
NJD001317064
NJD002202885
NYD0021 26845
NYD002080075
NY721 3820940
NYD002233039
NYD001 359694
NYD980592497
PRD000632182
PRD980594618
PRD991291972
PRD090021056
PR1 21 0099999
VID980536080
B-1
-------
APPENDIX C.
LIST OF INTERVIEWS
NAME
Sonya Sasseville
David Hockey
Tom Tyler
Bill Schoenborn
Sara Rasmussen
Barbara Foster
Matthew Sander
Peter Neves
Judith Enck
John Filippelli
Jose Font
Walter Mugdan
Bonnie Bellow
Ariel Iglesias
Teresita Rodriguez
Adolph Everett
Ramon Torres
Phil Flax
William Sawyer
TITLE
Associate Director, Program
Implementation and Information
Division
Chief, Cleanup Programs Branch
Environmental Protection Specialist
Environmental Scientist
Program Analyst
Environmental Protection Specialist
Policy and Guidance Branch Chief
RCRA Cleanup Team Leader
Regional Administrator
Director, Clean Air and Sustainability
Division
Director, Caribbean Environmental
Protection Division
Director, Emergency and Remedial
Response Division
Director, Public Affairs Division
Deputy Director, Clean Air and
Sustainability Division
Deputy Director, Caribbean
Environmental Protection Division
Chief, Clean Air and Sustainability
Division, Hazardous Waste Programs
Branch
Chief, Caribbean Environmental
Protection Division, Response and
Remediation Branch
Chief, Corrective Action Section
Chief, Office of Regional Counsel, Air,
Waste and Toxic Substances Branch
ORGANIZATION
EPA Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery
EPA Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery
EPA Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery
EPA Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery
EPA Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery
EPA Office of Resource
Conservation and Recovery
EPA Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement
EPA Office of Site Remediation
Enforcement
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
C-1
-------
NAME
Donald Pace
Joel Golumbek
Betsy Lopez
Michael McGowan
Mike Basile
Pat Seppi
John Brogard
Samuel Ezekwo
Ernst Jabouin
Robert Jean
Andy Park
Ellen Stein
Sameh Abdellatif
Clifford Ng
Wilfredo Palomino
Sadira Robles
Alan Straus
Mike Infurna
Carol Stein
Sin-KieTjho
David Cuevas
Eduardo Gonzales
Zolymar Luna
Rosana Caballer
Socorro Martinez
Luis Negron
Jesse Aviles
Khrystian Vazquez
Angel Salgado
Robert Schick
Michael Ryan
Steve Maybury
TITLE
Comptroller
RCRA Compliance Branch (retired)
Environmental Protection Specialist
Chief, Intergovernmental and
Community Affairs Branch
Public Affairs Specialist, Buffalo Field
Office
Community Involvement Coordinator,
Public Affairs Division
Remedial Project Manager, Base
Corrective Action Program
Remedial Project Manager, Corrective
Action Section, RCRA Corrective
Action Program
Remedial Project Manager,
Emergency and Remedial Response
Division
Remedial Project Manager, Caribbean
Environmental Protection Division,
Response and Remediation Branch
Division Director, Division of
Environmental Remediation
Assistant Division Director, Division of
Environmental Remediation
Chief, Bureau of Case Management,
Remediation Oversight Element
ORGANIZATION
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
EPA Region 2
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
C-2
-------
NAME
Phil Cole
Wayne Naylor
Becky Weber
Don Lininger
Jose Cisneros
Tammy Moore
Ignacio Arrazola
Anne Rabe
Bill Wolfe
Julia Maedl
Alan Ginsberg
Timothy King
Russ Bo wen
TITLE
RCRA Remediation Coordinator, Site
Remediation Program
Deputy Director, Land and Chemicals
Division
Director, Air and Waste Management
Division
Chief, Waste Remediation and
Permitting Branch
Chief, Remediation and Reuse
Branch, Land and Chemicals Division
Remediation and Reuse Branch
Office of Regional Counsel
Campaign Coordinator
Director
Mayor (former)
Owner
President
Consultant
ORGANIZATION
New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection
EPA Region 3
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 7
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 5
EPA Region 5
Center for Health, Environment &
Justice
New Jersey Public Employees for
Environmental Responsibility
Office of the Mayor, Village of
Middleport, New York
TechCity/IBM Kingston
Penuelas Technology Park LLC
Penuelas Technology Park LLC
C-3
-------
APPENDIX D. INTERVIEW GUIDES
D-1
-------
DISCUSSION GUIDE FOR EPA REGION 2 SENIOR MANAGEMENT
STATUS OF RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION IN REGION 2
This study is designed to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of Region 2's RCRA Corrective
Action program.
o What are your overall impressions of the program, in terms of its effectiveness in achieving
its goals, and the efficiency of the process?
How would you characterize the remedy decisions to date in the RCRA Corrective Action program?
o To what extent do you think the RCRA Corrective Action program is selecting remedies,
including Interim Measures, that are protective of human health and the environment?
To what extent do you think the program is reaching decisions in a timely manner?
What aspects of the program do you think are working well?
What concerns, if any, do you have about the program?
What improvements would you like to see in the program?
o Do you have any specific ideas or suggestions for how the Region might go about making
those improvements?
EVALUATION GOALS AND PRIORITIES
What are your goals and priorities for this evaluation?
Do you have any thoughts or plans about how you will use the evaluation findings?
ARE REGION 2'S ISSUES UNIQUE?
Do you have any sense as to whether your concerns and the issues the Region faces are unique to
Region 2?
Do you know if your colleagues in other regions have similar concerns?
Do you know what actions, if any, other regions have taken to address these issues?
Do you have any thoughts or suggestions about EPA Headquarters' (OSWER) role in the RCRA
Corrective Action program?
PREVIOUS STUDIES AND IMPROVEMENT EFFORTS
What particular factors have influenced your perspective on and approach to the RCRA Corrective
Action program?
Are you aware of any previous studies or efforts in the Region to make improvements in the
program?
o If yes, what were the key takeaway messages or results?
We understand that some sites were transferred from the Division that implements RCRA Corrective
Action to the Division that manages Superfund. Can you tell us more about that decision? What
made these sites good candidates for being transferred to the Superfund Division?
D-2
-------
o What role, if any, did resource factors play in this decision?
Would you anticipate using this strategy in the future for other sites?
o Why or why not?
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
What are your impressions about Region 2's experience with using administrative orders and
enforcement actions for RCRA Corrective Action sites?
Do you have any opinions about the use of administrative orders and enforcement actions to compel
cleanup, as compared to relying on the RCRA permit modification process?
What effect, if any, do you think use of administrative orders or enforcement actions would have on
remedy decisions, both in terms of remedy selection and the efficiency of the process?
STATE ROLES
How would you characterize EPA's relationship with the Region 2 States and Territories under this
program?
Do you have any sense as to what similarities and differences exist between the federal-lead versus
state-lead sites, particularly regarding remedy selection and timing of the process?
Do you have any suggestions regarding how EPA and the States and Territories should improve their
collaboration to achieve the program's goals?
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Do you have any thoughts or suggestions about the Region's or States' engagement with
stakeholders and local communities within the RCRA Corrective Action program?
D-3
-------
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR EPA HEADQUARTERS RCRA AND ENFORCEMENT
STATUS OF RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION PROGRAM
We understand that the RCRA Corrective Action program does not have the same
regulatory/statutory structure as other, similar programs (e.g. Superfund), but relies heavily on non-
statutory guidance and Agency policy.
o Do you agree with this assessment?
If yes, how if at all does the structure of the program affect how the process is
implemented...
> Across regions?
> Across sites within a region?
If yes, how if at all does the structure of the program affect the environmental
stringency of remedy decisions?
There seems to be a perception that it takes too long for the RCRA Corrective Action program to
reach final remedy decisions.
o Do you agree with this perception? Why or why not?
If yes, is this a new or longstanding concern?
> Has it evolved over time?
If yes, what do you see as the root causes of the delays?
To what extent do you think the RCRA Corrective Action program is reaching remedy decisions that
are environmentally protective?
How familiar are you with the RCRA Corrective Action process in Region 2?
o [If somewhat or very familiar:] Are you aware of any specific issues in Region 2 that may be
affecting the efficiency and effectiveness of the process in the Region?
o One question we are examining is the difference between state-lead and EPA-lead sites.
We understand that EPA sometimes leads, or co-leads, sites in delegated states. How
is it decided when EPA will lead?
How, if at all, does the RCRA Corrective Action process differ between federal-lead
sites and state-lead sites?
What is the role of EPA in state-lead sites?
Do you have any insights into the effectiveness and efficiency of state-lead sites
compared to EPA-lead sites?
D-4
-------
PROCESS MAP
The attached diagram shows a simplified, stylized process map for RCRA Corrective Action.
[Attach diagram] We understand that not every site follows the same sequence of events, and some
sites may not even have all events; still, we are trying to capture the key elements of the process both
to understand where delays occur and as a communication tool. With this context in mind...
o To what extent does the RCRA Corrective Action process actually follow the process shown
in the diagram?
o We understand that the process can be initiated by permit modification or administrative
order.
How does EPA decide which method to use (permit or order)?
At what other stages of the process would EPA modify a facility's permit?
o Are we missing any important steps in the process map?
If yes, please identify the step(s) and where it belongs on the map.
o Are any steps shown out of order?
If yes, please identify the step(s) and indicate the correct order.
o Where in the process do things tend to get significantly delayed or stuck?
Please identify the step(s), and explain.
o We understand that RCRA Corrective Action can proceed through permit, administrative
order, or voluntary agreement.
* What difference does this make, if any, in how the process is implemented and the
efficiency of the process?
o How does the sequence of events and efficiency of the process differ between federally-
managed sites versus state-managed sitesi
o What other factors affect the efficiency of the process?
o Do you have any other comments or suggestions on the process map?
IMPROVING THE PROCESS
At the HQ level, what has been done to improve the RCRA Corrective Action process? [Prompts:]
o Guidance
o Enforcement strategies
o Other - please specify
[For each item mentioned:] How did it work?
