Detailed Information on the
EPA's Recycling, Waste Minimization, and Waste Management Program Assessment

Develop an efficiency measure for the waste minimization component of the RCRA base program.

Continuously improving the program by identifying where compliance costs are excessive and reducing the cost of compliance where appropriate (i.e. RCRA manifest rule).

Develop a new regulatory definition of solid waste that satisfies the judicial requirements while ensuring that costs are not inappropriately shifted to the Superfund or other corrective action programs by narrowing the exclusion of previously regulated substances.

Measure: Annual increase in the percentage of facilities with permits or other approved controls.

Explanation:Annual increase in the percentage of facilities with permits or other approved controls means that: the site is cleaned up to a protective level; any groundwater releases are controlled so no further attenuation is occurring; any remaining waste is safely removed or capped (isolated); and long term controls are in place to protect people and the environment at the site, if any contamination remains (for a complete definition of approved controls see http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/hazwaste/permit/apprcntr.htm.) The measure is outcome-based because it defines the environmental state the facility must meet. While the permit/order or other mechanism is arguably an "output" it is a necessary part of the measure, because without it, there would be no assurance that sites would remain protective as long as any contamination remained in place. The program's ultimate results benefit the public, because they return contaminated waste sites to protective standards, either completely cleaning up the site for unrestricted access, or cutting off exposure pathways through long-term, reliable controls.

Measure: By 2008, update controls for preventing releases at 150 facilities due for permit renewal

Explanation:Permit renewals are outcome-oriented because they are preventative, providing a mechanism for applying operational standards that are protective of human health and the environment. Permit renewal indicates that the facility has upgraded its operations to ensure continued safe operation, minimizing the potential for releases and accidents (see also previous discussion on explanation of why approved controls are outcome-oriented). For FY 2009, the annual number has been increased to a consolidated goal of 100 for tracking new and updated controls to prevent releases.

Measure: Maintain the national average municipal solid waste generation rate at no more than 4.5 pounds per person per day.

Explanation:This measure is applicable for the RCRA base municipal solid waste program. FY 2006 result was 4.6 pounds per person per day. FY 2007 actual reporting data will be available in 2009.

Measure: Increase recycling of the total annual municipal solid waste produced.

Explanation:Increasing the recycling of the total annual municipal solid waste produced is an outcome based measure because recycling, instead of disposing of municipal solid waste, saves energy and resources, and reduces greenhouse gases. OSW will be evaluating how to better quantify these recycling benefits and will be examining the feasibility of modifying the PART measure to reflect more comprehensive "outcome" results of the program. EPA is in the process of proposing an updated measure that is more outcome based.

Measure: By FY 2011, reduce 4 million pounds of priority chemicals from the environment as measured by the achievements of National Partnership for Environmental Priorities (NPEP) members.

Explanation:The core of the NPEP program is the development of a relationship between partner organizations and EPA to identify product substitutions, process changes, and recycling opportunities that reduce or eliminate chemicals in products and wastes. The priority chemicals targeted for reduction by NPEP members are persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic pollutants (PBTs). PBTs are associated with a range of adverse human health effects, including effects on the nervous system, reproductive and developmental problems, cancer, and genetic impacts. Therefore, the outcome of any reduction in pounds of these priority chemicals is a reduction in the potential releases and exposures to these highly toxic, long-lasting substances that can build up in the food chain to levels that are harmful to human and ecosystem health.

Measure: Facilities Under Control (permitted) per total Permitting Costs

Explanation:This measure is applicable only for the RCRA hazardous waste permitting program. Begin calculating 2005 target in 2006, one year data lag. Uses the data from RCRA Info, ICRs and appropriations for the current and two previous years.

Measure: Number of pounds of priority chemicals reduced from the environment per federal government costs

