United States         Solid Waste and     OSWER Directive #9420.00-09
               Environmental Protection   Emergency Response        EPA530-R-93-009
               Agency            (OS-305)              	March 1993
v>EPA      RCRA implementation
               Plan:  Fiscal Year 1994
                               Printed on paper that contains at least 50 percent recycled fiber.

                                             Printed on Recycled Paper

-------

-------
                                           TABLE OF  CONTENTS

          Chapter                                                                                   Page
s.
          Executive Summary
          1       Introduction                                                                             1-1
                         Agency Themes                                                                  1-1
                         The Strategic Management Framework                                               1-3

          2       Facility Priority Setting and Evaluation                                                      2-1
                         The Priority Ranking System                                                       2-1
                         Linking the Strategic Management Framework                                        2-5
                          to Accountability

          3       Permitting                                                                               3-1
                         Demonstrating Progress at High Priority Facilities                                     3-1
                         Prevention and Risk Reduction at Closed and Closing                                  3-2
                          Land Disposal Facilities
                         Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs) Are a
                          Significant Category of Facilities that Remain
                          to be Permitted                                                                  3-3

          4       Corrective Action                                                      .                  4-1
                         Development of Strategic Goals for Corrective Action                                  4-2
                         Focusing Resources on High NCAPS Priority Facilities                                 4-2
                         Continued Implementation of the Stabilization
                          Initiative                                                                       4-4
                         Complete NCAPs Priority Rankings  for Assessed
                          Facilities and Work Toward Completing Remaining
                          RFAs for Unassessed Facilities                                                    4-6
                         Building the Program's Capabilities Through
                          Effective Worksharing Arrangements With
                         ' the States                                                                      4-7
                         Appropriate Oversight of Facility Investigations    .
                          and Cleanup Actions, Based on Owner/Operator
                          Capabilities and Facility Conditions                                              4-10
                         Corrective Action Data Quality              .                                     4-10
                         FY'94 Corrective Action Stars Measures                                           4-11
                         Planned Headquarters Initiatives for  FY'94                                         4-11

          5       Other Priority Activities                                                                   5-1
                         States as the Primary Implementors of RCRA                                         5-1
                         Waste Minimization                                                               5-4
                         Biennial Reporting System                                                         5-7
                         Capacity Assurance Plans                             .                            5-9
                         Comprehensive State Ground-Water Planning                                       5-10
                                                          u                                     FY'94 RIP

-------
                               TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
6      Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
              Goal of the RCRA Enforcement Program
              Setting Levels of Activity for FY'94
              Criteria to Determine the Level of Activity
                in the RCRA Enforcement Program
              The RCRA Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
                Core Program Components
                     Conducting Compliance Monitoring Activities
                     Bringing Enforcement Actions
                     Returning Facilities to Compliance
              Enhancing Enforcement Capability
              Enforcement Addendum

7      Accountability                                ;
              Beginning of Year Plan
              End of Year Report and Baseline Performance Measures
              STARS
              RCRA Annual Accountability Cycle
              Environmental Indicators
              Data Management

8      Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Management
              Program Objectives                     ;
              Municipal Solid Waste National Priorities
              Industrial Solid Waste National Priorities

Appendix A    STARS Measures

Appendix B    Beginning of Year Plan Guidance

Appendix C    End of Year Report Guidance

Appendix D    List of Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms
  6-1
  6-1
  6-2

  6-3

  6-4
  6-4
  6-9
 6-11
 6-12
 6-14

  7-1
  7-2
  7-2
  -7-4
  7-5
  7-5
  7-6

  8-1
  8-1
  8-1
  8-3
                                  LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit
Page
2-1     Facility Priority Ranking

4-1     Rules for Determining Unassessed Facilities

5-1     1993 Biennial Report Cycle
  4-8

  5-8
                                              ill
                                                                                  FY'94 RIP

-------
                         EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
       The FY'94 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) defines the national policy and strategic
goals and priority activities for the RCRA solid and hazardous waste program. These goals
and activities are key elements in EPA and the States' efforts to promote waste minimization,
ensure environmentally sound waste management, and reduce risks posed by releases of
hazardous waste to the environment.  The RIP also defines how we measure our success.