Where do things stand with Regions 3 and 7 implementing recommendations from the Lean Event?
o Do you think these actions, if implemented, will help improve the efficiency of the process?
o Are you aware of any challenges in Regions 3 and 7 that might be applicable to Region 2?
D-5
-------
Are you aware of any regions other than Regions 3 and 7 that have conducted Lean events or taken
similar steps to document and/or streamline the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o If yes, which regions?
o If yes, what was the result?
What actions are available under current authority and guidance to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of the process?
o [For each action identified:] Are you aware of regions that have taken these actions?
If yes, what was the result?
Are there specific regions/individuals that you suggest we talk to?
Where do you see the biggest potential for improvement in the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o [For each item identified:] How much impact would this change have on:
New sites?
Existing sites?
Specific stages of the process?
Low priority sites?
Specific types of contamination?
Enforcement options?
Specific sectors?
We understand the Region 2 recently transferred some of its RCRA Corrective Action sites to the
Division that manages Superfund.
o In general, why would sites be moved from the RCRA Corrective Action division to the
division that manages Superfund?
o How, if at all, are the enforcement tools different under the two programs?
o What benefits and obstacles would a transfer like this would bring to the projects?
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
What are the major differences between administrative orders versus enforcement actions under the
RCRA Corrective Action program?
o When does EPA use administrative orders versus enforcement actions?
o Who issues administrative orders and enforcement actions?
o Do administrative orders versus enforcement actions have different penalties for non-
compliance?
o Does the use of an administrative order versus an enforcement action have implications for
the timing of the Corrective Action process?
D-6
-------
How has the Agency's position on the use of administrative orders and enforcement actions for
RCRA Corrective Action sites evolved?
o What is the Agency's current position?
Are you aware of regions that have used administrative orders and enforcement actions in an attempt
to speed up the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o If yes, which regions?
o If yes, what actions or orders did they use?
o If yes, what effect if any did the use of administrative orders or enforcement actions have on
the process schedule and timing of RCRA Corrective Action work?
What other enforcement actions and administrative orders are available to the regions to address
cases of non-compliance?
o [For any identified:] Under what circumstances do you think these would promote the
efficient cleanup of RCRA Corrective Action sites?
PRIORITY SITES
What are the current selection criteria for high priority sites?
How have the criteria evolved?
What are the key differences between high priority sites and sites not judged to be high priority?
o Do high priority sites tend to get resolved more or less quickly than sites that are not judged
to be high priority?
o Are the factors that affect the speed of the process and the stringency of the selected remedy
different for high priority sites vs. sites that are not judged to be high priority?
If yes, what are the key differences?
PROGRAM RESOURCES
EPA's Corrective Action Program: Workload Report, March 2013 draft, concludes that "in terms of
reaching the 2020 goals, additional efficiency improvements alone will be unable to overcome the
pace and size of recent resource reductions and other challenges."
o Did your analysis look specifically at data for Region 2?
If yes, can we get the data broken out for Region 2?
What guidance would HQ offer the Regions for managing their RCRA Corrective Action work in
light of scarce and declining resources?
Do you have any insights into whether Regions have improved Corrective Action program
performance by more effectively allocating resources across sites?
o Do you have any thoughts on the distribution of resources in Region 2 and whether this could
be improved?
D-7
-------
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
How does HQ communicate and/or promote community participation with the Regions?
Do you have any concerns about community participation in RCRA Corrective Action cases
nationally, or in Region 2 in particular?
D-8
-------
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR REGION 2 PROGRAM MANAGERS
STATUS OF RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION IN REGION 2
What aspects of the RCRA Corrective Action program are working well?
What concerns do you have about the program?
There seems to be a perception that it takes too long to reach a final remedy decision for RCRA
Corrective Action sites.
o Do you agree with this perception? Why or why not?
To what extent do you think the RCRA Corrective Action program is reaching remedy decisions that
are environmentally protective?
How, if at all, does the Region 2 structure (New York, New Jersey, Puerto Rico, and U.S. Virgin
Islands) affect the RCRA Corrective Action process and outcomes (e.g.., remedy decisions)?
o What are the major differences in how the RCRA Corrective Action program is implemented
by EPA, New York, and New Jersey?
o Are there any special considerations for how EPA implements the Corrective Action program
in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands?
o How do these differences affect the efficiency of the process?
o How do these differences affect RCRA Corrective Action outcomes (e.g., remedy decisions)?
CURRENT PROCESS
The attached diagram shows a simplified, stylized RCRA Corrective Action process map. [Attach
diagram] We understand that not every site follows the same sequence of events, and some sites
may not even have all events; still, we are trying to capture the key elements of the process both to
understand where delays occur and as a communication tool. With this context in mind...
o To what extent does the RCRA Corrective Action process actually follow the process shown
in the diagram?
o Are we missing any important steps in the process map?
If yes, please identify the step(s) and where it belongs on the map.
o Are any steps shown out of order?
If yes, please identify the step(s) and indicate the correct order.
o Where in the process do things tend to get significantly delayed or stuck?
Please identify the step(s), and explain.
o The Lean Event for Regions 3 and 7 suggested that internal review at EPA accounts for a
large part of the delay.
Is this true in Region 2?
o We also heard that site switches (RPM turnover) delays cleanup progress.
D-9
-------
Is this true in Region 2?
o We understand that RCRA Corrective Action can proceed through permit, administrative
order, or voluntary agreement.
What difference does this make, if any, in how the process is implemented and the
efficiency of the process?
o Do you have any other comments or suggestions on the process map?
We understand that it is frequently the facility's responsibility to propose interim corrective
measures and final remedies, subject to Agency oversight and approval.
o In general, how adequate or inadequate are the interim corrective measure proposals and final
remedy proposals submitted by facilities?
o In general, do you think that the Region is considering interim or final remedial alternatives
beyond those proposed by facilities, as necessary?
Why or why not?
o Are you aware of any specific cases where the Region has suggested remedial alternatives
different than the facility's preferred alternative, or more stringent than the facility's proposed
alternative?
If yes, which site(s)?
If yes, what was the facility's preferred alternative and what was the Region's
position?
If yes, what was the outcome of the interim corrective measure or remedy that was
ultimately implemented?
IMPROVING THE PROCESS
What actions has Region 2 considered to improve the efficiency of the RCRA Corrective Action
process?
Are you aware of any sites that have implemented these actions?
o If yes, were these actions effective in speeding up the process?
Why or why not?
o If no, do you think the proposed actions have the potential to speed up the process?
Why or why not?
Where do you see the biggest potential for improvement in the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o [For each item identified:] How much impact would this change have on:
New sites?
Existing sites?
Specific stages of the process?
Low priority sites?
D-10
-------
Specific types of contamination?
Enforcement options?
Specific sectors?
The Lean Event for Regions 3 and 7 focused on streamlining the RFI phase. A major
recommendation from the Lean Event was to reach agreement on the scope and objectives of the
investigation upfront, with official signoff from EPA senior managers early in the process.
o Would this be helpful in Region 2?
o Would this be feasible in Region 2?
In fiscal year 2010, EPA Headquarters initiated a three-year strategy - the Integrated Cleanup
Initiative - to manage EPA's land cleanup programs in an integrated manner, accelerate cleanup
progress, and put sites back into productive use.
o Are you familiar with the Integrated Cleanup Initiative? If yes:
Is Region 2 participating in this Initiative? If yes, how is the Region participating and
what has been your experience with the Initiative?
Are you aware of any strategies that were developed for the Integrated Cleanup
Initiative that could be useful for cleaning up RCRA Corrective Action sites in
Region 2?
Are you aware of other regions that have taken steps to manage their cleanup
programs in an integrated manner? If yes, which regions?
We understand that Region 2 recently transferred some of its RCRA Corrective Action sites to the
Superfund Division.
o Why were these particular sites moved from RCRA Corrective Action to the Superfund
Division?
o Do you think this move was helpful (why or why not)?
o Do you think that other sites could, or should, be shifted to the Superfund Division?
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
What is Region 2's experience with using administrative orders and enforcement actions for RCRA
Corrective Action sites?
o What have been the outcomes of administrative orders and enforcement actions on process
timing and schedule when used to address past cases of non-compliance?
Looking back, can you think of cases where enforcement actions might have prevented non-
compliance or accelerated the process of reaching a remedy decision?
Stakeholders at the Lean Event stated that enforcement actions delay the process.
o To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
o When do you think enforcement actions would be helpful in Region 2?
o Are certain types of sites better candidates for enforcement action?
D-11
-------
If yes, please explain.
Have you considered other enforcement actions or administrative orders that you have not pursued?
o If yes, please explain.
Overall, do you think that increasing the use of administrative orders and enforcement action in
RCRA Corrective Action cases would speed up or slow down the process? Please explain.
WORKLOAD AND RESOURCES
How many sites do your RPMs typically manage at one time?
How often do sites "change hands" between RPMs?
Why do you reassign sites from one RPM to another?
Has the workload of RPMs increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
In your opinion, do RPMs' workloads affect the efficiency of the Corrective Action process (how)?
Is the level of effort required to manage a site consistent from the beginning to the end of the
process, or do some steps require more time and effort than others?
How does the level of effort required to manage non-priority sites compare to the level of effort
required to manage priority sites?
Do you have any thoughts on distribution of resources in Region 2 across sites and whether this
could be improved?
GPRA VS. NON-GPRA SITES
Our evaluation focuses on GPRA sites. However, we would like to understand to what extent we can
generalize our findings to non-GPRA sites.
o Are there major differences between the facility characteristics of GPRA and non-GPRA
sites?
If yes, please explain.
o Are there major differences in the issues and challenges that you encounter in RCRA
Corrective Action cases and GPRA and non-GPRA sites?
If yes, please explain.
o Would your recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the RCRA
Corrective Action program be different for GPRA sites and non-GPRA sites?
If yes, please explain.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Why do some sites receive a lot of public attention while others receive little or no attention?
o Is there a pattern to the sites that generate the most public interest?