Explanation:Efficiency is measured by the pounds of priority chemicals reduced from the environment per federal government dollar spent. Federal spending consists of program implementation costs including, FTE and contract spending. These efficiencies will be realized by leveraging existing partnerships, better transfer of institutional knowledge to new employees, and employing cross-office, multimedia approaches to chemical management.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The RCRA program's goals are clearly and succinctly set forth in the enabling statute. The RCRA base program has two primary purposes: waste management and waste minimization. The statute authorized EPA to establish a viable Federal-State partnership to manage hazardous waste. Congress intended that the states would assume the primary responsibility for implementing the hazardous waste regulations and provided EPA with grant authority to fund authorized state program activities such as permitting. The purpose of the permitting program is to ensure that facilities managing hazardous waste have the appropriate controls in place to properly treat, store, transport, and dispose of hazardous waste. States are primarily responsible for issuing the permits as EPA oversees the state programs. The purpose of the hazadous waste financial assistance (grants) program is to provide states with additional funding to implement the RCRA hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA. Such state actions include ensuring that hazardous waste facilities have the approved controls in place for safe management of the wastes. This is accomplished through permits. For waste recycling and recovery, the purpose is to reduce the amount of waste generated and recover valuable resources through recycling that would have otherwise been lost in the waste stream. EPA develops guidance, provides technical assistance, and develops partnerships to address these needs.

Evidence: Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6902) - Section 1003 - Section 3011 - Authorization of assistance to states - Section 3005 - Permits for treatment storage and disposal of hazardous waste - Section 3006 - Authorization of state programs

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

Explanation: RCRA Subtitle C addresses improper handling and disposal of hazardous waste, and the need to conserve valuable resources through waste recycling and recovery. To address threats to human health and the environment, the program establishes a comprehensive, protective management system that addresses risks, both acute and chronic, posed during transportation, management, treatment, and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes. Primary emphasis is placed on ensuring sufficient controls via permitting to avoid future corrective action. Hazardous waste financial assistance grants assist states as they verify that controls are in place to minimize the risk of release of hazardous substances. The municipal solid waste program seeks to combat the increasing amount of waste through source reduction and recycling programs to recover valuable materials at all point of a product's life.

Evidence: Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6902) 25 Years of RCRA; RCC Annual Report Beyond RCRA: Prospects for Waste & Materials Management in the Year 2020 2001 National Biennial Report

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

Explanation: Section 1006 (a) and (b) of the statute specifically addresses redundancy and prohibits regulation of substances or activities which are subject to other statutes including the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Atomic Energy Act. Section 3006 also requires that EPA strongly encourage states to become authorized to implement the RCRA program. Structures further avoid redundancy by allowing for site-specific responsibilities to be implemented by the EPA region, state or local officials, or the owner or operator of a particular waste management facility. By delegating hazardous and solid waste programs to the states, the program ensures there is no overlap between federal, state, and local efforts.

Evidence: Solid Waste Disposal Act Section 1006, 2002, and Section 3006 Office of Solid Waste Strategic Plan 2003-2008 RCRA State Grant Work Plans

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

Explanation: Maximization of net-benefits is not a requirement under the RCRA statute. Many of RCRA's initial RIAs and cost-benefit analyses sought to maximize net-benefits (or minimize net-costs) but failed to go far enough. While the RCRA program office continues to identify opportunities to reduce or minimize compliance burdens when possible, it is felt that the program did not initially seek to maximize net benefits. Regulatory programs are to receive a no on this question if the statute is not designed to maximize net benefits. The evolving nature of the RCRA program since its inception in 1976 helps to resolve any flaws that are identified. Since states are the primary implementers, the program can adjust to accommodate local issues while continuing to meet national goals. No more efficient mechanism is obvious. The RCRA municipal solid waste program's voluntary partnerships place the onus on EPA to foster many partnerships in order to reach the program goals. This does not appear to limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency. EPA Regional oversight of state programs ensure that the grants are distributed to those states with the greatest need and are used for the intended purposes. Oversight of state programs occurs in the form of beginning, mid-year, and end-of- year reviews of state permitting accomplishments when compared to grant commitments.

Evidence: SBFRA for MSWLF Criteria Municipals Solid Waste Characterization Report; Economic Background Document; RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative Moving RCRA Vision Forward: Waste Generation in the United States Modificationof the Hazardous Waste Manifest System;

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

Explanation: Grants to states and territories for implementation of the RCRA hazardous waste program are negotiated and awarded by the EPA regional offices based on state needs and prior performance. States then use the money to permit facilities thereby implementing hazardous waste programs. The deliverables by the states are tracked by regional managers to ensure adequate progress is being made toward achieving both annual and long-term goals. A large majority of the waste minimization programs within the RCRA program are voluntary. Resources for their oversight are adequately monitored by EPA.