       Since FY'92, EPA  and the States have initiated a Strategic Management Framework to
guide permitting and corrective  action implementation.  This strategic framework has three
components: (1) ranking the environmental priority of each treatment, storage, and disposal
facility (TSDF); (2) choosing appropriate prevention and/or cleanup activities to address
priority facilities; and  (3) accounting for results in meeting goals based on projected activities.
  PRIORITY RANKING

     By the end of FY'93, Regions and States should have completed initial overall priority ranking for all
  facilities. Priority ranking should continue to be a primary management tool for new activity and resource
  commitments,                     '

  PERMITTING

     Demonstrate progress in all areas of the permitting universe consistent with the priority ranking of
  facilities. Specifically:

     •  Address environmental risks at closed and closing land disposal units using the most efficient and
        timely permitting and corrective action mechanisms.

     •  Regions and States should develop a strategy to ensure that operating Boilers and Industrial Furnace
        (BIFs) meet all applicable requirements for safe operation.

  CORRECTIVE ACTION

     The Subtitle C corrective action program has three overriding program goals: targeting activities at
  "worst sites first"; ensuring that the program operates efficiently; and maximizing actual environmental
  results.  The five principal elements of this strategy are:

     •  Focus program resources  and actions at high NCAPS priority facilities;

     •  Continue to emphasize the stabilization initiative;

     •  Work toward completing  assessments (e.g., RFAs) and NCAPS rankings for all remaining
        "unassessed" facilities;
                                                                                FY'94 RIP

-------
CORRECTIVE ACTION (Continued)

   •   Build the program's capabilities through effective worksharing arrangements with the States; and

   •   Provide appropriate oversight of facility investigations and cleanup actions, based on owner/operator
       capabilities and facility conditions.                >

OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES

   •   States as Primary RCRA Implementors:  EPA maintains a strong commitment to the authorization
       of State programs and to improving the State/Federal relationship.  EPA is initiating creative
       approaches to enhance State capabilities, including worksharing, interim authorization, and
       authorizing individual regulations that are part of ovftrdue clusters.

   •   Waste Minimization: Waste minimization is an integral component of the Agency's overall
       commitment to pollution prevention and is eligible for RCRA grant funding.  To make pollution
       prevention successful, it should be incorporated into:

       -   Facility permitting
       -   Enforcement
          Outreach and technical assistance activities
       -   Section 3011 grant-funded activities.

   •   Biennial Reports:  To support the completion of Biennial Reports required of hazardous waste
       generators and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs), in FY'94 Regions and  States
       should:                                       '

       -   Distribute the 1993 Biennial Reports to generators and TSDFs;
       -   Collect the 1993 Biennial Reports and begin to enter the data into the Biennial Reporting System
          (BRS);
       -   Complete data entry of 1993 Biennial Reports and conduct data quality checks using  tools in the
          BRS.

   •   Ground-Water Protection Plans:  The RCRA program can  make valuable contributions to this
       process and benefit from an integrated State plan to protect its ground water.

   •   Capacity Assurance Plans: In FY'94, States will submit Phase I of their CAPs with projected
       hazardous waste management capacity and demand.

COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT

   The goal of the RCRA enforcement program is to attain and maintain a high rate of compliance within
the regulated community by establishing a comprehensive compliance monitoring program and taking timely,
visible, and effective enforcement actions against violators. To meet this goal in a time of diminishing
resources and greater responsibilities, the enforcement program will not set specific levels of compliance
monitoring and enforcement activities as in previous years. The core RCRA enforcement program has been
identified. The majority of the Regions' and States' compliance monitoring and enforcement efforts will be
                                                                                     FY'94 RIP

-------
  COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT (Continued)

  expected to occur within the core enforcement program. However, the Regions and States will have greater
  flexibility to shift resources within the core enforcement program than in previous years.  This flexibility
  will allow the Regions and States to target, verify compliance, and enforce against owners and operators who
  have done or have the potential to do the greatest harm to the environment and to human health.