How does the Region account for Environmental Justice considerations in the RCRA Corrective
Action process?
D-12
-------
Does the Region provide public notice at every RCRA Corrective Action site?
o If not, what are the key factors in determining whether there is an opportunity for public
comment?
Does the Region hold public meetings to address the community's concerns at every RCRA
Corrective Action site?
o If not, what are the factors in deciding whether to hold public meetings?
How do you track community involvement activities within RCRA Corrective Action?
D-13
-------
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR STATE PROGRAM MANAGERS
BACKGROUND
What aspects of the RCRA Corrective Action program are working well?
What concerns do you have about the program?
There seems to be a perception that it takes too long to reach a final remedy decision for RCRA
Corrective Action sites.
o Do you agree with this perception? Why or why not?
To what extent do you think the RCRA Corrective Action program is reaching remedy decisions that
are environmentally protective?
What do you think are the major differences between how the RCRA Corrective Action process is
implemented by EPA compared to how your state implements the program?
o How do these differences affect the efficiency and effectiveness of the process?
Are there any special considerations regarding the RCRA Corrective Action process that are unique
to your state?
o If yes, please explain.
CURRENT PROCESS
The attached diagram shows a simplified, stylized RCRA Corrective Action process map. [Attach
diagram] We understand that not every site follows the same sequence of events, and some sites
may not even have all events; still, we are trying to capture the key elements of the process both to
understand where delays occur and as a communication tool. With this context in mind...
o To what extent does the RCRA Corrective Action process actually follow the process shown
in the diagram?
o Are we missing any important steps in the process map?
If yes, please identify the step(s) and where it belongs on the map.
o Are any steps shown out of order?
If yes, please identify the step(s) and indicate the correct order.
o Where in the process do things tend to get significantly delayed or stuck?
Please identify the step(s), and explain.
o We have heard that internal review (within EPA or the State implementing Authority) can be
a major source of delays.
Is this true in your state?
o We also heard that site switches (RPM turnover) delays cleanup progress.
Is this true in your state?
D-14
-------
o We understand that RCRA Corrective Action can proceed through permit modification,
administrative order, or voluntary agreement.
What difference does this make, if any, in how the process is implemented and the
efficiency of the process?
o Do you have any other comments or suggestions on the process map?
IMPROVING THE PROCESS
What actions has your state considered to improve the efficiency of the RCRA Corrective Action
process?
Are you aware of any sites that have implemented these actions?
o If yes, were these actions effective in speeding up the process?
Why or why not?
o If no, do you think the proposed actions have the potential to speed up the process?
Why or why not?
Where do you see the biggest potential for improvement in the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o [For each item identified:] How much impact would this change have on:
New sites?
Existing sites?
Specific stages of the process?
Low priority sites?
Specific types of contamination?
Enforcement options?
Specific sectors?
We have heard from RCRA Corrective Action stakeholders in other EPA regions (outside of Region
2) that steps to improve the Corrective Action process should start with streamlining the RFI phase -
specifically, the suggestion was to reach agreement on the scope and objectives of the investigation
upfront, with official signoff from senior managers early in the process.
o Would this be helpful in your state?
o Would this be feasible in your state?
We understand that Region 2 recently transferred some of its RCRA Corrective Action sites to the
Superfund Division.
o Were any of these sites in your state?
o [For New York:] We understand that New York State recently transferred RCRA Corrective
Action sites to the same unit that manages Superfund.
What was the impetus for this decision?
D-15
-------
What has been New York State's experience with this consolidation?
o Can you think of (other) situations where it would be helpful to transfer sites from RCRA
Corrective Action to the unit implementing the Superfund program?
If yes, what types of sites would be good candidates for moving to the Superfund
unit?
If no, why not?
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
What is your experience with using administrative orders and enforcement actions for RCRA
Corrective Action sites?
o What have been the outcomes of administrative orders and enforcement actions on process
timing and schedule when used to address past cases of non-compliance?
Looking back, can you think of cases where enforcement actions might have prevented non-
compliance or accelerated the process of reaching a remedy decision?
We have heard from stakeholders outside of Region 2 that enforcement actions often delay the
process.
o To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
o When do you think enforcement actions would be helpful in your state?
o Are certain types of sites better candidates for enforcement action?
If yes, please explain.
Have you considered other enforcement actions or administrative orders that you have not pursued?
o If yes, please explain.
Overall, do you think that increasing the use of administrative orders and enforcement action in
RCRA Corrective Action cases would speed up or slow down the process? Please explain.
WORKLOAD AND RESOURCES
How many sites do your RPMs typically manage at one time?
How often do sites "change hands" between RPMs?
Why do you reassign sites from one RPM to another?
Has the workload of RPMs increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
In your opinion, do RPMs' workloads affect the efficiency of the Corrective Action process?
o If yes, how?
Is the level of effort required to manage a site consistent from the beginning to the end of the
process, or do some steps require more time and effort than others?
In your opinion, what role does the level of funding awarded to states by EPA play in the state's
ability to achieve timely clean-up decisions at RCRA Corrective Action sites?
D-16
-------
o Do the states use any of the funds to cover consulting services?
How does the level of effort required to manage non-priority sites compare to the level of effort
required to manage priority sites?
Have you worked with Region 2 to update or optimize the distribution of resources across sites to
improve efficiency?
o If yes, please explain.
GPRA VS. NON-GPRA SITES
Our evaluation focuses on GPRA sites. However, we would like to understand to what extent we can
generalize our findings to non-GPRA sites.
o Are there major differences between the facility characteristics of GPRA and non-GPRA
sites?
If yes, please explain.
o Are there major differences in the issues and challenges that you encounter in RCRA
Corrective Action cases and GPRA and non-GPRA sites?
If yes, please explain.
o Would your recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the RCRA
Corrective Action program be different for GPRA sites and non-GPRA sites?
If yes, please explain.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Why do some sites receive a lot of public attention while others receive little or no attention?
o Is there a pattern to the sites that generate the most public interest?
How does the state account for Environmental Justice considerations in the RCRA Corrective Action
process?
Does the state provide public notice at every RCRA Corrective Action site?
o If not, what are the key factors in determining whether there is an opportunity for public
comment?
Does the state hold public meetings to address the community's concerns at every RCRA Corrective
Action site?
o If not, what are the factors in deciding whether to hold public meetings?
How do you track community involvement activities within RCRA Corrective Action?
D-17
-------
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR REMEDIAL PROJECT MANAGERS
BACKGROUND
How long have you been an RPM for RCRA Corrective Action sites?
What sectors or geographic areas do you focus on?
How many sites do you currently manage?
o How long have you managed these specific sites?
CURRENT STATUS AND PROCESS
There seems to be a perception that it takes too long to reach a final remedy decision for RCRA
Corrective Action sites.
o Do you agree with this perception? Why or why not?
Thinking about the sites that you manage, what factors explain why some sites take a long time to
reach a final remedy decision? [Prompts:]
o Groundwater contamination
o Vapor intrusion problem
o Soil contamination
o Other media contaminated
o Offsite contamination
o Bankruptcy
o Change in ownership
o Under a federal or state enforceable instrument
o Lack of cooperation by the facility
o Determined to be in legal non-compliance with the Corrective Action process
o Other - please specify
Do priority sites and non-priority sites have similar issues?
o If no, what are the key differences?
The attached diagram shows a simplified, stylized RCRA Corrective Action process map. [Attach
diagram] We understand that not every site follows the same sequence of events, and some sites
may not even have all events; still, we are trying to capture the key elements of the process both to
understand where delays occur and as a communication tool. With this context in mind...
o To what extent does the RCRA Corrective Action process actually follow the process shown
in the diagram?
Do you manage any sites that have followed the process exactly as depicted in the
stylized version (if yes, which sites)?
o Are we missing any important steps in the process map?
D-18
-------
If yes, please identify the step(s) and where it belongs on the map.
o Are any steps shown out of order?
If yes, please identify the step(s) and indicate the correct order.
o Where in the process do things tend to get significantly delayed or stuck in general!
Please identify the step(s), and explain.
o Thinking about your most challenging sites, where in the process do you encounter
difficulties?
o We heard from other Regions that internal review at EPA accounts for a large part of the
delay.
Is this true for the sites that you manage?
o We also heard from other Regions that site switches (RPM turnover) delays cleanup progress.
Has this been an issue at the sites that you manage?
o We understand that RCRA Corrective Action can proceed through permit, administrative
order, or voluntary agreement.
What difference does this make, if any, in how the process is implemented and the
efficiency of the process?
o Do you have any other comments or suggestions on the process map?
We understand that it is frequently the facility's responsibility to propose interim corrective
measures and final remedies, subject to Agency oversight and approval.
o In general, how adequate or inadequate are the interim corrective measure proposals and final
remedy proposals submitted by facilities?
o Have there been any cases where you have suggested remedial alternatives different than the
facility's preferred alternative, or more stringent than the facility's proposed alternative?
If yes, which site(s)?
If yes, what was the facility's preferred alternative and how did you respond?
If yes, what was the outcome on the interim corrective measure or remedy that was
ultimately implemented?
IMPROVING THE PROCESS
What actions has Region 2 considered to improve the efficiency of the RCRA Corrective Action
process?
Have you implemented any of these actions at the sites that you manage?
o If yes, were these actions effective in speeding up the process?
Why or why not?
o If no, do you think the proposed actions have the potential to speed up the process?
D-19
-------
Why or why not?
Where do you see the biggest potential for improvement in the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o [For each item identified:] How much impact would this change have on:
New sites?
Existing sites?
Specific stages of the process?
Low priority sites?
Specific types of contamination?
Enforcement options?
Specific sectors?
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
Thinking about the most challenging sites that you have managed (now or in the past), were
enforcement actions considered?
o If yes, were they used?
If yes, which sites? What were the results?
If no, do you think that enforcement actions could have helped speed up the process?
Why or why not?
Do you think that increasing the use of administrative orders and enforcement action in RCRA
Corrective Action cases would speed up or slow down the process? Please explain.
WORKLOAD AND RESOURCES
How many sites do you typically manage at one time?