Evidence: EPA Strategic Plan Land Preserving and Restoration 2003-2008 National Program Guidance for 2005 FY 2005 OSWER National Program Guidance FY2005 Regional Plans State Annual Grant Workplans - CT, MA

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: The program has six acceptable measures in the form of: three long-term outcome measures, two long-term output measures for permitting, and one long-term outcome measure for a program that is awaiting the final clearance of a regulation before implemented. EPA tracks the number of permits issued and renewed as a surrogate measure to record progress toward ensuring that emissions are controlled to safe levels and the risk of releases at facilities are minimized. A proper outcome measure would track the reduction in releases from permitted facilities; however, the program has not historically collected this information, therefore baselines cannot be developed. Since the data for appropriate outcome measures does not exist, tracking permits issued and renewed are acceptable long-term output measures.

Evidence: 2003-2008 Strategic Plan, Goal Three Regulatory requirements for Permits - 40 CFR 264 and 270.32 for permits; RCRA Section 3005(c)(3) 40 CFR Part 262 - Regulations for large quantity generators and small quantity generators Q and A on RCRA Role in Regulating Hazardous Waste Combustors

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

Explanation: The long-term measures are ambitious. The RCRA program has a variety of venues that provide feedback from stakeholders, and the program relies on Agency processes such as the annual budget process, the Annual Performance Report, the mid-year Goal Team reviews and internally, mid-year program reviews with regions to ensure that targets remain ambitious.

Evidence: 2003 EPA Strategic Plan. GPRA Goals for Permitting Challenges one-pager National Partnership for Environmental priorities;NPEP Priority Chemicals Trends Report (see page 6 and exhibits)

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

Explanation: EPA has developed corresponding annual targets which place the program on a track to meet the long-term goals. The municipal waste source reduction and recycling goals rely upon biennial measurements, because the source of the information is published by a private party on that schedule. More frequent data could require the Agency to establish a separate data collection effort and is unlikely to be cost effective. The program does not yet have annual targets for its dioxin and furans measure. The program is awaiting final promulgation of the rulemaking before it can require industry compliance. Annual measures will be developed after final promulgation of the rulemaking

Evidence: FY 2003-2008 Strategic Plan, pages 59-63 Franklin Report

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

Explanation: The program has established baselines and continues to improve them. Since the long-term targets are ambitious, the annual measures noted in 2.3 that lead to their completion are similarly ambitious.

Evidence: FY '04 MPA; Example Beginning of Year Plan - Region 5, 2003; and, FY 2003-2008 Strategic Plan.

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

Explanation: Due to the voluntary nature of EPA's waste reduction partnerships, agreements focus on achieving goals that are beneficial to companies and/or private parties. Individual waste reduction goals are mutually beneficial for EPA as well. EPA identifies the waste streams where the greatest gains can be made so as to be able to meet EPA's national municipal solid waste and recycling goals. Partners commit to reaching individual goals and have sufficient incentives to reach individual goals. However, program partners are not committed to working towards EPA goals and it is EPA's responsibility to engage in enough partnerships to reach its national goals. EPA provides annual guidance on the hazardous waste and permitting goals for the upcoming year and how those goals contribute to the achievement of the long-term goals. States submit performance agreements to the Regions. Regions submit Performance Plans to headquarters and the grants are distributed based upon the agreed performance levels in these plans. States then submit annual results to the Regions at mid- and end-of-year. The goals and incentives are mutually acceptable to both states and EPA since both hold a stake in reducing the risk of hazardous releases to the environment.

Evidence: Beginning of Year Plans for Region Five in FY2003, Mutual Performance Agreements and Strategic Plan for State of Connecticut Performance Partnership Agreement, FY 2002 (see section 1.5); Massachusetts Performance Partnership Agreement FY 2002 (see section 1.5); National Waste Minimization Partnership; Wastewise

Are independent 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 General Accounting and Inspector General Offices have evaluated components of the RCRA program; however, there is no structure in place for regular independent evaluations.

Evidence: Hazardous Waste Generator Initiative Program Evaluation ' Review of EPA's Response to Petition Seeking Withdraw of Authorization for Idaho's Hazardous Waste Program: IG Report 2/5/2004 ' Pollution Prevention: Effectiveness of EPA's Efforts to Encourage Purchase of Recycled Goods Has Not Been Effective: IG Report F269/22/2003 ' RCRA Financial Assurance for Closure and Post Closure (2002-P-007) IG Report 3/30/2001 ' EPA Controls Over RCRA Permit Renewals (9100115) IG Report 3/30/1999 ' Biennial Hazardous Waste Data: Opportunity for Improvement (7100114) IG Report 3/29/1997

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: Since the RCRA program is primarily delegated to the states, most of the RCRA appropriation is for administrative costs and oversight of the state programs. As a result, the effect that increases or decreases in the appropriation would have on goals of the program is unclear.