  ACCOUNTABILITY

     EPA and the States have several accountability mechanisms to articulate our program expectations and
  accomplishments.

     •  The Beginning of Year Plan (BYP) is a near- and long-term strategic planning document that
        describes the environmental priorities, planned activities, and management choices that Regions and
        States are making.

     •  The Baseline Performance Measures in the End of Year Report (EYR) are quantitative program
        measures reported from RCRIS that present an accurate and thorough picture of program
        accomplishments.                   •

     •  STARS are a subset of the baseline measures that highlight for senior EPA management a limited
        number of program activities and accomplishments as key indicators of progress toward program
        goals.

  MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT

     The objectives of the municipal and industrial solid waste program directly support the OSWER Strategic
  Plan's goals of minimizing waste and ensuring that waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner.
  Priority activities in the municipal solid waste program include:

     •  Enhance the Federal-State/Tribal partnership and foster implementation of the revised criteria by
        assisting States/Tribes to develop effective and approvable permit programs.

     •  Support recycling efforts through market development and procurement implementation activities.

     •  Encourage source reduction activities among localities, businesses, and households through education.
        project support, and technical assistance.

     •  Focus on four industries with large TRI releases — chemicals, petroleum refining, primary metals,
      g. and pulp and paper — to gather information to determine whether these industries pose any risks.
   This year, for the first time, OSWER will produce an addendum to the FY'94 RIP.  This
addendum, scheduled for release in mid-May, will contain detailed guidance on accountability
mechanisms and RCRIS changes to support more effective program reporting and
measurement.
                                                                                    FY'94 RIP

-------

-------
                                  CHAPTER 1

                             INTRODUCTION
      The FY'94 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) defines national policy and strategies,
goals, and priority activities for the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program, including
permitting, compliance monitoring and enforcement, and the RCRA Subtitle D municipal and
industrial solid waste program. The RCRA Subtitle I underground storage tank program is
addressed hi a separate document. The priority activities described in this document will
enable EPA to meet the following major objectives for the RCRA program set forth in the
OSWER Strategic Plan for FY'94-97:

      •      Minimize the quantity and toxicity of waste created by commercial, domestic,
             and governmental activities;

      •      Ensure environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous wastes; and

      •      Prepare for and respond in a timely and effective manner to releases of
             hazardous materials into the environment.

AGENCY THEMES

OSWER's goals, objectives, and priorities described in this RIP support the following Agency
themes:

      •      Pollution Prevention:  OSWER is developing, encouraging and promoting
             technologies and practices that prevent pollution.  Many activities described in
             the FY'94 RIP have a direct link to pollution prevention, 'including municipal
             solid waste, recycling, eliminating barriers to source reduction, and using
             Supplemental Environmental Projects in settlements.

             Geographic Targeting of Health and Ecological Risk: In FY'94, we
             continue our emphasis on minimizing health and ecological risk by working on
             the highest priority facilities and sites first, and where  appropriate, by
             concentrating those efforts in key geographic areas.

      •      Improve Science and Data:  In FY'94, we will  enhance our use of
             environmental indicators to track program progress and to relate program
             successes to the public.  We and the Office of Research and Development
             (ORD) will also further the development of innovative treatment technologies
             and risk assessment protocols.
                                        1-1                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
       •     Cross-Program Integration and Multi-Media Enforcement: We continue to
             focus on integrating OSWER program activities with other Agency
             environmental programs as well as o;ther Federal agencies.  Integrated multi-
             media targeting, compliance monitoring and enforcement of specific industries,
             pollutants and geographic areas will continue to be a priority activity.
             Additionally, we are working with other program offices within the Agency to
             seek better integration of cross-program issues, e.g., lead, contaminated soils,
             and groundwater.

       •     Education and Outreach: We will continue our efforts to educate and enable
             the public and our various constituencies to fully participate in protecting the
             environment from the effects of improper waste management.  Education
             outreach is an important component of the municipal solid waste and hazardous
             waste programs.

