indianaidemvrprisk-assessmentremediationscreening-levelsbrownfield

R2 or VRP? Choosing the Right Indiana Closure Path

Updated July 7, 2026

“R2 or VRP?” is a common way to frame the Indiana closure decision, but the framing needs one correction before it is useful: the R2 is not a closure path. The Risk-based Closure Guide (WASTE-0046-R2, commonly called “the R2”) is IDEM’s (Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s) technical framework for site characterization, risk evaluation, and closure, and it applies across every Indiana cleanup program - the Voluntary Remediation Program (VRP), the State Cleanup Program (SCP), petroleum remediation (LUST), RCRA corrective action, and the Indiana Brownfields Program. The VRP uses the R2 too. The real decision is which program track a site closes through: the program the release already falls under, or voluntary enrollment in the VRP. That choice is about oversight structure, closure documents, and liability protection, not about which technical standards apply.

One Guide, Every Program

Under the R2 framework, every track uses the same core process: characterize the release, evaluate risk against IDEM’s Published Levels or site-specific objectives, and select a remedy if one is needed. The technical work at a given site looks largely the same regardless of track. What changes is the administrative wrapper around it - who at IDEM reviews the work, what agreement governs the project, what document closes the site, and what legal protection that document carries.

The Default Track: Closing in the Program the Release Falls Under

Releases in Indiana land in a program based on their source. A confirmed or suspected release from a regulated underground storage tank (UST) must be reported to IDEM within 24 hours and is managed through the LUST program under IC 13-23, where IDEM assigns a site priority and a project manager. Non-UST petroleum releases fall under the related Petro program (IC 13-24-1), and non-petroleum hazardous substance matters are managed through the State Cleanup Program under IC 13-25-4.

On this track, the responsible party’s consultant performs the investigation and any remediation under the R2 framework, and IDEM issues a No Further Action (NFA) determination when the work is complete - unconditional if all applicable Published Levels are met without restrictions, or conditional if closure relies on an Environmental Restrictive Covenant (ERC) or other ongoing obligations. There is no application, no voluntary remediation agreement, and no enrollment step. The NFA determination documents that IDEM considers the site closed, but it is not a statutory covenant limiting future liability.

The VRP Track: Enrolling for the Covenant

The VRP, administered by IDEM’s Office of Land Quality under IC 13-25-5, is a formal enrollment program. The applicant submits a VRP application, and if IDEM accepts it, the parties execute a Voluntary Remediation Agreement that defines the scope of work and requires the applicant to reimburse IDEM for administrative costs incurred during oversight. IDEM provides a cost estimate during the agreement process, but the estimate does not cap what IDEM can bill. The applicant then proceeds through an IDEM-reviewed investigation, a Remediation Work Plan with a required Community Relations Plan, remediation, and a completion report.

Successful completion produces two documents: the IDEM Commissioner issues a Certificate of Completion (COC) under IC 13-25-5-16, and the Governor’s Office separately issues a Covenant Not to Sue (CNS). The CNS protects the applicant and future property owners from state enforcement action for the releases addressed in the approved work plan - and only those releases. A 1995 Memorandum of Agreement between IDEM and U.S. EPA adds federal comfort: for sites receiving a Certificate of Completion, EPA does not plan or anticipate action under the federal Superfund law (CERCLA) unless the site poses an imminent and substantial threat.

Two VRP features are easy to miss. Parties that already completed a cleanup can enroll retroactively and submit a work plan for the completed remediation. And under a 2004 Memorandum of Understanding with U.S. EPA, eligible RCRA corrective action facilities can achieve closure through the VRP rather than the separate RCRA process.