Evidence: Agency Strategic Plan, Annual Plan and Annual Performance Report.

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

Explanation: EPA IG reported that implementation of EPA's pollution prevention program to promote procurement of recycled goods was severely hindered by the program's lack of accountability and management tools - namely, the program's lack of a strategic plan, goals, performance measures and milestones - for implementing the RCRA Section 6002 requirements. EPA has been historically deficient in its oversight of the permitting program. A lack of data collection has lead to the program's inability to clearly articulate environmental outcomes such as reductions of hazardous waste releases. A more concerted approach to its strategic planning and developing goals and performance measures would resolve this issue. Development of outcome permitting goals at this time would provide an inaccurate measure of the program's performance since a large majority of facilities are already permitted. While the RCRA program has demonstrated through the RCRA 2020 document that it is continously looking to the future, this document is not a strategic planning document. EPA has generally improved its strategic planning; however, specific program areas within RCRA have not kept pace.

Evidence: Pollution Prevention: Effectiveness of EPA's Efforts to Encourage Purchase of Recycled Goods Has Not Been Effective: IG Report F269/22/2003 2003-2008 Strategic Plan FY04 Mutual Performance Agreement RCRA Waste Materials Management in the Year 2020

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 design of the program is to issue regulations only when they directly support and are needed to meet stated program goals. The RCRA regulations contained in 40 CFR 256-268 and 270-272 provide an effective cradle to grave management system that uses tracking and permitting to monitor and control waste. They define solid and hazardous waste, but also impose strict standards on anyone who generates, recycles, transports, treats, stores or disposes of hazardous wastes. EPA has looked for ways to reduce overregulation and correct regulatory gaps through the proposed cathode ray tubes rule, proposed rags and wipes rule, mainfest proposed rule and the final fertilizer rule.

Evidence: Federal Register: January 17, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 12)[Pages 2517-2544 at 2533. The preamble to the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Proposed Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Hazardous Waste Combustors (Phase I Final Replacement Standards and Phase II) published April 20, 2004 in Volume 69, Number 76 at page 21198.Proposed cathode ray tubes rule, proposed rags and wipes rule, proposed manifest rule, final fertilizer rule.

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: EPA collects hazardous waste data continuously via the RCRAInfo database from regions and States that reflect performance and progress toward reaching long-term as well as annual performance measures. As part of the grant program, EPA Regions analyze state permitting performance at the beginning, middle and end of each fiscal year. If a state is failing to meet its goals, EPA Region managers evaluate the state program looking for managerial weaknesses. EPA regions promote "fiscal accountability" and "program integrity".The municipal waste source reduction and recycling programs rely upon biennial measurements via a private party. More frequent data collection would require that the Agency establish a separate data collection effort and is unlikely to be cost effective.

Evidence: Data collected as part of the RCRA Info database; www.epa.gov/enviro/html/rcris/ Municipal Waste in the United States: 2001 Final Report to assess trends and determine where problems could arise. www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm Kentucky Annual Hazardous Waste Performance Review Report, pp. 12-18. Georgia Annual Hazardous Waste Performance Review Report. Vermont Hazardous Waste Program Goals; State End of Year Reports.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: EPA requires that both SES and non-SES manager's performance standards are linked directly to Agency strategic goals and objectives. Federal managers are also held accountable through the agency wide planning process with quarterly progress reviews. States and tribes are evaluated during the grant workplan negotiation process and monitored during the course of the grants. Regions can adjust distribution of funds among their states based on performance and need. As part of the grant program, EPA Regions analyze state permitting performance at the beginning, middle and end of each fiscal year. If a state is failing to meet its goals, EPA Region managers evaluate the state program looking for managerial weaknesses. The municipal waste source reduction and recycling partnerships are developed based on cost-effective agreements that are advantageous for the private partners. Targets are set based upon what is determined to be best for the voluntary partner. Failure to attain those levels may ultimately result in unrealized cost-efficiencies for the partner therefore partners have an incentive to maximize levels of recycling and source reduction. Partners are held accountable within their industry as a form a peer pressure, and face the possibility of EPA revoking its partnership if the partner repeatedly fails to reach its goals.