       •     Management and Infrastructure: Accomplishing our strategic goals and  -
             objectives in this time of tight resources demands that we expand our
             incorporation of Total Quality Management principles within OSWER in
             FY'94, both in terms of our human resources and improved management of our
             programs.

       •     Strategic Implementation of Statutory Mandates:  Statutory and court-
             ordered deadlines  will continue to drive much of OSWER's agenda in FY'94.
             We have outlined a strategy for addressing the greatest risks first and for
             making reforms to our programs that | will yield greater efficiencies without
             compromising environmental  protection.

       •     More Reliance on Market and Economic Approaches: We will continue to
             look for ways to achieve results using market mechanisms and economic
             incentives, wherever feasible, particularly with regard to fulfilling OSWER's
             goals of waste minimization and environmentally sound waste management.

       •     Building State, Tribal, and Local Capacity:  Our long range goals can only
             be met through the combined efforts of EPA and State, Tribal, and local
             governments. Accordingly, a number of our objectives, as well as our planned
             activities for FY'94, are aimed at enhancing State,  Tribal, and local capacity
             for managing our nation's waste.

In addition, the activities set forth in the  FY'94 RIP will support a number of other cross-
Agency and multi-media initiatives and strategies, such as the ground-water strategy,
environmental equity, geographic initiatives, and the Enforcement Management Council
initiatives.
                                         1-2
        FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER!                                                      INTRODUCTION
       OSWER is committed to promoting awareness and sensitivity to environmental equity
concerns and to translating that awareness into positive action.  In FY'94, OSWER will
promote use of the soon to be released RCRA Public Involvement Manual which has a section
devoted to environmental equity.  The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) will coordinate equity
efforts with the newly established EPA Environmental Equity Office, specifically regarding
pertinent hazardous and solid waste siting, permitting, or other issues, and encourage the
Regions to do the same.

THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK

       In FY'92, EPA and the States initiated a Strategic Management Framework for the
RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program implementation that emphasizes targeting
resources to environmental priorities. In FY'93, the transition should be essentially complete
to target resources at priority facilities.

       The Strategic Management Framework integrates the prevention/permitting and
cleanup/corrective action elements of the RCRA Subtitle C program. The three primary
components 01 the Strategic Management Framework are:  (1) ranking the environmental
priority of each RCRA TSDF; (2) choosing appropriate prevention and/or cleanup activities to
address priority facilities; and (3) accounting for results in meeting goals based on projected
activities.  The environmental goals driving the Strategic Management Framework are to
reduce or prevent risks and maximize environmental benefits at high priority facilities. In
addition, this Strategic Management Framework allows us to balance progress between
prevention and cleanup activities in meeting our environmental goals to:  (1) minimize the
quantity and toxicity of waste created by commercial, domestic,  and governmental activities:
(2) ensure environmentally sound management of solid and  hazardous wastes; and (3) prepare
for and respond in a timely and effective manner to releases of hazardous materials into the
environment.

       The following principles govern the Strategic  Management Framework:

       •      State Implementation: Enhance State capability  to implement RCRA,
             authorize State programs to the fullest  extent  possible, and  optimize the mi* »(
             State and Federal resources in each State to achieve the greatest environmem.il
             result.

       •      National Consistency: Identify hazardous waste program goals and activitK--.
             to establish a nationally consistent base of program activity.

       •      Flexibility:  Preserve flexibility to address facility specific environmental
             priorities while ensuring continued progress in maximizing  risk reduction  ami
             environmental benefits.
                                         1-3                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
       •      Accountability and Accomplishments: Define challenging yet achievable
             goals and maintain accountability for progress toward those goals.

       •      Trade-Offs: Make informed and defensible decisions about trade-offs among
             program activities and the resulting environmental and programmatic impacts.

       •      Full Range of RCRA Requirements: Actively Implement the full range of
             RCRA regulatory activities.

       In order to reach the goal of full implementation of the Strategic Management
Framework, Regions and States must work aggressively in FY'94 to target RCRA activities to
high priority facilities and to define  and maintain accountability for resulting
accomplishments.
                                         1-4
        FY'94 RIP

-------
                                   CHAPTER 2

  FACILITY PRIORITY SETTING AND EVALUATION
      Ranking the priority of each facility in the RCRA universe is the foundation of the
Strategic Management Framework.  This priority ranking system makes a significant shift
from an activity-driven RCRA program to a program driven by priorities.

