Detailed Information on the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Corrective Action Assessment

Program must define a new baseline for performance measures and establish appropriate annual targets to make goals more ambitious in achieving long-term objectives of the program.

Program should establish appropriate efficiency measures to adequately track program efficiency over time.

Measure: Number of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins under control.

Explanation:Using the 2020 Corrective Action Universe of 3,746 facilities as a baseline, this measure tracks the number of facilities at which stabilization and/or final cleanup efforts have ensured that people are not being exposed to unacceptable levels of contamination. EPA will begin FY 2009 at 56% and expects to reach 65% by the end of FY 2011 (reaching the goal at close to 340 facilities during a three-year period). Accomplishments are documented via Environmental Indicator forms signed by state or EPA regulators, and examples can be found on the Regional Corrective Action websites at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility.htm#Contacts

Measure: Number of RCRA facilities with human exposures to toxins under control.

Explanation:Using the 2020 Corrective Action Universe of 3,746 facilities as a baseline, this measure tracks the number of facilities at which stabilization and/or final cleanup efforts have ensured that people are not being exposed to unacceptable levels of contamination. EPA will begin FY 2009 at 56% and expects to reach 65% by the end of FY 2011 (reaching the goal at close to 340 facilities during a three-year period). Accomplishments are documented via Environmental Indicator forms signed by state or EPA regulators, and examples can be found on the Regional Corrective Action websites at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility.htm#Contacts

Measure: Number of final remedy components constructed at RCRA corrective action facilities per federal, state and private sector costs.

Explanation:The efficiency measure tracks program progress (final remedy components constructed) per unit cost (sum of federal, state, and private sector costs). The following table illustrates how we calculate our efficiency improvement each year: __________________________________________________________________ Year Federal State Private Sector Total Remedy Comp Efficiency Costs Costs Costs Costs --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Dollars in Millions) FY 2006 $39.34 $33.50 $467 $539.84 359 0.665 baseline FY 2007 $39.37 $34.47 $470 $543.84 384 0.706 6.2% __________________________________________________________________ Because 0.706 / 0.665 = 1.062, the RCRA Corrective Action Program was 6.2% more efficient in FY 2007 than in FY 2006. Each year the program strives to be 3% more efficient than the last. EPA has significantly more control over the number of remedy components constructed than it has over total cleanup costs (of which private sector costs are 86%). As a result, we strive to improve our efficiency by constructing more remedy components instead of decreasing costs.

Measure: Percent of RCRA facilities with the migration of contaminated groundwater under control.

Explanation:Using the 2020 Corrective Action Universe of 3,746 facilities as a baseline, this measure tracks the number of facilities at which stabilization and/or final cleanup efforts have ensured that the migration of contaminated groundwater has been controlled. EPA will begin FY 2009 at 48% and expects to reach 55% by the end of FY 2011 (reaching the goal at close to 265 facilities during a three-year period). Accomplishments are documented via Environmental Indicator forms signed by state or EPA regulators, and examples can be found on the Regional Corrective Action websites at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility.htm#Contacts.

Measure: Percent of RCRA facilities with the migration of contaminated groundwater under control.

Explanation:Using the 2020 Corrective Action Universe of 3,746 facilities as a baseline, this measure tracks the number of facilities at which stabilization and/or final cleanup efforts have ensured that the migration of contaminated groundwater has been controlled. EPA will begin FY 2009 at 48% and expects to reach 50% by the end of FY 2009, 52% by the end of FY 2010, and 55% by the end of FY 2011 (close to 90 facilities/yr). Accomplishments are documented via Environmental Indicator forms signed by state or EPA regulators, and examples can be found on the Regional Corrective Action websites at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility.htm#Contacts.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the RCRA Corrective Action (CA) Program is to require and ensure that owners or operators of Treatment, Storage, and Disposal (TSD) facilities subject to the Corrective Action provisions in Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) investigate and cleanup releases as necessary to protect human health and the environment, regardless of when the releases occurred.