How often do sites "change hands" between RPMs?
In the time that you have been an RPM, has your workload increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
How do you think an RPM's workload affects the efficiency of the Corrective Action process, i.e.,
the time it takes for individual sites to move through the process?
Is the level of effort required to manage a site consistent from the beginning to the end of the
process, or do some steps require more time and effort than others?
How does the level of effort required to manage non-priority sites compare to the level of effort
required to manage priority sites?
Do you have any thoughts on distribution of resources in Region 2 across sites and whether this
could be improved?
D-20
-------
GPRA VS. NON-GPRA SITES
Our evaluation focuses on GPRA sites. However, we would like to understand to what extent we can
generalize our findings to non-GPRA sites.
o Are there major differences between the facility characteristics of GPRA and non-GPRA
sites?
If yes, please explain.
o Are there major differences in the issues and challenges that you encounter in RCRA
Corrective Action cases and GPRA and non-GPRA sites?
If yes, please explain.
o Would your recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the RCRA
Corrective Action program be different for GPRA sites and non-GPRA sites?
If yes, please explain.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Have you managed any sites with a high level of public interest?
o If yes, which site(s)?
Why do some sites receive a lot of public attention while others receive little or no attention?
o Is there a pattern to the sites that generate the most public interest?
Does the Region provide public notice at every RCRA Corrective Action site?
o If not, what are the key factors in determining whether there is an opportunity for public
comment?
Does the Region hold public meetings to address the community's concerns at every RCRA
Corrective Action site?
o If not, have you held public meetings to address the community's concerns at any of the sites
that you manage?
If so, please provide examples of sites for which you held public meetings, and
provide the key factors in deciding whether to hold public meetings.
In your experience, is public participation adequate?
o Why or why not?
o To what extent do you think it adds value to the process?
o What impact does public participation have on process efficiency, i.e., the time it takes a
facility to move through the process?
What recommendations would you offer to improve the effectiveness of public participation?
D-21
-------
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR MAYORS
BACKGROUND AND STATUS
Which site(s) in your jurisdiction were involved in the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o What were the key issues at these sites?
o How, if at all, was your Office involved in the case?
o Were there delays in the process?
If yes, what caused the delays?
o Were the site(s) located in Environmental Justice communities?
If yes, how well did EPA or the state implementing authority account for and address
environmental justice considerations?
o Where do things currently stand in the process?
o Has the pace of the investigation and cleanup met your expectations?
Why or why not?
o [If applicable:] Were you satisfied with the remedy decision/environmental outcome?
Why or why not?
Do you have any concerns about the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o If yes, please explain. [Prompt: Are concerns about timing? Remedy selection?]
Have you heard any concerns voiced by your constituents about the RCRA Corrective Action
process?
o If yes, please explain.
Have you had any Superfund sites in your jurisdiction?
o If yes, what were the major similarities and differences between RCRA Corrective Action
and Superfund in terms of ...
Public participation?
Efficiency?
Adequacy of the remedy decision?
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Have you or your staff participated in public meetings for any RCRA Corrective Action sites? If yes:
o Which sites?
o How did you learn about the meetings being held?
o Who organized the meeting (e.g., EPA, state, or industry)?
o Did you or your staff attend the meetings?
D-22
-------
If yes, what was your role in the process?
o What was your opinion of the community engagement process?
o Other than public meetings, were there other opportunities for public participation? If yes:
What were these activities?
How if at all did you participate?
o Overall, do you feel that public participation was adequate? Why or why not?
FEDERAL VS. STATE LEAD
[If involved with more than one RCRA Corrective Action site:] Were the sites led by a state or by
EPA?
o [If a combination of state and federal lead:] Did you notice any difference in the efficiency
or effectiveness of the process based on whether it was led by the state or by EPA?
If yes, please explain.
PERMIT VS. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
[If involved with more than one RCRA Corrective Action site:] Was the process driven by permit or
by administrative order?
o [If a combination of permit and administrative order:] Did you notice any difference in the
efficiency or effectiveness of the process based on whether it went through the permitting
process or administrative order?
If yes, what was the effect of the administrative order on the schedule and timing of
RCRA Corrective Action at the site?
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTION
Do you think expanding the use of administrative orders and enforcement actions would accelerate
the time required to reach a remedy decision?
o Why or why not?
LOOKING AHEAD
What recommendations would you offer to improve the RCRA Corrective Action process?
D-23
-------
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS
BACKGROUND AND STATUS
How have you been involved in the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o What sites have you been involved with?
How did you become involved with these sites?
What were the key issues?
Did you encounter any delays in the process?
> If yes, what caused the delays?
> Were any of these sites located in Environmental Justice communities?57
> If yes, how well did the RCRA Corrective Action process account for and
address environmental justice considerations?
Where do things currently stand in the process?
Has the pace of site investigation and cleanup met your expectations? Why or why
not?
[If applicable:] Were you satisfied with the remedy decision/environmental
outcome?
> Why or why not?
Have you participated in any cases involving Superfund sites?
o If yes, what were the major similarities and differences between RCRA Corrective Action
and Superfund in terms of...
Public participation?
Efficiency?
Adequacy of the remedy decision?
Do you have any other concerns about the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o If yes, please explain. [Prompt: Are concerns about timing? Remedy selection?]
57 EPA defines "environmental justice" as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or
income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for
all communities and persons across this Nation. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and
health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work."
http://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice/
D-24
-------
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Have you participated in public meetings for any RCRA Corrective Action sites? If yes:
o Which sites?
o How did you learn about the meetings being held?
o Who organized the meeting (e.g., EPA, state, or industry)?
o What was your role in the process?
o What was your opinion of the community engagement process?
Were you and other stakeholders given sufficient opportunity to comment?
Were your comments given due consideration?
o Other than public meetings, were there other opportunities for public participation?
If yes, what were they?
If yes, (how) did you participate?
o Do you feel that public participation was adequate? Why or why not?
FEDERAL VS. STATE LEAD
[If involved with more than one RCRA Corrective Action site:] Were the sites led by a state or by
EPA?
o [If a combination of state and federal lead:] Did you notice any difference in the efficiency
or effectiveness of the process based on whether it was led by the state or by EPA?
If yes, please explain.
PERMIT VS. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
[If involved with more than one RCRA Corrective Action site:] Was the process driven by permit or
by administrative order?
o [If a combination of permit and administrative order:] Did you notice any difference in the
efficiency or effectiveness of the process based on whether it went through the permitting
process or administrative order?
If yes, please explain.
LOOKING AHEAD
What recommendations would you offer to improve the RCRA Corrective Action process?
D-25
-------
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR INDUSTRY
BACKGROUND AND STATUS
How was the RCRA Corrective Action process initiated at your site(s)?
o Who initiated the process?
o Was the process driven by permit, administrative order, or voluntary agreement?
o What were the key environmental issues?
o Did the site generate any significant public interest - if yes, what were the key issues?
Did you encounter any delays in the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o If yes, what caused the delays?
o If yes, could the regulatory agencies have done something to accelerate the process? Please
explain.
What stage(s) of the process were easiest or smoothest? Please explain.
What stage(s) of the process were most difficult? Please explain.
Where do things currently stand at your site(s)?
o [If applicable:] Were you satisfied with the remedy decision/outcome at your site(s)?
Why or why not?
What is your overall assessment of the effectiveness of the RCRA Corrective Action process?
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Have you participated in public meetings related to the RCRA Corrective Action process at your
site(s)?7/jes:
o Who organized the meeting (e.g., your facility, EPA, or the state)?
o What was your role in the process?
o What was your opinion of the community engagement process?
Were you and other stakeholders given sufficient opportunity to comment?
Were your suggestions and concerns given due consideration?
o Other than public meetings, did you undertake or participate in any other community
engagement activities related to the RCRA Corrective Action process? If yes:
What were the activities?
How did you participate?
FINANCIAL REFORMS AND RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION
Recent emphasis on transparent financial reporting (e.g., Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and various
sustainability efforts) has changed how some companies consider environmental liabilities in some
contexts.
D-26
-------
o Do you know of any companies (including yours) that have changed strategies for dealing
with RCRA Corrective Action sites in response to Sarbanes-Oxley or other recent changes in
reporting emphasis?
Is there a greater emphasis on rapid cleanup?
> If yes, please explain.
Has there been any recent change in companies' preferred method for implementing
the RCRA Corrective Action process? (e.g., voluntary agreement, permitting process,
or administrative order)
> If yes, please explain.
LOOKING AHEAD
What recommendations would you offer to improve the RCRA Corrective Action process?
D-27
-------
INTERVIEW GUIDE FOR OTHER REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGERS
CURRENT PROCESS
Do you have a process map for RCRA Corrective Action specific to your Region?
o If yes: Please provide a copy of the process map and walk us through the steps. [IF YES,
SKIP THE NEXT QUESTION AND GO TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTION.]
o If no: IF NO, GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
The attached diagram shows a simplified, stylized RCRA Corrective Action process map. [Attach
diagram] We understand that not every site follows the same sequence of events, and some sites
may not even have all events; still, we are trying to capture the key elements of the process both to
understand where delays occur and as a communication tool. With this context in mind...
o To what extent does the RCRA Corrective Action process in your region follow the process
shown in the diagram?
o Are we missing any important steps in the process map?
If yes, please identify the step(s) and where it belongs on the map.
o Are any steps shown out of order?
If yes, please identify the step(s) and indicate the correct order.
o Where in the process do things tend to get significantly delayed or stuck?
Please identify the step(s), and explain.
Has your region conducted a Lean Event or another initiative to identify delays and streamline the
process?
o If yes:
* Can you send us the data (e.g. time between steps)?
What did you identify as the major delays?
What were the key recommendations to address the problem?
[IF YES, SKIP THE NEXT QUESTION AND GO TO THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION.]
o If no: IF NO, GO TO THE NEXT QUESTION.
Regions 3 and 7 conducted a Lean Event where they identified major causes of delay, including.
o Internal review within EPA
o RPM turnover at RCRA Corrective Action sites
Are these issues causing delays in your region?