THE PRIORITY RANKING SYSTEM

             The two key criteria used to evaluate a facility's overall priority
             are environmental significance and environmental benefits.

      Environmental significance addresses known or potential releases that pose human
health and environmental risks, while the environmental benefits criterion addresses
opportunities to avoid future problems and make long term environmental improvements.
The use of these two criteria are fundamental to achieving a balance between cleanup of
contamination and preventive  measures aimed at avoiding future problems.  Once the overall
priority of the facility has been determined, the particular environmental needs at the facility
(risk reduction or prevention)  should be the basis for the type of activity (corrective action or
permitting) undertaken to meet those needs. Exhibit 2-1 depicts the approach to determine
the priority ranking of a facility under the Strategic Management Framework.

             The environmental significance criterion addresses known or
             potential releases from a facility's regulated units and other
             solid waste management units.

      Facilities are evaluated first against this criterion because it represents the existing or
potential human health and environmental risks posed by a facility. Environmental
significance must be determined for all RCRA-regulated units at a whole facility, including
land disposal, incinerators and other combustion devices, treatment units, storage areas, and
other solid waste  management units (SWMUs).  This comprehensive approach to
environmental significance ensures that facilities that pose potentially significant
environmental risks, but without known corrective action needs, are fully considered.  Also,
factors beyond the National Corrective  Action Priority Ranking System (NCAPS) criteria may
be considered in determining environmental significance.
                                        2-1                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 2
    FACILITY PRIORITY SETTING AND EVALUATION
                                       EXHIBIT 2-1
                                 Facility Priority Ranking
     Determine environmental
      significance (NCAPS or
        Qualitative Ranking)
Consider:

• Known or suspected release
• Migration potential  ,
• Exposure potential
• Waste/unit characteristics
    Apply environmental benefits
       to M/L environmental
       significance facilities
   High EB?
            No
Consider:

  New capacity
  Innovative technologies
  Waste minimization
  Cross-media benefits
  Incentives for compliance
  Enhanced regulatory control
High overall priority
     ranking
          Based on other
     considerations up to 15% of
     the total number of facilities
      being addressed through
     permitting and/or CA can be
      non-high priority facilities
                                            2-2
                                                FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 2                      FACILITY PRIORITY SETTING AND EVALUATION
       The evaluation factors for environmental significance are the same for both regulated
units and SWMUs:

       •      Known or suspected release

       •      Migration potential

       •      Exposure potential

       •      Waste/unit characteristics.

When a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA), Environmental Priorities Initiative Preliminary
Assessment (PA), or equivalent is available, the facility should be ranked using the NCAPS.
When this data is not available, or when the facility poses potential releases that are not
evaluated by NCAPS (e.g., combustion units), the facility should receive a qualitative
environmental significance ranking.  NCAPS will form the primary .basis for determining  -
environmental significance.  If the minimum amount of data needed for an NCAPS ranking is
not available, a qualitative evaluation will be conducted.

             Facilities should be evaluated for environmental benefits after the
             environmental significance evaluation.

    The environmental benefits criterion addresses opportunities to avoid future risks and to
make long-term environmental improvements.  Environmental benefits should be evaluated at
facilities ranked medium and low for environmental significance to determine whether to
elevate them to high priority. Environmental benefits include:

       •      New Capacity: Opportunities to provide additional or improved waste
             management capacity at new facilities or facility expansions, particularly to
             fulfill a State's Capacity Assurance Plan.

       •      Waste Minimization: Opportunities to undertake waste minimization
             initiatives, including any that implement State pollution prevention laws, target
             specific facility operations, or employ processes that minimize wastes.

       •      Innovative Technologies:  Opportunities to employ technologies that may not
             have an extensive history of performance and cost data but may present more
             effective or less costly solutions to hazardous waste management problems.