Evidence: Evidence for Federal Managers: February 18, 2004 Morris Winn Memo, paragraphs 2 & 3. March 17, 2004 memorandum Linking Performance Standards for Managers and Supervisors to EPA's Strategic Goals and Mission; OARM guidance for managers and supervisors dated 3/4/04; 'RCRA/C 3011 Grant and Program Guidance for the State of California' Rhode Island, Massachusetts State Grant Agreements and MOAs. Region 6 Weekly Activity Report for April 19-23, first item. CALIFORNIA RCRA/C 3011 FY01/02 END OF YEAR REPORT Kentucky Annual Hazardous Waste Performance Review Report, particularly pp. 12-18. Georgia Annual Hazardous Waste Performance Review Report, particularly pp. 1&2 Vermont Hazardous Waste Program Goals, "Grants Administration Manual" for the solicitation for tribal grants

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

Explanation: Prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, the program develops an operating plan which reflects how it plans on spending its budget. EPA's budget and annual Operating Plan are aligned with the Agency's Strategic Plan and approved by OMB and Congressional Appropriations Committees. Obligations and expenditures are tracked in the Agency's Integrated Financial Management System (IFMS) against the Operating Plan. Monitoring ensures that recipients are spending the funds designated to each program area for the intended purpose. All grantees are required to at minimum submit annual financial status reports. There is nothing to suggest that funding is not allocated in a timely manner.

Evidence: EPA's annual Operating Plan EPA's Data: Strategic Plan, Budget Automation System (BAS) data; EPA's Annual Report and Financial Statements; EPA's Policy on Compliance, Review, and Monitoring (EPA 5700.6); Advanced post-award monitoring reports (on Hawaii), Region 9 post-award monitoring plan, grantee financial status reports. Region 1 Information for RCRA Base Program Part Exercise, MR, April 30, 2004 Region 10 Grant Writeup Region 6 Weekly Activity Report for April 19-23

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

Explanation: As part of ongoing program review, EPA regularly generates initiatives and rulemakings which open to public comment aspects of the program that could be made more efficient. EPA's Standardized Permit Rule, e-permitting to replace the current paper intensive system of issuing permits, and standards relating to hazardous waste generators to determine how to make the program less burdensome and more efficient are examples of initiatives that EPA is examining to further reduce costs and increase efficiency. Past efforts have included a self examination of the Land Disposal Restrictions program that reduced the burden by 1 million hours annually. The program is developing two efficiency measures and is in the process of identifying a third.

Evidence: Standardized Permit Rule Proposal October 12, 2001, 66 Federal Register 52192 Burden Reduction Rule, Federal Register: January 17, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 12)] Pages 2517-2544Managing Information Collection, Information Collection Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, April 20, 2004. Available at www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/2004_icb_final.pdf.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: RCRA programs were designed to promote collaboration and cooperation between EPA HQ, Regions, states and facility owner/operators. Collaborating with the state programs for hazardous waste and permitting as well as for MSW disposal is necessary since these programs are delegated to the states to run in lieu of EPA's program. Federal facilities, like other regulated facilities, must comply with environmental laws and regulations. Part of the program's mission is to work with Federal facilities, including Department of Energy and Department of Defense, to comply with all environmental regulations and to assist their sites in complying with these requirements.

Evidence: National Program Guidance for FY 2005Hazardous Waste Combustion MACT rule Federal Facility Compliance Center www.epa.gov/fedsite

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Agency officials have a system of controls and accountability, based on GAO and other principles, to ensure that improper payments are not made. At each step in the process, the propriety of the payment is reviewed EPA received an unqualified audit opinion on its FY02 financial statements and had no material weaknesses associated with the audit. EPA is taking steps to meet the new accelerated due dates for financial statements. The Office of the Inspector General reported that the program has no material weaknesses and has procedures in place to minimize erroneous payments.

Evidence: Budget Automation System Reports; Unqualified Audit Opinion on EPA, FY 02 Financial statements; Agency-wide documented resource management procedures. EPA Regulations 40 CFR Parts 31 and 35, OMB Circulars A-102, A-87 and A-128. Program Reviews: Grantee Compliance Assurance Initiative, reviewed recently by GAO.