Evidence: RCRA Sections 1002(b), 1003(a), 3004(u & v), 3005(c)(3), 3008(h), 7003.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Releases of hazardous wastes at TSD facilities pose a threat to human health and the environment and discourage beneficial reuse of property. Remediation poses unique challenges because of ongoing activities and materials handled at the facilities. No other Federal program addresses the risks from this type of facility. Over 5,000 facilities subject to RCRA Corrective Action; 1,714 "high priority" sites make up RCRA cleanup baseline. Facilities are ranked based on the National Corrective Action Prioritization System - takes into account factors including contamination and potential exposures.

Evidence: RCRA Sections 1002(b), 1003(a). EPA report "Study of the Implementation of the RCRA Corrective Action Program" 2002. "Hazardous Waste - EPA Has Removed Some Barriers to Cleanups" (GAO/RCED-00-224). "Hazardous Waste - Corrective Action Cleanups Will Take Years to Complete" (GAO/RCED-99-48). "Hazardous Waste - Much Work Remains to Accelerate Facility Cleanups" (GAO/RCED-93-15). "Hazardous Waste - Progress Under the Corrective Action Program is Limited, but New Initiatives May Accelerate Cleanups" (GAO/RCED-98-3).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: Structures are in place to prevent overlap and minimize redundancy between clean-up programs. Statutory design requires that EPA strongly encourage states to become authorized to implement the Corrective Action (CA) requirements in lieu of EPA. 38 states and one territory are currently authorized. Design makes state officials the primary decision-makers to eliminate redundancy. Statutory definitions minimize overlap with Superfund: CA program limited to operating facilities that were either seeking or received permits to treated, store, or dispose of hazardous wastes.

Evidence: State authorization agreements. RCRA/CERCLA deferral and coordination policies (e.g., 54 FR 41004, and "Coordination between RCRA Corrective Action and Closure and CERCLA Site Activities." Agency "One Cleanup Program Initiative" designed to improve coordination between and among cleanup programs. (Initiative not intended to restructure the RCRA CA program or create a single federal cleanup program) (www.epa.gov/swerrims/onecleanupprogram/index.htm).

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: There is no strong evidence that a different approach or mechanism would be more efficient or effective for implementing the RCRA CA requirements. The Program's current site stabilization strategy has been supported by external reviewers and industry. EPA established the "One Cleanup Program Initiative" to improve cleanup programs' efficiency through improved coordination (within EPA and between EPA and states) and to encourage uniform adoption of better technologies, information, and measures of success. Owners/operators pay for cleanup in the CA program which reduces future cleanup liabilities of agencies and leverages substantial private sector resources to maximize efficiency.

Evidence: Program stabilization strategy is consistent with the recommendations from the 1990 RCRA Implementation Study and was previously recognized by the GAO in their 1993 report (GAO/RCRED-93-15) titled, "Hazardous Waste - Much Work Remains to Accelerate Facility Cleanups." More recent emphasis on final cleanups is consistent with recommendations in a more recent Inspector General report (2000-P-0028) titled, "RCRA Corrective Action Focus on Interim Priorities - Better Integration with Final Goals Needed."

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Program is designed to put decision-making responsibility as close to actual clean-up activity as possible while ensuring protection of human health and the environment occurs. Wherever possible, states have largest role, with EPA regional offices next, and headquarters at the top to provide uniform guidance and ensure uniform implementation. This design encourages overall effective targeting of resources. In terms of funding, program budget planning and execution are discussed throughout the year with the regional offices, at the biannual Senior Policy Advisors (SPA) meetings and during monthly calls to ensure funds are being used for their intended purpose in support of the program mission.

Evidence: RCRA 1003(a), 3006. 40 CFR 271. Budget Automation System (BAS), obligation reports, internal project database.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Two measures are addressed in this PART: 1) The human exposure goal measures the percentage of sites at which stabilization and/or final cleanup efforts have been sufficient to ensure that people are not being exposed to unacceptable levels of contamination under current land and water use conditions. 2) The groundwater goal measures the percentage of sites at which stabilization and/or final cleanup efforts have been sufficient to ensure plumes of contaminated groundwater are not expanding above levels of concern or adversely affecting surface water bodies.