       •      Cross-Media Benefits: Opportunities to implement a geographic multi-media
             Agency initiative to optimize risk reduction and environmental improvement.
                                         2-3                               FY'94RIP

-------
CHAPTER 2
FACILITY PRIORITY SETTING AND EVALUATION
       •      Incentives for Compliance:  Opportunities, as a result of well-timed actions
             against a facility, that may produce incentives for compliance at other similar
             facilities.                          :

       •      Enhanced Regulatory Control: Opportunities to establish a regulatory
             presence to improve hazardous waste management or to precipitate closure at a
             facility that was previously unregulated, has a poor compliance history (or
             enforcement status of concern), or is in a precarious financial situation.  This
             benefit includes the opportunity to implement permitting activities to prevent or
             mitigate potential releases.

       Any of the above environmental benefits may be realized by taking permitting actions
at certain facilities and thus may be  the basis for elevating certain facilities to high priority
for non-corrective action activities.  However, as described in more detail in Chapter 4, only
the last four benefits (innovative technologies, cross-media benefits, incentives for
compliance, and enhanced regulatory control) would justify elevating a facility to high
priority for corrective action.

             In addition to environmental significance and environmental benefits, other
             considerations may be the basis for taking permitting or corrective action at a
             facility.

       Because RCRA is a program with limited resources, those resources must be applied
first to facilities that are highest priority for risk reduction and prevention. However, EPA
recognizes that there are circumstances when other considerations may warrant taking action
at facilities that are not  ranked as high priority based on environmental significance and
environmental' benefits.  These "other considerations" include, for example, public concern
about a facility (such as for certain commercial facilities) and actions required by State laws
The goal of the Strategic Management Framework is to limit the number of "other
consideration" facilities, where long-term, resource intensive activities are being conducted, to
15 percent of all facilities that are being actively addressed.

              New  universe facilities must still be ranked, and as prevention and corrector
              action activities are completed at high priority facilities, they may be
              reevaluated against the universe of RCRA facilities to determine their relan\t
              status.

       Facilities should be re-ranked upon completion of activities which significantly reduce
existing  or potential risk (e.g., stabilization action)!  Decisions to re-rank a facility should he
guided by the expertise and discretion of the Region or State. Changes in priority, as a result
of activities undertaken at high priority facilities, may serve as an indicator of progress as
                                          2-4
                                           FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 2                     FACILITY PRIORITY SETTING AND EVALUATION
well as a management tool to determine whether the level of oversight or the time frame for
remaining activities at a facility should be reevaluated.

LINKING THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO
ACCOUNTABILITY

             The focus on high priority facilities prescribed in the Strategic Management
             Framework must be reflected in the implementation activities tracked through
             the Strategic Targeted Accomplishments for Results System (STARS) and other
             accountability measures.

      It is important to send a clear and consistent message that the focus of the RCRA
program is on addressing high priority facilities first.  Therefore, our goal is to focus STARS
on actions at high priority facilities.

      As in FY'93, the FT94 RIP  stresses the need to focus corrective action ^sources on
high NCAPS priority facilities.  Consistent with that emphasis, credit for cleanup activities
through STARS is focused on activities at high NCAPS facilities.  We recognize, however,
that in some cases there are valid reasons (based on environmental benefits) for undertaking
corrective action at medium or low NCAPS facilities  that are high overall priority and have  a
STARS measure to capture those activities. For permitting activities, the FY'94 STARS are
not limited to high priority facilities, but we strongly  encourage Regions and States to focus
their permitting resources on activities at facilities that rank high for overall priority.