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

Explanation: EPA conducts an annual review process with the Regional Offices to identify management and other deficiencies and potential solutions. Regional Offices review state performance and management deficiencies during mid-year and end-of-year reviews. In addition, an annual 'Management Integrity Review' of Headquarters Program Office management is conducted. Every three years to four years, the Quality Staff of the Office of Environmental Information performs a program audit of OSW's Quality Assurance and Quality Control program. The Quality Assurance Quality Control Reviews have identified two weaknesses: no approval form for QA/QC review with individual work plans for contract work, and no approved Quality Management Plan in place for the Office of Solid Waste. Corrective action was taken for both findings. The program has taken steps to address the management concerns that the EPA IG raised when reviewing the permit renewals program.

Evidence: Annual Regional Strategic Overview Process; Regional mid-year and end-of-year reviews of state programs (see response to 3.2, reviews of Vermont, Georgia, California, Kentucky) OSW 2003 Annual Assurance Letter (part of the Management Integrity Review Process) ' EPA Controls Over RCRA Permit Renewals (9100115) IG Report 3/30/1999 Quality Staff Draft Findings Report OSW Response to Draft Findings Report Memo's from Matt Hale about Quality Assurance Review Form including Guidance for QARF and QCRF (QA/QC reports) Measurement Implementation Plan on Efficiency Measures

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: Regulations for the program have all been developed in compliance with the Administrative Procedures Act, which includes opportunities to provide input on draft regulations. Additionally, we routinely seek public input on significant guidance documents. EPA views states as regulatory partners and as such provides opportunities for states to participate on rulemaking workgroups. EPA publishes planned regulatory actions in the Regulatory Agenda so that interested parties can learn about these actions.

Evidence: RCRA Burden Reduction Proposed Rule FR Notice Rule makings: Industrial Wipes Proposal; Zinc Fertilizer Final Rule Public Meeting Notice; manifest rule/public meeting notice on electronic manifests; CRT proposal and public noticeNotification of Public Meeting on Definition of Solid Waste and Hazardous Waste Recycling 180 Day Accumulation Time for Wastewater Treatment Sludge from the Metal Finishing Industry Hazardous Waste Generator Initiative Program Evaluation

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: While most agencies fail to meet OMB guidelines for RIAs - EPA included - the RCRA program has historically done a better job than most agencies at developing RIAs according to OMB guidelines. Economic analyses in the form of RIAs and cost benefit analyses have been conducted under all major components of the RCRA Program involving; hazardous and municipal solid waste management and treatment, land disposal, and hazardous waste combustion, identification, and delisting rules, as well as permitting and postclosure requirements. In addition, cost-benefit analyses are also commonly conducted, even though cost-benefit is not required as a criterion for rulemaking under the RCRA statute.

Evidence: "Support Table for Questions 3.RG2, 3.RG4, & 4.RG1"

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

Explanation: EPA regularly employs surveys, audits, stakeholder input and other tools to determine regulatory program consistency in achieving program goals. The RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative has reviewed all of the hazardous waste recordkeeping and notification regulations and proposed changes to provide consistency among the requirements. The proposed burden reduction rule specifically focused on recordkeeping requirements for treatment storage and disposal facilities. In the standardized permit rulemaking, EPA reviewed all of the hazardous waste permitting requirements to ensure that there were no overlapping or duplicative requirements. In the waste minimization and pollution prevention area, the programlargely operates without regulations, but instead relies upon education to provide incentives for pollution reduction.

Evidence: Preamble - Hazardous Waste Management System: Modification of the Hazardous Waste Manifest System (see data/evidence 3RG1) RCRA Burden Reduction Proposed Rule FR Notice Site ID Form and Hazardous Waste ReportGenerator rule ANPRMMunicipal Solid Waste Landfill Review

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

Explanation: Maximization of net-benefits is not a requirement under the RCRA statute. Many of RCRA's initial RIAs and cost-benefit analyses sought to maximize net-benefits (or minimize net-costs) but failed to go far enough. This is most evident by the program's need to engage in deregulatory actions to relieve excessive burden from RCRA's initial statutory requirements. While the RCRA program office continues to identify opportunities to reduce or minimize compliance burdens when possible, it is felt that the program did not initially seek to maximize net benefits.