Evidence: EPA current Strategic Plan and draft 2004-2008 Strategic Plan, EPA annual plans (1998-2004). Regional Beginning of Year plans (FY1998 - FY2003) and Mutual Performance Agreements (FY 2004, FY 2005). These goals address initial protection concerns under given conditions more so than final site cleanup. EPA is in the process of developing new measures that correspond to the "final" remedies intended to ensure protection associated with both current as well as reasonably anticipated future exposure scenarios. To date, EPA and OMB have not reached agreement on targets or on additional new goals that satisfactorily meet PART requirements.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: These two measures were originally established in 1998 with 2005 as the long-term target date for meeting the goal. The program expects to meet the 2005 targets. The program intends to continue using these goals through 2008 by adding/removing some sites in the baseline but not revising targets. The goals then become focused on maintaining a certain level and do not sufficiently challenge the program over the long term to further protect human health and the environment, even though further action can be taken within stautory authority.

Evidence:  

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: The Corrective Action Program uses the same human exposure and groundwater migration goals as both long-term goals and annual performance measures. Annual targets are set to ensure the long-term goal is met.

Evidence: EPA current Strategic Plan and draft 2004-2008 Strategic Plan, EPA annual plans (1998-2004). Regional Beginning of Year plans (FY1998 - FY2003) and Mutual Performance Agreements (FY 2004, FY 2005). These goals address initial protection concerns under given conditions more so than final site cleanup. EPA is in the process of developing new measures that correspond to the "final" remedies intended to ensure protection associated with both current as well as reasonably anticipated future exposure scenarios. To date, EPA and OMB have not reached agreement on new goals and targets that satisfactorily meet PART requirements.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: Targets set for FY 2004 and FY 2005 are ambitious. The program is proposingto leave annual targets at the 2005 level each year through 2008. Although small baseline changes may be made, indications are that they will not be sufficient enough to make this approach useful in challenging the program to improve. To date, EPA and OMB have not reached agreement on targets that satisfactorily meet PART requirements.

Evidence:  

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: A small amount of grant money (<$10M for 38 states and 1 territory) is available specifically for CA program implementation. Grants are issued via formula and are used to required authorized programs to adopt Federal goals. Program also negotiates the development of regional Mutual Performance Agreements which outline how states will contribute to the federal annual and long-term performance goals. Facility permits and corrective action orders are also used to require facilities to perform the work needed to achieve the goals on a specified schedule with penalties for non-compliance.

Evidence: Mutual Performance Agreements (FY04 and beyond. Prior to FY 2004 MPA's were called Beginning of Year Plans). Grant work plans: NOTE - grants are not managed by the CA program. They are part of the larger RCRA State Grants which are managed by the base RCRA program and will be covered in a later PART.

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program does not schedule independent reviews but is frequently assessed by independent parties. Reviews do not always look specifically at progress toward GPRA goals but do focus on mission-related performance and include recommendations that the program acts upon. Examples are shown in evidence column.

Evidence: 1992 GAO (GAO/RCED-93-15) - EPA needs to capture data to identify when facilities become stabilized. EPA Mgt Response - Developed two environmental indicators to measure site-wide stabilization. 1998 GAO (GAO/RCED-98-4) - ensure that regulators have a more consistent understanding of how to apply policy and regulatory alternatives for managing remediation waste. EPA Mgt Response - Issued comprehensive guidance and training on remediation waste management (EPA-530-F-98-026). 2000 EPA IG (Report No. 2000-P-0028) - Facilitate achievement of the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's (the office in which the RCRA program falls) ultimate GPRA goal by providing a clear definition of restoration in the context of Site Cleanup, or clarify the strategic goal as it applies to RCRA Corrective Action." EPA Management Response - Incorporating new measures associated with final cleanup into the Agency's FY'04-'08 strategic plan.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The agency budget is developed and presented in a manner that links funding levels to performance goals and so the budget for the program, at a high level of aggregation, is also presented this way. But there is no evidence that of a quantifiable direct correlation between measured changes in performance and changes in program funding. It is not clear what benefits (in terms of program outcomes) would be gained or lost from changes in funding for the program.