Key Differences Side by Side

  • Enrollment: The default track has none - the release is already in a program. The VRP requires an application, IDEM acceptance, and a signed Voluntary Remediation Agreement.
  • Oversight structure: Both tracks involve IDEM. The default track assigns a program project manager and sets site priority. The VRP adds formal agreement obligations, IDEM approval of the work plan and completion report, and required community relations steps.
  • Cost structure: VRP applicants reimburse IDEM’s administrative costs, billed based on the level of agency involvement. Budget for this before enrolling.
  • Closure document: The default track ends in an IDEM NFA determination. The VRP ends in a Certificate of Completion and a Covenant Not to Sue signed by the Governor’s Office.
  • Liability protection: Only the VRP track produces a statutory covenant. LUST sites transfer to the VRP precisely when a responsible party wants formal liability protection beyond the NFA determination.
  • Institutional controls: Both tracks support conditional closure through land use restrictions. See the Indiana Institutional Controls guide for how ERCs and environmental restrictive ordinances are structured.

When the Default Track Is Enough

If no transaction is driving the project and no lender, buyer, or agreement requires a covenant, the default track is usually the shorter road. A petroleum release at an operating gas station where the owner intends to keep operating is the common case: the site is already in the LUST program, the investigation proceeds under the R2, and an NFA determination documents closure. Adding a VRP enrollment on top of that buys a covenant the owner may not need, at the cost of an agreement, billed oversight, and additional review steps.

Petroleum Sites and ELTF

Sites with a release from an eligible UST may have access to the Excess Liability Trust Fund (ELTF), which provides financial assistance to eligible UST owners and operators for cleanup costs exceeding their deductible. ELTF eligibility and covered costs are defined by the fund’s own guidance, separate from the R2 framework. Review the Indiana ELTF Guide before committing to a program path, because reimbursement eligibility and the VRP’s billed oversight costs both belong in the same budget conversation.

When VRP Makes Sense

The Covenant Not to Sue is the reason parties enroll. VRP is the right choice when a transaction demands state-issued liability protection: brownfield redevelopment, property transfers with institutional lenders, and prospective purchasers who want protection from pre-existing releases. Prospective purchasers, past owners and operators, and local governments holding defaulted property are all typical VRP participants. The Indiana Brownfields Program, administered by the Indiana Finance Authority, works cooperatively with the VRP for sites seeking redevelopment support.

VRP also fits complex sites where formal IDEM concurrence reduces dispute risk. The agreement structure, work plan approval, and completion report review create a documented record of agency signoff at each phase - useful when multiple contaminant classes, off-site migration, or third-party concerns raise the stakes of a closure decision.

Ohio note: Ohio’s Voluntary Action Program (VAP) is the closest analog to Indiana’s VRP, but the closure instruments work differently. Under the VAP, a licensed Certified Professional (CP) prepares and issues a No Further Action letter without prior Ohio EPA approval - Indiana has no equivalent independent certification system, and IDEM reviews the work directly. The Ohio NFA letter is not the liability protection. Ohio EPA’s director reviews the NFA letter and issues a Covenant Not to Sue under Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 3746.12, and that covenant is the counterpart to Indiana’s Governor-issued CNS. Experience in one state does not transfer to the other without reviewing that state’s requirements.

What to Do Now

If you are evaluating a site for Indiana closure:

  • Identify which program the release falls under. Reporting obligations and the default track follow from the release source. If reporting requirements are unclear, see the Indiana spill reporting guide.
  • Ask whether anyone in the deal requires a covenant. Put the question directly to the client, lender, or buyer. If no one needs a Covenant Not to Sue, the default track’s NFA determination is usually sufficient and avoids the VRP’s enrollment and billed oversight costs.
  • Compare data to Published Levels early. Run Phase II results against the applicable Published Levels for the intended land use before committing to a path. See the Indiana published levels standards pages for current values by media and contaminant class.
  • Account for vapor intrusion. Both tracks require vapor intrusion evaluation where applicable, using Indiana’s soil gas and indoor air Published Levels. The Indiana Vapor Intrusion Evaluation guide covers the screening and sampling process under the R2 framework.
  • Budget VRP costs before the client commits. Oversight reimbursement is billed based on agency involvement and the estimate is not a cap. Factor it into the project budget alongside any ELTF reimbursement analysis.

For field investigation procedures that support either track, see our Indiana field guides and published levels standards pages.