What other factors do you believe are causing delays?
We understand that RCRA Corrective Action can proceed through permit modification,
administrative order or other enforcement action, or voluntary agreement.
D-28
-------
o What difference does this make, if any, in how the process is implemented and the efficiency
of the process?
Overall, do you think the RCRA Corrective Action process is reaching remedy decisions in a timely
manner in your region?
o If no, please explain.
Overall, do you think the RCRA Corrective Action process is reaching remedy decisions that are
environmentally protective in your region?
o If no, please explain.
IMPROVING THE PROCESS
What actions has your region considered to improve the efficiency of the RCRA Corrective Action
process?
Are you aware of any sites that have implemented these actions?
o If yes, were these actions effective in speeding up the process?
Why or why not?
o If no, do you think the proposed actions have the potential to speed up the process?
Why or why not?
Where do you see the biggest potential for improvement in the RCRA Corrective Action process?
o [For each item identified:] How much impact would this change have on:
New sites?
Existing sites?
Specific stages of the process?
Low priority sites?
Specific types of contamination?
Enforcement options?
Specific sectors?
The Lean Event for Regions 3 and 7 focused on streamlining the RFI phase. A major
recommendation from the Lean Event was to reach agreement on the scope and objectives of the
investigation upfront, with official signoff from EPA senior managers early in the process.
o Would this be helpful in your region?
o Would this be feasible in your region?
We understand that Region 2 recently transferred some of its RCRA Corrective Action sites to the
Superfund Division.
o Has this been done in your region?
If yes, was it helpful?
D-29
-------
If no, under what circumstances (if any) do you think it might be helpful?
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS
What is your experience with using administrative orders and enforcement actions for RCRA
Corrective Action sites?
o What enforcement tools and administrative orders have you used?
o What have been the outcomes of administrative orders and enforcement actions on process
timing and schedule when used to address past cases of non-compliance?
Looking back, can you think of cases where enforcement actions might have prevented non-
compliance or accelerated the process of reaching a remedy decision?
Stakeholders at the Lean Event for Regions 3 and 7 stated that enforcement actions delay the
process.
o To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
o When have enforcement actions been helpful in your region?
o Are certain types of sites better candidates for enforcement action?
If yes, please explain.
Have you considered other enforcement actions or administrative orders that you have not pursued?
o If yes, please explain.
Overall, do you think that increasing the use of administrative orders and enforcement action in
RCRA Corrective Action cases would speed up or slow down the process? Please explain.
WORKLOAD
How many sites do your RPMs typically manage at one time?
How often do sites "change hands" between RPMs?
Why do you reassign sites from one RPM to another?
Has the workload of RPMs increased, decreased, or stayed the same?
Is the level of effort required to manage a site consistent from the beginning to the end of the
process, or do some steps require more time and effort than others?
How does the level of effort required to manage non-priority sites compare to the level of effort
required to manage priority sites?
GPRA VS. NON-GPRA SITES
Our evaluation focuses on GPRA sites. However, we would like to understand to what extent we can
generalize our findings to non-GPRA sites.
o Are there major differences between the facility characteristics of GPRA and non-GPRA
sites?
If yes, please explain.
D-30
-------
o Are there major differences in the issues and challenges that you encounter in RCRA
Corrective Action cases and GPRA and non-GPRA sites?
If yes, please explain.
o Would your recommendations to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the RCRA
Corrective Action program be different for GPRA sites and non-GPRA sites?
If yes, please explain.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Why do some sites receive a lot of public attention while others receive little or no attention?
o Is there a pattern to the sites that generate the most public interest?
How does the region account for Environmental Justice considerations in the RCRA Corrective
Action process?
Does the region provide public notice at every RCRA Corrective Action site?
o If not, what are the key factors in determining whether there is an opportunity for public
comment?
Does the region hold public meetings to address the community's concerns at every RCRA
Corrective Action site?
o If not, what are the factors in deciding whether to hold public meetings?
How do you track community involvement activities within RCRA Corrective Action?
D-31
-------
APPENDIX E. DETAILED RCRA INFO ANALYSIS
E-1
-------
QUESTION 1B: WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES IN EFFICIENCY BETWEEN FEDERALLY-MANAGED SITES
VS. STATE-MANAGED SITES?
RCRAInfo
We drew extensively on RCRAInfo data to address this evaluation question.
Of the 310 Region 2 sites for which RCRAInfo lists a lead agency, 210 are state-lead and 100 are EPA-
lead. This evaluation question seeks to determine whether the efficiency of the Corrective Action process
differs across these state-lead and EPA-lead sites.
An initial glance at data gleaned from RCRAInfo suggests that a discrepancy in RCRA Corrective Action
process times may in fact exist between state and EPA-lead sites. Using the methodology outlined in the
Methodology Document, lEc calculated the process times required to complete key phases of the RCRA
Corrective Action process for each site in Region 2. Exhibit E-l displays the average number of years
required for sites to reach key actions for both state-lead and EPA-lead sites, measured from the initiation
of the Corrective Action process.
EXHIBIT E-1: YEARS FROM START DATE TO KEY ACTIONS AT EPA-LEAD VS. STATE-LEAD SITES
Average Years to
Complete Action
EPA
State
RFI Initiation RFI Remedy Remedy
Completion Decision Completion
Action
These data reveal that, on average, EPA-lead sites take slightly longer to complete site investigations,
remedy decisions, and remedy construction, as measured from the start of the Corrective Action
process. Overall, EPA-lead sites require an average of 14.1 years to progress through these phases, while
state-lead sites require an average of 12.9 years.
Exhibit E-2 illustrates that, by contrast, state-lead sites take slightly longer, on average, to achieve key
environmental indicators as compared to EPA-lead sites.
E-2
-------
EXHIBIT E-2. TIME NEEDED TO REACH El'S AT ERA-LEAD VS. STATE-LEAD SITES
Years
I Human
Exposure
iGroundwater
EPA
State
While these statistics provide a useful snapshot of Region 2's sites, a more rigorous analysis is required to
determine the extent to which process times are associated with lead agency. To investigate the apparent
differences in process times for EPA-lead versus state-lead sites, we perform simple t-tests to determine
whether the differences are statistically significant.58 These tests use the sample size and magnitude of
process time differences between EPA-lead and state-lead sites to determine whether these differences are
likely caused by chance, or by inherent characteristics of these sites. To quantify these differences we
divide all sites based on whether they have completed a given phase within one standard deviation above
the mean number of years for all sites.59 We use "one standard deviation above the mean" as a cutoff
point beyond which sites require significantly more time than average to complete any given process.60
We then create a ratio of sites that meet this condition to those that do not. The statistical test compares
these ratios between EPA-lead and state-lead sites. Exhibit E-3 summarizes the results of the t-tests.
58 Since skewness/kurtosis statistical tests determined that site process times were not distributed normally for key Corrective Action phases, t-
tests could not be performed using process times as a dependent variable. However, since the assumptions for conducting t-tests using binary
variables are less stringent than those using continuous variables, t-tests could be performed based on a binary indicator of site process times.
59 For this analysis, we only used sites that have had the opportunity to complete the phase in this time frame. For example, if the mean and
standard deviation for a specific phase were five years and two years, respectively, sites that have not had at least seven years to complete this
phase were not included in the analysis.
60 This construction of the dependent variable produces a counterintuitive result: By definition a majority of sites should fall below one standard
deviation above the mean. However, our variable indicates that a majority of sites fall above this threshold for most phases. This discrepancy is
possible because only sites that have completed a phase can be used to calculate the mean and standard deviation for that phase. This outcome
could indicate one of two phenomena. First, it may be that sites that have not reported an end date for a phase actually tend to require more time
to complete the phase. In this case, the calculated mean for our sample will be lower than it should be, as it was calculated using only sites that
have completed a phase. Alternatively, this result could reflect the fact that many sites are not required to report an end date for certain phases.
In this case our estimated mean may or may not be correct, but the number of sites falling above the "mean + standard deviation" threshold will be
higher than it should be.
E-3
-------
EXHIBIT E-3. T-TEST COMPARISON OF ERA-LEAD VS. STATE-LEAD SITES
ACTION
CA200
CA350
CA400
CA550
CA725
CA750
CA999
NAME OF
ACTION
Site
Investigation
Complete
Corrective
Measures Study
Complete
Remedy Decision
Remedy
Construction
Complete
Human Exposure
Under Control
Groundwater
Contamination
Under Control
Corrective
Action Process
Terminated
FEDERAL
# OF SITES
IN SAMPLE
76
75
66
50
79
75
38
% SITES
ABOVE MEAN
+ 1 STD. DEV.
59%
87%
77%
54%
13%
23%
68%
STATE
# SITES IN
SAMPLE
168
166
159
114
189
183
77
% SITES ABOVE
MEAN + 1 STD.
DEV.
45%
73%
53%
37%
8%
16%
77%
P-VALUE
0.0432
0.0183
0.0009
0.0405
0.2904
0.1938
0.3461
Key: shading = statistically significant at a 95% confidence level
Results are based on t-tests for independent samples.
The results for the CA725, CA750, and CA999 variables indicate that no significant difference could be
found between the full duration of the Corrective Action process, or the time required to achieve
environmental indicators, at EPA-lead versus state-lead sites. For CA725 and CA750 (Els), the close
proximity of the ratios across groups seem to have prevented the test from detecting a statistically
significant difference between EPA-lead versus state-lead sites. For CA999 (Corrective Action process
terminated), the result seems to be driven primarily by the small number of sites that have terminated the
Corrective Action process.
In contrast, we find a statistically significant difference between EPA-lead sites versus state-lead sites
for the other phases of the process that we tested (CA200, CA350, CA400, and CA550), with EPA-lead
sites likely to take longer. This result implies that some characteristic of EPA-lead sites - whether
relating to the lead agency, the sites themselves, or some other factor - slows down the Corrective
Action process at these sites. For example, the interviews with Region 2 indicate that EPA often assumes
responsibility for sites that are inherently difficult or complex for states to manage. If true, this could
explain why EPA-lead sites take longer than state-lead sites.