Evidence:  

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The development of the agency strategic plan and the regional annual Mutual Performance Agreements (MPAs) are two methods the program uses to review strategic planning. The negotiated processes for both documents allow for the identification and correction strategic planning deficiencies. During the development of these documents, the level of success of prior year's strategic decisions are evaluated and information about existing and upcoming challenges are considered.

Evidence: FY 2003-2008 draft strategic Plan. Mutual Performance Agreements (FY04 and beyond. Prior to FY 2004 MPA's were called Beginning of Year Plans). A specific example of how the program has taken steps to address its strategic planning deficiencies is the shift toward proposing measures that focus on final cleanup of corrective action sites rather. This shift in strategic planning was made in response to input the program received from stakeholders and external reviewers (GAO) that greater emphasis should be placed on completing corrective action and making land ready for re-use, rather than just stabilizing environmental problems.

Are all regulations issued by the program/agency necessary to meet the stated goals of the program, and do all regulations clearly indicate how the rules contribute to achievement of the goals?

Explanation: The program has issued a limited number of regulations compared to many other programs, mainly because of the design of the program. Proposed regulations subsequently deemed unnecessary have been withdrawn (though the timeliness of the withdrawal has been questioned). The promulgation a comprehensive set of RCRA corrective action regulations would likely be duplicative with, and possibly disruptive of state and territorial programs already authorized to carry out the Corrective Action Program in lieu of EPA. Existing regulations supporting the program (e.g., HWIR-Media and CAMU) provide tools that are needed to help the program achieve its goals faster and more efficiently.

Evidence: 40 CFR Parts 264.101; Corrective Action Management Unit Regulations (67 FR 2961); Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (63 FR 65873); Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Phase IV Rule (63 FR 28556); Subpart S Withdrawal Notice (64 FR 54604); Subpart S Withdrawal Notice (64 FR 54604); Corrective Action Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (61 FR 19432) (see additional references to corrective action related rules in response to PART questions 3.RG1,2, and 4)

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The program does collect real-time performance data relative to the program's human exposure and groundwater migration outcome goals, as well as some other indicators of performance, through the RCRAInfo database. Senior HQ management reviews this information regularly and does use it to affect program priorities and drive certain management actions. It is not evident that the RCRAInfo data is used to make resource allocation decisions within HQ or especially at the regional level.

Evidence: Information on RCRA Info database: www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris/, "State of RCRA Chart": www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility/stofrcra/seisall.pdf. Information on corrective action data in RCRAinfo: www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility/ca-diction.pdf. Based on review of RCRAInfo data, senior management conducts program visits to regions with lower than adequate performance - visits focus on identifying solutions to obstacles. HQ Program has established "Regional Liaisons" to more closely track regional performance.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: According to individual performance plans, managers at headquarters held accountable for regional performance on program goals, not for accomplishment of the goals themselves. EPA regional offices are the critical component of and hold largest amount of responsibility for accomplishing program goals but no evidence was available that individual managers at the regional (or state/territory for those with authorized programs) are identified and held accountable for program goals or cost and schedule targets.

Evidence:  

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Sufficient evidence was not provided to show that program funding is obligated in a timely manner that is consistent with the intended programmatic activities (at both the total program level and at an adequate level of detail to reflect programmatic activities). Matching spending with budgeted program activities is particularly important at the regional level given that 90% of the program's $40M budget is for activities in the regions.

Evidence:  

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The program's performance plans do not include efficiency measures and targets. The program is working to develop such measures but does not intend to propose any to OMB for inclusion in the FY05 annual plan. Also, there is a lack of concrete evidence of recent efforts to improve efficiency of the program in other ways.