Evidence: Support Table for Questions 3.RG2, 3.RG4, & 4.RG1" and "OSW Summary Analysis of RIAs from 1995 to 2002

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

Explanation: The program can demonstrate progress toward meeting the long-term goals for 3 of 4 current measures. There is a two-year data lag for the generation of MSW, but the program has maintained a constant rate of MSW generation nationwide. The program exceeded its 2005 permitting goal and is on track to meet its 2008 goal. The TRI goal for 2005 had been met and the program readjusted its targets and is on track to meet the 2008 goal. The program is not on track to meet its long-term goal for increasing the recycling rate to 35% by 2008. The program cannot show progress toward long-term goals for (1) the dioxin and furans measure because promulgation of the final MACT rule must occur before the program can require industry compliance; (2) the permit renewal measure because data collection starts for this new program function in 2006.

Evidence: FY 2003 Annual Report, Goal 3

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

Explanation: The program has regularly met annual goals for 3 of 4 current measures: permitting (facilities under control), MSW generation rate, and recycling. The TRI goal for 2005 has already been met. The program readjusted its targets and is on track to meet the 2008 goal. Permit renewals is a new function for the RCRA program. Data collection will start in 2006, therefore the program does not have information on permit renewals. The program cannot show progress toward meeting annual goals for the dioxin and furans measure because promulgation of the final MACT rule must occur before the program can require industry compliance.

Evidence: FY 2003 Annual Report, Goal 3; RCRAInfo data, Inspection Coverage** RCRA Regulated Facilities: EPA and State FY 2000 ' FY2002

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

Explanation: The program has two measures of efficiency under development, and is in the process of identifying a third. The program actively seeks to reduce the cost of industry compliance with regulations through the RCRA Burden Reduction Initiative. The hazardous waste regulatory program has promulgated deregulatory actions in recent years focused on maintaining waste management safety while allowing increased flexibility and alternative technologies and have sought to decrease societal costs. The municipal solid waste program relies largely on voluntary programs to achieve program goals. There is no reason to believe that this is not a cost-effective way to achieve these goals, but also no way to make a definitive statement.

Evidence: Refer to list of rules cited in 3.RG1. RCRA Standardized Permit Proposed Rule (October 12, 2001).

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

Explanation: Comparison to other programs can be difficult. No other program has the same authorities as RCRA. For example, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulates materials that are not covered by RCRA. The RCRA program is a multi-media national program across a broad range of materials; i.e., it addresses releases to air, soil, groundwater, and surface water, as compared to air and water permits, which address air emissions and releases to water, respectively. There are some operational areas where the program could be compared with other programs. The program has been (a) a leader in reducing reporting and paperwork burden with proposals to reduce reporting burden by 47%, (b) at the forefront in integrating its RCRAInfo permitting data into the Agency's central data exchange, and (c) strongly supported the Agency's performance track to advance innovative approaches to improving environmental protection. However, comparison of RCRA program with other programs would be difficult due to the program's broad scope.

Evidence: Examples of "State Authorization Information" maintained on Authorization web site. Performance Track document

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

Explanation: The General Accounting and Inspector General Offices have evaluated components of the RCRA program; however, there is no structure in place for regular independent evaluations.

Evidence: ' Pollution Prevention: Effectiveness of EPA's Efforts to Encourage Purchase of Recycled Goods Has Not Been Effective: IG Report 9/22/2003 ' RCRA Financial Assurance for Closure and Post Closure (2002-P-007) IG Report 3/30/2001 ' EPA Controls Over RCRA Permit Renewals (9100115) IG Report 3/30/1999 ' Biennial Hazardous Waste Data: Opportunity for Improvement (7100114) IG Report 3/29/1997

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

Explanation: Support Table for Questions 3.RG2, 3.RG4, & 4.RG1" and "OSW Summary Analysis of RIAs from 1995 to 2002".Recent rulemakings: fertilizer, CRT, standardized permit, rags and wipesmanifest, and changes in the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill rules due to the 1998 legislation, and universal waste

Evidence: Support Table for Questions 3.RG2, 3.RG4, & 4.RG1" and "OSW Summary Analysis of RIAs from 1995 to 2002".Recent rulemakings: fertilizer, CRT, standardized permit, rags and wipesmanifest, and changes in the Municipal Solid Waste Landfill rules due to the 1998 legislation, and universal waste