To investigate why EPA-lead sites sometimes take longer than state-lead sites, lEc conducted a number of
Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) and probit regressions. These regressions are designed to isolate the
individual significance of sites' lead agency on site process times, while controlling for the effects of
E-4
-------
other site characteristics.61 Although we ran a number of regressions using different variables, only one
regression's results are statistically significant at the 95 percent confidence level. Specifically, a probit
regression using the remedy decision as the dependent variable assigns a statistically significant and
positive coefficient to the binary variable denoting EPA-lead sites. This indicates that EPA-lead sites are
less likely to reach a remedy decision in less than one standard deviation above the mean of all sites, as
compared to state-lead sites. In every other iteration of the probit analysis that we conducted, statistical
significance is not consistently assigned to the agency leading sites' cleanups. This suggests that
observed differences in process times between EPA-lead and state-lead sites are likely attributable to
characteristics of sites themselves, rather than the means by which each agency deals with site
cleanups.
QUESTION 1C: ARE DECISIONS MADE IN A TIMELY MANNER?
RCRA INFO
Overview
lEc calculated summary statistics on the percentage of sites and time required to complete key steps in the
Corrective Action process, measured from the initiation of the Corrective Action process through the
completion of each step. The results are shown in Exhibit E-4.
EXHIBIT E-4. SUMMARY STATISTICS OF RATES AND TIMES TO COMPLETE KEY ACTIONS
ACTION
Site Investigation Imposed
Site Investigation Initiated
Site Investigation Complete
Corrective Measures Study Initiated
Corrective Measures Study Complete
Remedy Selected
Remedy Construction Complete
Human Exposure Under Control
Groundwater Contamination
Under Control
Corrective Action Process Terminated
# SITES1
243
195
156
39
68
136
133
242
212
44
% SITES1
73%
59%
47%
12%
21%
41%
40%
73%
64%
13%
MEAN
YEARS2
5.0
2.8
5.33
10.2
13.1
13.5
13.4
10.0
MEDIAN2
4.0
1.4
4.3
9.8
14.5
14.0
14.1
13.6
STANDARD
DEVIATION2
4.6
3.2
4.1
6.5
6.7
4.5
4.6
9.2
(1) Considers all sites that have completed the specified action.
(2) Considers only sites that have recorded both the specified action and a start date for the
corrective action process.
(3) Some facilities reported the CMS start date and end date on the same day, which pulls down the
average time required to complete the CMS. This could occur if an Interim Measure was retroactively
adopted as the final remedy; alternatively, the result could simply reflect how data was reported in
RCRAInfo.
61 For a more thorough description of regressions run, variables included, and results, see the discussion in 1C.
E-5
-------
Overall, from the start of the RCRA Corrective Action process, sites that have completed the process
took 5.0years on average to complete theRFI, 10.2 years to select a remedy, and 13.1 years to
construct a remedy. Notably, the averages do not include sites that are still in process; the averages will
likely increase over time as these "lagging" sites reach completion. On the other hand, the large standard
deviations suggest that outliers (sites that progressed especially slowly) may be pulling up the averages. It
has taken sites about 13.5 years to meet environmental indicators, but as explained later in this chapter,
that has more to do with when sites were added to the GPRA 2020 baseline than when they started the
RCRA Corrective Action process.62 Notably, many more sites have met each environmental indicator
than have constructed, or even selected, a remedy. Approximately 73 percent and 64 percent of sites
have met the human exposure and groundwater indicators, respectively, while only 41 percent of sites
have selected a remedy.
Visual representations of this same data further illustrate trends relating to the times required to complete
various steps in the Corrective Action process. Exhibit E-5 shows the number of years from the initiation
of the Corrective Action process to the construction of a final remedy. Exhibit E-5 displays data for all
sites that have reported a date for both the start of the Corrective Action process and the completion of a
final remedy.63 These sites, which account for 24 percent of all sites in Region 2's GPRA universe,
have a mean of 13.1 years and a median of 14.5years to completion. Within this timeframe, most sites
will have completed an initial RCRA facility investigation and corrective measures study, and constructed
a remedy. Distributions for these intermediate phases are shown in Exhibits E-6 through E-8.
EXHIBIT E-5. YEARS NEEDED FOR REMEDY CONSTRUCTION AFTER INITIATING CORRECTIVE ACTION
1 9
m
0 .
** Ci+Ac fi -
A .
9 _
0 -
1
-20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
# Years
62 Further data limitations are outlined at the conclusion of this section.
63 Note that 81 sites have recorded both a corrective action start date and remedy construction. This differs from the 133 sites (shown in Exhibit 8
above) that have recorded the completion of final remedy construction.
E-6
-------
EXHIBIT E-6. YEARS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SITE INVESTIGATION PHASE
9n
ia
ifi
1 9
** CM-AC 1 n -
9 _
rat
-3-11 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
# Years
EXHIBIT E-7. YEARS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY PHASE
E-7
-------
EXHIBIT E-8. YEARS NEEDED TO CONSTRUCT A REMEDY, ONCE A REMEDY HAS BEEN SELECTED
70
fin
^n
An
# Sites
3D
9fl
m
0 -
-15 -13 -11 -9-7-5-3-11 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17
# Years
As shown in Exhibit E-5 above, the analysis reveals a bimodal trend whereby sites tend to construct a
remedy in five years, or in 18 years, but are less likely to construct a remedy closer to the overall mean of
13 years. Since none of the intermediate three phases mirror this bimodal trend, it is likely that sites that
complete one phase of the process slowly are likely to complete other phases of the process slowly.
Similar distributions are also presented for the attainment of each environmental indicator in Exhibits E-9
andE-10.
EXHIBIT E-9. YEARS NEEDED TO MEET El'S, ONCE A SITE INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN IMPOSED
18
1fi
1 9
m
# Sites
8 -
Reaching El
A -
) _
0 -
jj
M ii LJiil
Human
Exposure
Groundwater
Contamination
ll 1
-4-20 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
# Years
E-8
-------
EXHIBIT E-10. YEARS NEEDED TO MEET El'S, ONCE ADDED TO GPRA UNIVERSE
50
45
40
35
30
# Sites
Reaching El 25
20
15
10
5
0
I
1 '
I
I
-12 -10 -8 -6 -4
-202
# Years
I Human
Exposure
I Groundwater
Contamination
8 10 12
Exhibits E-9 and E-10 suggest that GPRA goals may be quite effective at prompting the completion of
each environmental indicator. Whereas the first exhibit reveals a wide range of years required for sites to
meet these goals since initiating Corrective Action, the second shows that the vast majority of sites reach
these goals within six years of GPRA designation. Note that a larger distribution of times is expected in
the first graph, since many sites initiated the Corrective Action process long before the creation of the
GPRA universe in 1999. However, had these sites already controlled human exposure and groundwater
contamination, the GPRA process time in the second graph would be recorded as zero or negative.
Instead, we see that most sites met the GPRA goals shortly after GPRA designation. This could suggest
that their inclusion in the GPRA universe prompted an efficient effort leading to the completion of the
GPRA goals. Alternatively, sites may have met these environmental goals prior to their inclusion in the
GPRA universe, but recorded this fact several years later their designation.
Outlier analysis
We hypothesize that site characteristics are related to the time required to complete the process. To test
for a correlation between slow-moving sites and various site attributes, lEc conducted an outlier analysis
based on the following process times:
RCRA Facility Investigation
Corrective Measures Study
Remedy Construction
Investigation Imposition to Remedy Selection
E-9
-------
Investigation Imposition to Remedy Construction
Investigation Imposition to Corrective Action Process Terminated
Sites that fall within the slowest 25th percentile for each of these phases are aggregated, and
characteristics of sites that fall within the slowest 25th percentile of sites for four or more phases (11 sites
in total) are compared against characteristics of all Region 2 sites. As shown in Exhibit E-l 1, compared to
the characteristics of all sites in Region 2, these 11 sites were disproportionately more likely to:
Have been added to the GPRA universe in 1999 (rather than in 2006 or 2009)
Be state-lead
Have contaminated groundwater and soil
Be given a high priority National Corrective Action Priority System (NCAPS) ranking.
EXHIBIT E-11. CHARACTERISTICS OF SLOWEST SITES (IN FOUR OR MORE KEY PHASES)
SITE(1)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
STATE
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY
PRIORITY
High
High
High
High
High
High
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High
GPRA YEAR
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
1999
2009
2006
1999
ORDER?
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
AGENCY
State
State
State
EPA
State
State
State
State
EPA
State
State
CONTAMINATION TYPE
AIR
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
GROUND
WATER
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SOIL
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
SURFACE
WATER
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Notes: (1) Site names have been redacted for confidentiality reasons.
Due to the small number of sites that fall within the slowest 25th percentile, we were not able to conduct
statistical analysis to determine whether these factors are statistically significant. Therefore, the results
should be treated more as anecdotal information than general conclusions about factors that influence
cleanup times.
E-10
-------
Regression analysis
Approach
While the outlier analysis described above suggests several site characteristics that may slow down the
Corrective Action process, a more rigorous regression analysis is helpful in evaluating these correlations
in a more systematic way. In particular, a regression analysis can isolate the impact of individual site
characteristics on site process times by controlling across many other characteristics. In addition to the
sites' lead agency and use of administrative orders, other variables could impact the duration of process
times at a site, including the type of contamination, extent of contamination, site size, location, priority
within GPRA, and use of intermediate remedial measures. Exhibit E-12 provides descriptive statistics for
primary explanatory variables included in our regressions.