Evidence:  

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Input is solicited from stakeholders regularly by requesting comments on documents/rules, through joint multi-stakeholder meetings or other direct interaction with stakeholders. Outreach activities identified the program to be too process oriented, slow and inefficient. Multiple actions were taken by the program to address this feedback, including: two rounds of RCRA Cleanup reforms, extensive regional training, improved Corrective Action Web site, initiated RCRA Brownfields/Revitalization Program, issued guidance on groundwater policies and completing corrective action, etc. In 2000, EPA expanded coordination efforts by including both state and tribal representatives in the Senior Cleanup Council (SCC). SCC successes include addressing institutional control needs and publishing of guidance documents.

Evidence: Senior Cleanup Council designed to address cross-cleanup-program issues. SCC Charter and the One Cleanup Program web site: www.epa.gov/swerrims/onecleanupprogram/index.htm. List of cross-program efforts including recent vapor guidance: www.epa.gov/swerrims/onecleanupprogram/ocp-policies.htm. Info on reforms, guidance documents, program progress, etc.: www.epa.gov/correctiveaction

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: HQ and regional offices follow EPA's financial management guidelines for committing, obligating, reprogramming, and reconciling appropriated funds. EPA received an unqualified audit opinion on its FY02 financial statements and had no material weaknesses associated with the audit. There are no material weaknesses, as reported by EPA's IG, with respect to corrective action financial resource issues.

Evidence: Budget Automation System (BAS) reports. Unqualified audit opinion on EPA FY02 financial statements. Agency-wide documented resource management procedures.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The program uses a variety of mechanisms to identify deficiencies related to performance goals and general program output (cleanups) but no evidence was provided to support the existence of internal (HQ and regional) processes to review and address deficiencies related to traditional management issues, such as human capital, information technology, and the efficiency of activities.

Evidence: At HQ, Division Directors and Associate Division Directors do meet with their individual branches and review work at the lowest level (individual projects) with the information captured in a project database.

Did the program seek and take into account the views of all affected parties (e.g., consumers; large and small businesses; State, local and tribal governments; beneficiaries; and the general public) when developing significant regulations?

Explanation: RCRA CA program regulations have been developed in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act, which requires opportunities to provide input on draft regulations. Because states are authorized to implement program, EPA provides opportunities for states to participate on rulemaking workgroups. Program routinely seeks public input on significant guidance documents (e.g., Groundwater Handbook, Corrective Action Completion, and Vapor Guidance).

Evidence: See preamble discussions in Corrective Action Management Unit Regulations (67 FR 2961) and the Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (63 FR 65873) as evidence of the Agency seeking and responding to comments received on draft regulations. Additionally, see www.epa.gov/correctiveaction for posting of significant recent guidance documents.

Did the program prepare adequate regulatory impact analyses if required by Executive Order 12866, regulatory flexibility analyses if required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act and SBREFA, and cost-benefit analyses if required under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act; and did those analyses comply with OMB guidelines?

Explanation: Though Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) are conducted, where appropriate, for program regulations, past RIAs have not always been sufficient.

Evidence:  

Does the program systematically review its current regulations to ensure consistency among all regulations in accomplishing program goals?

Explanation: The bulk of program conditions are issued as guidance, not as rules. The program is participating in the RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative which weighs the use of all the RCRA reporting and recordkeeping requirements (including RCRA Corrective Action) versus the burden they impose. Input for this evaluation was obtained from program offices at HQ, regional offices, states, the regulated community, and public interest groups. Based on the most recent assessment, no burden reductions were identified for the RCRA (HSWA) Corrective Action Program.

Evidence: RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative (www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/data/#burden)

Are the regulations designed to achieve program goals, to the extent practicable, by maximizing the net benefits of its regulatory activity?

Explanation: The decision not to finalize the detailed corrective action regulations provided more flexibility to EPA regions and individual states implementing the program. This flexibility allows EPA and states more latitude in selecting remedies that maximize benefits. Additionally, regulations for Corrective Action Management Units and Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements provided significant flexibility with respect maximizing environmental benefit through cost-effective cleanup options.