EXHIBIT E-12. SUMMARY OF CHARACTERISTICS OF SITES EVALUATED
BINARY VARIABLES
New York
New Jersey
Puerto Rico
High Priority NCAPS Ranking
Medium Priority NCAPS Ranking
Low Priority NCAPS Ranking
EPA-lead
State-lead
Orders or Decrees Used
Air Release Indicated
Groundwater Release Indicated
Soil Release Indicated
Surface Water Release Indicated
# SITES1
174
106
51
142
95
94
100
210
93
48
208
226
103
% TOTAL
52.57%
32.02%
15.41%
42.90%
28.70%
28.40%
30.21%
63.44%
28.10%
14.50%
62.84%
68.28%
31.12%
Continuous Variables
Site Size (acres)
Mean
671.5114
Median
25
Notes:
(1 ) - Note that the present analysis considers only sites that have reported one or more of the key steps in the
Corrective Action process. The exhibit describes the number of sites that have a given characteristic and have
completed one of these key actions, and expresses this value as a percentage of all GPRA sites in Region 2.
Additional variables were also included for:
The number of multiple instances of a single action type
The number of interim remedy decisions made
The number of interim remedy constructions completed
4 For a description of the methodology used in the regression analysis, please see the methodology section of this report.
E-11
-------
Furthermore, an additional set of regressions was run including the following variables:
Number of final remedies constructed at a sub-sitewide level
Number of interim measures decisions made at a sub-sitewide level
Number of interim measures constructed at a sub-sitewide level
Variables listed in Exhibit E-12 above are treated as constant over the lifetime of each site. In the rare
cases where the agency lead, priority, or some other variable changed for a given site, this analysis
attributes the most recent action or attribute to the site as a whole. By contrast, variables relating to
interim measures or sub-sitewide remedy construction are treated as dynamic variables across the lifetime
of each site. That is, each regression counts only instances of the action that occur during the phase being
measured.
These explanatory variables are applied in two sets of regressions. Dependent variables used in the first
set of regressions consist of the time required, in years, to complete phases of the Corrective Action
process. This approach allows the dependent variable to be continuous, and therefore allows regression
results to express the impact of site characteristics in terms of changes in the duration of key Corrective
Action phases,65 given any site characteristic. However, this approach also produces a limited sample of
sites, consisting only of sites that have completed both the beginning and end of the specified process.
To increase the sample of sites that falls within the scope of this analysis, lEc ran probit regressions using
a different dependent variable. Rather than expressing the duration of any phase, this new variable
captures simply whether or not a site requires more than the mean of all sites plus one standard deviation
to complete the specified phase. This variable is therefore binary, rather than continuous, and takes on a
value of "1" if the condition stated above holds. Sites that have not completed a phase are assigned a "1"
if the same amount of time has passed since the initiation of the phase. If a sufficient amount of time has
not passed to place the site above this threshold, the site is not considered in the sample. While this
approach therefore is not able to consider every site within Region 2, it expands the sample size of this
analysis significantly.
Each regression is analyzed to determine the joint and individual significance of variables in explaining
the two dependent variables discussed above. To do so, these analyses consider a range of statistics
indicating the predictive strength of each explanatory variable and each model as a whole. A confidence
interval of 95 percent is applied, so that OLS regressions with F-statistics outside this confidence interval
(above 0.05) are ignored as having too little explanatory power. Similarly, explanatory variables with t-
statistics outside of this confidence interval are insignificant. The same confidence intervals are applied to
the chi-squared and z-statistics values of probit regressions and their variables, respectively.
Findings
As anticipated, the probit regression models are statistically significant more often than the OLS
regressions. Whereas one-third of OLS regressions are significant, two-thirds of the probit regressions are
significant. Since the variables included in these regressions are constant across analogous regressions,
5 See previous section for a description of the construction and limitations of this dependent variable.
E-12
-------
this greater rate of significance is likely due to the greater sample sizes made possible by the binary
variable used in the probit regressions.
Significant OLS regressions are listed in Exhibit E-13 along with associated p-values and R2 values.
EXHIBIT E-13. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT OLS REGRESSIONS
DEPENDENT VARIABLE
Remedy Decision
Remedy Construction (from start)
Corrective Action Terminated
RCRA Site Investigation Initiated
Remedy Decision
Remedy Construction (from start)
Groundwater Release Controlled
SUBSITE VARIABLES?1
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
P-VALUE
0.0433
0.0217
0.0423
0.0002
0.0052
0.0094
0.0211
R2 VALUE
0.2625
0.3343
0.9327
0.2945
0.3523
0.3961
0.1419
Notes:
(1) Includes subsite remedy construction, and subsite interim remedial measure decisions and constructions
R2 values were also tracked across significant regressions, which ranged from 0.14 to 0.93. In other
words, the model with the highest R2 value explains around 93 percent of the variation in the dependent
variable (Corrective Action terminated).
Looking beyond the significance of the model as a whole, very few individual variables were consistently
determined to be statistically significant. For various reasons outlined in the "limitations" section below,
this finding may be due largely to limitations in the data we were able to acquire. However, it is worth
discussing what few variables were in fact deemed significant in our model.
Most notably, multiple instances of a single event code were often determined to have a significant
and negative effect on the process times observed across sites. Specifically, at least one such variable
was found to be significant in regressions using remedy decisions, remedy constructions, and Corrective
Action process terminated as dependent variables. This finding could indicate that within a facility,
different SWMUs or parcels moved through the process on different tracks. The results might also
indicate that sites that have had to revisit portions of the Corrective Action process multiple times have
become more efficient in these processes, or have revisited phases with progressively less contamination
needing to be addressed. Alternatively, this result could simply reflect shortcomings inherent in the nature
of the present analysis. As previously discussed, the non-linearity of the Corrective Action process allows
sites to cycle back through stages of the process. While this practice is generally viewed positively, and
allows sites flexibility in dealing with cleanups, it creates a challenge in measuring the precise start and
end dates for each phase of the cleanup process. Thus, the significance assigned to the variable for
multiple event codes may in fact reflect the difficulty our model has in properly measuring each phase,
rather than the efficiency with which each site is able to complete that phase.
E-13
-------
Other variables that were significant at the 95% level for select models include:
EPA-lead, which tended to decrease the time required to reach Corrective Action terminated
Surface water contamination, which tended to decrease the total duration of the Corrective Action
process
Subsite interim measure decisions, which tended to increase the time required to complete the
RCRA site investigation
Subsite remedy constructions, which tended to increase the amount of time required to reach a
final remedy decision
Use of orders or decrees, which tended to increase the time required to control groundwater
contamination at sites
As stated above, explanatory variables are assigned statistical significance with far more consistency by
probit models as opposed to the OLS regressions described above. Significant probit models and
associated indicators of significance are shown in Exhibit E-14.
EXHIBIT E-14. STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT PROBIT REGRESSIONS
DEPENDENT VARIABLE
RCRA Site Investigation Complete (from Corrective
Action start date)
Corrective Measures Study Complete (from Corrective
Action start date)
Remedy Decision
Remedy Construction (from start)
Remedy Construction (Phase)
RCRA Site Investigation Complete (from start)
Corrective Measure Study Complete (from start)
Remedy Decision
Remedy Construction Complete (from start)
Remedy Construction (phase)
Groundwater Contamination Under Control
Human Exposure Under Control
Groundwater Contamination Under Control
SUBSITE
VARIABLES?1
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
P-VALUE
0.0024
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0002
0.0011
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0001
0.0325
0.0003
PSEUDO R2
VALUE2
0.1217
0.2951
0.2554
0.5454
0.2627
0.1414
0.3627
0.2758
0.5603
0.3415
0.1911
0.1829
0.2027
Notes:
(1) Includes subsite remedy construction, and subsite interim remedial measure decisions and constructions
(2) This value provides a measure of how well the model's predictions match actual observations. Pseudo R2 values
can range from 0 to 1 , where greater values denote greater predictive strength of the model.
E-14
-------
As with the OLS regressions, continuous variables capturing multiple entries of the same event code at a
site are statistically significant with greater consistency than any other type of variable. Moreover, every
significant probit regression has at least one such variable deemed significant within the model.
Interestingly, the explanatory variable counting multiple instances of the action directly preceding the end
of the given phase is always found to be significant, usually with a negative estimated coefficient. These
findings mirror those from comparable OLS regressions, and can therefore be interpreted similarly. For
example, sites that have re-visited a phase multiple times may have become more efficient at dealing with
the contamination, or may have returned to the phase in order to deal with less and less complex
contamination. Alternatively, these results could reflect our analysis' inability to accurately measure
phase durations.
Interim measure decisions are also found to have a significant and negative (i.e., time-reducing) effect on
process times with a fair degree of consistency within probit regressions.66 This result is consistent across
process times for corrective measure studies, remedy decisions, and remedy constructions. This finding
suggests that using interim measures generally decreases the time required to reach remedy decisions
and construction. For regressions involving remedy construction, this result may reflect the fact that
sites will often retroactively determine a previously-constructed interim measure to be sufficient as the
final remedy for a site. In this case, data from RCRAInfo may yield a negative process time, or a process
time of zero. While the sign of the estimated coefficient should remain negative in this case, these
discrepancies in data entry cause estimated coefficients to be more negative than they otherwise would
have been.
Regarding sites' geographic jurisdiction, New York and New Jersey were assigned statistically significant
and negative coefficients in probit regressions involving the RCRA site investigation. Since these
variables are binary, the signs of their coefficients therefore indicate the relative efficiency of these phases
as compared to sites in Puerto Rico. This result therefore suggests that sites in Puerto Rico may
complete site investigations at a slower rate than sites elsewhere in Region 2. By contrast, New Jersey
was assigned a statistically significant and positive coefficient in probit regressions involving
groundwater contamination, indicating the New Jersey sites may be slower to achieve the groundwater
El than Puerto Rico. The latter could be due, at least in part, to New Jersey's relatively stringent water
standards. However, as discussed below, these findings may also reflect unobserved characteristics of
sites in particular geographic jurisdictions, rather than the agency or means used during site cleanups.
Other variables that were found to be significant in select probit models include:
Soil contamination, which tended to increase the likelihood that a site reached a remedy
decision and remedy construction in less than one standard deviation above the mean process
time. (Process times measured from the Corrective Action start date)
Medium priority, which tended to decrease the probability that a site was able to construct a
final remedy in less than one standard deviation above the mean process time, as compared to
sites with low priorities. (Result held for the remedy construction phase and remedy
construction as measured since the start of the Corrective Action process)
66 Note this finding is different than the results of the OLS regression discussed above. The OLS regression suggested that sub-site interim measures
increase the time required to complete the site investigation. The probit analysis indicates that interim measures decrease the time required to
reach remedy decision and construction.