Evidence: Subpart S Withdrawal Notice (64 FR 54604); Corrective Action Management Unit Regulations (67 FR 2961); Hazardous Remediation Waste Management Requirements (63 FR 65873)

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: Considering annual progress cumulatively, the program is making progress toward achieving both the human exposure and groundwater migration long-term goals. Data extracted from RCRAinfo system indicates that EPA and States are collectively on track to achieve long-term targets.

Evidence: Program cumulative targets and accomplishments table for human exposure and groundwater migration annual goals, 1997-2002. RCRA Info data; State of RCRA report available at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility/stofrcra/seisall.pdf

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Between 1998 and 2002 the program met its annual targets for the human exposure and groundwater migration goals two of the five years. Targets were not met only by a fairly slim margin in several of the off years. The program has made consistent progress by increasing the number of determinations made year to year. Data extracted from RCRAinfo system indicates that EPA and States have collectively been on track with achieving 2003 annual targets.

Evidence: Program targets and accomplishments table for human exposure and groundwater migration annual goals, 1997-2002. RCRA Info data; State of RCRA report available at www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/ca/facility/stofrcra/seisall.pdf

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: This program received a No for question 3.4 and thus must receive a No for this question. The program has started a process to develop efficiency measures but it will not be finished in time to submit measures to OMB for consideration for the FY05 budget/annual plan.

Evidence: The Program saw a significant increase in accomplishments from '99 to '00, even though the annual budget declined over that period. The Program attributes these increases to the 1999 and 2000 administrative reforms that focused greater attention to the goals in general, as well as faster cleanups through creative and more efficient solutions.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The performance of this program seems to compare favorably with EPA's Superfund Cleanup program but a quantitative comparison is difficult because the programs historically have not had the same long-term and annual goals. No evidence was provided of a quantitative analysis comparing the effectiveness of the two programs. The Superfund program has agreed to adopt the same human exposure and groundwater migration goals and use the same (or substantially similar) implementation guidance thus more in-depth evaluation will be possible in the future.

Evidence: Relative program progress as reported in RCRA Info and Superfund Record of Decision Database. EPA IG report No. 2002-P-3 titled "Evaluation of Superfund Environmental Indicators". 2000 Senate VA/HUD Appropriations Committee Report - included statement that the Committee expected EPA to include Superfund program Goals "as in the RCRA corrective action program" in the FY '01 budget - interpreted by EPA to mean Superfund should adopt the same or similar goals.

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Historical reports from the early to mid-1990's indicate that the program struggled to achieve adequate site cleanup performance. Recent reviews conducted by both the GAO and EPA's Inspectors General have expressed support of the current human exposure and groundwater migration goals as an adequate interim strategy and have acknowledged success and results, but they stress that the program needs to refocus goals on final cleanup.

Evidence: GAO report (GAO/RCRED-93-15): Hazardous Waste - Much Work Remains to Accelerate Facility Cleanups. EPA IG report (2000-P-0028): RCRA Corrective Action Focus on Interim Priorities - Better Integration with Final Goals Needed. EPA IG report (2002-P-3): Evaluation of Superfund Environmental Indicators.

Were programmatic goals (and benefits) achieved at the least incremental societal cost and did the program maximize net benefits?

Explanation: The program believes that the ability of a facility owner or operator to achieve human health and environmental protection in the short term from stabilization efforts allows for the greatest benefit given the least possible cost. For example, if a groundwater drinking supply was contaminated and was the only source of human exposures, the facility could achieve the short-term goal by providing an alternative water supply rather than cleaning up the contaminated groundwater which would be significantly more costly. An analysis that provided empirical evidence (regulation implementation, not just in conception such as RIAs) that deals specifically with a representative sample of corrective action activities is needed.

Evidence: Regulatory Impact Analyses conducted for the Proposed Subpart S regulations, CAMU regulations and HWIR-media regulations, Subpart S Withdrawal Notice (64 FR 54604), Corrective Action Completion Guidance ( 68 FR 8757)