E-15
-------
Use of orders and decrees, which tended to decrease the likelihood that a site constructed a
final remedy in less than one standard deviation above the mean process time (Process times
measured from the Corrective Action start date)
Financial assurance requirements, which tended to decrease the likelihood that a site
completed remedy construction in less than one standard deviation above the mean process
time. (Result held for the remedy construction phase and remedy construction as measured
since the start of the Corrective Action process)
EPA-lead, which tended to decrease the likelihood that a site reached a remedy decision in
less than one standard deviation above the mean process time for all sites.
Groundwater contamination, which tended to decrease the likelihood that a site reached a
remedy decision in less than one standard deviation above the mean for all sites.
High priority, which tended to decrease the likelihood that a site constructed a final remedy in
less than one standard deviation above the mean for all sites. (Process time measured from
the Corrective Action start date)
Caveats and limitations
The exhibits in the previous sections illustrate the strengths and limitations of the existing data. For
example, sites are not required to report key actions such as the completion of a site investigation, or the
initiation or completion of the corrective measures study. Phase statistics can therefore only be calculated
using dates from the sample of sites that have reported a date for both the start and end action of each
process. As such, the statistics presented above may not align in a manner one would expect. For
example, the average time needed to construct a remedy is actually greater than the average time required
to complete the entire Corrective Action process. Similarly, more sites have reported completing a
corrective measures study than have reported initiating one.
Other measurement difficulties arise due to the non-linearity of the Corrective Action process. During this
process, sites may complete a given phase, only to return to this phase at a later date. Alternatively, sites
could complete a phase such as an interim remedial measure, only to retroactively define this measure to
be the final remedy at a later date. These types of reporting patterns may create discrepancies between the
phase durations that this evaluation measures and those that actually take place. For example, sites may
appear to have completed the final action in a phase before initiating the phase.
It is important to keep in mind the limitations of the data when interpreting the regression analyses. For
example, although ideally sites should have every applicable event code on the Corrective Action process
entered into RCRAInfo, this is not always the case. Specifically, the completion of a site investigation,
the imposition or completion of a corrective measures study, or any actions relating to interim measures
are not always consistently recorded in the database. This observation may be due to a variety of reasons,
including duplication with state tracking systems such as NJEMS, and Region 2 staff reassignment
without full accounting of site activities. Consequently, these omissions have the potential to introduce
sample selection bias into our regression analysis. For example, if sites that have such specific event code
information in RCRAInfo as just described also tend to complete stages of the Corrective Action process
E-16
-------
at a faster rate, our estimated process times will be biased downwards in a way that is not representative
of the entire Region 2 Corrective Action universe.
While limited data can bias the dependent variables included in our analysis, it can also bias the
significance assigned to the explanatory variables included in our analysis. Most notably, our analysis was
not able to include data related to the financial stability of a site, the experience of the project manager,
extent of contamination and types of contaminants, or community involvement in site processes. Each of
these factors has the potential to effect the duration of time required to complete a given phase of the
Corrective Action process. Thus, our inability to capture them in our regressions could potentially
introduce omitted variable bias, whereby the significance of the omitted variable could be incorrectly
attributed to another variable that was included in the regressions. For this to occur, the omitted variable
would have to be correlated with the included variable. For example, if EPA sites (an observed
characteristic) are more likely to have greater levels of contamination (an unobserved characteristic), our
analysis may determine that EPA's direction of the cleanup process causes sites to progress slower, while
in reality EPA sites could move slower due simply to the greater complexity of contamination.
Our analysis was also not able to capture the effects of many time-sensitive variables. Such variables
include changes in site priority, GPRA designation, priorities of EPA and state agencies, and the general
state of the national economy and political climate. To the extent that such factors affect Corrective
Action process times differently across time, our results will be biased accordingly. For example, we have
learned through interviews that EPA has focused more on meeting Els in recent years. This may quicken
the rate at which sites reach Els, but may slow the rate at which they progress through other aspects of the
RCRA CA process during this time. Our analysis was not able to account for dynamic effects such as this.
Despite these limitations associated with the data, we believe the analysis provides useful insight for the
program.
QUESTION 3: ARE THERE IDENTIFIABLE DELAYS IN THE PROJECTS OR IDENTIFIABLE NON-
COMPLIANCE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PREVENTED BY THE ISSUANCE OF A RCRA CORRECTIVE
ACTION ORDER OR BY TAKING SOME OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTION?
RCRA Info
To address this question, we first used RCRAInfo data to compare Region 2 facilities with and without
the use of orders or decrees. Of the 332 GPRA sites in RCRA Region 2, 113 have implemented at least
one instance of corrective action under an order or decree, rather than a permit modification or on a
voluntary basis.67 After further focusing the analysis only on sites completing certain key actions at a site-
wide level, we are left with 93 facilities that have used orders or decrees. This analysis seeks to determine
whether these orders or decrees resulted in faster cleanup times across facilities.
An initial glance at data from RCRAInfo suggests that there may be a slight difference between process
times at sites have used these orders and decrees as compared to those that have not. Exhibits E-15 and E-
16 show the process times for key stages, and years to achieve Els at sites with and without orders or
decrees.
67 This includes consent orders and consent decrees.
E-17
-------
EXHIBIT E-15: PROCESS TIMES AT SITES WITH AND WITHOUT ORDERS OR DECREES
# Years from
corrective action 8.0
start date
Order
No
Order
EXHIBIT E-16: YEARS TO ACHIEVE El'S AT SITES WITH AND WITHOUT ORDERS OR DECREES
Years from
CA Start to
GPRA Goal
Completion
Order
No Order
I Human
Exposure
iGroundwater
These data show that facilities that have used orders or decrees take an average of 0.8 years longer to
achieve each environmental indicator, as compared to sites that have never used orders or decrees. By
contrast, sites that have used orders or decrees take an average of 0.8 fewer years to construct a final
remedy (as measured from the start of the corrective action process), when compared with process times
for sites that have not used these authority types.
We conducted t-tests to determine whether differences in process times between these two types of
facilities are statistically significant. As with the analogous tests run for the EPA-lead variable described
in Question 1 above, these tests are based on a binary variable that indicates whether a site required more
E-18
-------
than one standard deviation above the mean process time for any given phase of RCRA Corrective
Action. The t-test results are displayed in Exhibit E-17 below.
EXHIBIT E-17: T-TEST FOR DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SITES WITH AND WITHOUT ORDERS OR
DECREES
ACTION
CA200
CA350
CA400
CA550
CA725
CA750
CA999
NAME OF ACTION
Site Investigation
Complete
Corrective
Measures Study
Complete
Remedy Decision
Remedy
Construction
Complete
Human Exposure
Under Control
Groundwater
Contamination
Under Control
Corrective Action
Process
Terminated
ORDERS OR DECREES
# SITES IN
SAMPLE
81
81
80
57
86
84
33
% SITES
ABOVE MEAN
+ STD. DEV.
50%
74%
55%
46%
9%
19%
85%
NO ORDERS OR DECREES
# SITES IN
SAMPLE
163
160
145
107
182
174
82
% SITES
ABOVE MEAN
+ STD. DEV.
46%
79%
63%
40%
10%
15%
70%
P-VALUE
0.1128
0.4139
0.2148
0.5026
0.8794
0.4926
0.0902
Unlike the EPA-lead variable, these t-tests indicate that at a 95 percent confidence interval, we cannot
reject the null hypothesis that the two sets of sites have the same distributions of process times. In other
words, these results suggest that the likelihood that a facility completes any phase of the corrective action
process in more than one standard deviation from the sample mean is the same for sites that have used
orders and decrees as for sites that have not used these authorities. This finding could reflect a number of
different phenomena. Most significantly, it could indicate that the use of orders or decrees has no effect
on the duration of key phases in the corrective action process. Alternatively, orders or decrees could
shorten the amount of time required for key phases, but be implemented most frequently at facilities
where key phases are already more likely to take longer. Put another way, sites that use orders and
decrees may be inherently more complex and difficult than sites that do not use orders and decrees. The
available data do not indicate whether such sites would have progressed even faster or even slower
without the use of an order or decree.
To isolate the effect of using orders and decrees while controlling across other facility characteristics, we
ran OLS and probit regressions using a binary variable indicating the use of these authority types. We ran
several versions of the regression model, controlling for the effects of contamination type, lead agency,
priority level, and other characteristics. This binary variable was assigned statistical significance with
very little consistency across the regressions. Specifically, only one OLS regression found that the use of
orders or decrees has a statistically significant effect: The test showed that an order/decree tends to
increase the amount of time required to control groundwater contamination by 0.96 years. In another
E-19
-------
probit regression, the use of these authority types was found to significantly decrease the probability that
facilities construct a remedy in less than one standard deviation above the mean for all sites. Thus, in both
instances where this variable was found to be significant, it was also found where process times
experienced at facilities were longer. This effect may or may not indicate that orders and decrees are
inherently slower mechanisms for implementing corrective action processes. Several interviews
suggested that administrative orders and related authorities were more time consuming to draft and
enforce, due largely to the lengthy negotiation processes often involved in doing so. It is important to
note, however, that our regressions are not able to account for other facility characteristics such as the
extent of contamination. We are therefore not able to determine whether such facilities may have taken
even longer to complete a phase in the absence of an order or decree.
In general, the failure of regressions to consistently assign statistical significance to this variable largely
coincides with the findings of the t-tests outlined above. Results from these two sets of investigations can
therefore be interpreted similarly. For most phases considered, orders or decrees could have no effect
on site process times, or they could reduce process times at sites that would have otherwise taken even
longer to complete a given phase. The RCRAInfo analysis alone is not sufficient to answer this
question. In the rest of this section, we turn to interviews, and to a lesser extent, file reviews for
additional insight. These data sources suggest that the effects of enforcement actions depend on the
specific context in which these authorities are used.
E-20
------- |