      The RCRA program relies on RCRIS for tracking STARS and other accountability
measures. RCRIS currently tracks activities at high, medium, and low NCAPS facilities and
reports whether a facility has  received an overall priority ranking.  In FY'93, the national
oversight level did not provide information on the specific overall priority ranking of the
facility (e.g., whether it has a high, medium, or low overall ranking). This  lack of       *"
information has limited our ability to track permitting or corrective action activities by facility
overall priority through STARS.  By the beginning of FY'94, EPA Headquarters hopes to
expand the parameters of RCRIS so  that we can count both corrective action and permitting
activities at high overall priority facilities.   By doing so,  we can better track our progress in
addressing environmental needs.
                                        2-5                               FY'94 RIP

-------

-------
                                   CHAPTER 3

                                PERMITTING
      The permitting strategic goals for FY'94 are: (1) making progress at high priority
facilities; (2) preventing and reducing risks at closed and closing land disposal facilities; and
(3) developing a strategy to ensure that operating Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BEFs) meet
all appropriate requirements for safe operation.  Final permit determinations, permit
modifications, closure plan approvals, and certification of closure are benchmarks for facilities
as they meet their environmental Obligations  under RCRA.  These activities are key measures
for bringing facilities fully into the RCRA system and for ensuring that they fulfill their
obligations throughout the facility life.

DEMONSTRATING PROGRESS AT HIGH PRIORITY FACILITIES

             It is important for Regions and States to demonstrate progress in
             all areas of the permitting universe consistent with the priority
             ranking of facilities.

      Regions and States should implement activities to achieve both timely reduction of
existing risk and long-term prevention of future risks at facilities in the permitting universe.
Activity at post-closure facilities should be commensurate with their overall priority
considering the size of the universe and the likelihood of environmental risk.  Thus, where a
substantial portion of the high priority facilities in the permitting universe have post-closure
needs, the Region or  State should emphasize activity in that area.

      Regions and States are expected to continue permitting activities underway at high
priority facilities.  As in FY'93, in FY'94 new  permitting activities should be limited to high
priority facilities.  States and Regions must choose  how to handle medium and low priority
facilities where activities are underway. If substantial work has been completed toward a
permit activity, the most efficient choice may be  to complete that activity.  However, where
substantial work remains, movement through the  pipeline may not be justified.  Regions and
States should expedite action at high priority facilities, even if this means deferring activity at
lower priority facilities.

       Permitting activities should emphasize the most effective means to achieve timely risk
reduction.  At some facilities, obtaining timely risk reduction may mean expediting permit
issuance.  At other facilities, imposing  corrective action through Section 3008(h) orders may
be the most effective way to accomplish near-term  risk reduction while permitting activities
are on a longer schedule. The pace of activities at  post-closure facilities should be
commensurate with their overall priority.
                                         3-1                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 3	        ;	     PERMITTING


PREVENTION AND RISK REDUCTION AT CLOSED AND CLOSING LAND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES

             Addressing environmental risks at closed and closing land disposal units is an
             important goal of the RCRA program.

       Permitting activities to address closed and closing land disposal facilities include
closure plan approval and post-closure permit issuance (including Part B call in, permit
processing, and final determination). All of the corrective action activities (RFAs,
stabilization determinations, stabilization measures, and Stages I-III) discussed in Chapter 4
are the mechanisms by which corrective action should be addressed.

       Priority ranking should now be completed at closed and closing land disposal facilities
(including clean closed facilities and facilities that plan to clean close). Based on the priority
ranking of these facilities, by the beginning of FY'94, the Region and State should jointly be
implementing a strategy to address timely prevention and risk reduction activities at  all high
priority facilities in the closure/post-closure universe either through permitting activities or
enforcement actions to achieve corrective action. Financial status or corporate viability of the
owner/operator may determine timing or appropriate actions to  be taken at these facilities.
Regions and States should address the following appropriate permitting activities at high
priority facilities:

       •     Approve closure plans at closing facilities where these activities have  not been
             completed, particularly where some time has elapsed since the units ceased
             operation.

       •     Complete closure activities at high priority sites  (e.g., as evidenced by closure
             certification) to prevent the escape of hazardous  constituents from the closed
             unit and ensure that the unit will no longer accept solid waste.
                                                                     '
       •     Issue permits for high priority facilities where risks at the facility have not
             been addressed through another mechanism (such as a Section 3008(h) order).
                                               i'
                                               |.
       •     Call in Part Bs at high priority facilities.  The number of Part B call-ins should
             reflect the resources the Region or Spite can commit to issuing permits.

       •      Incorporate extended schedules for corrective action into the permit for
              facilities with lower ranking for environmental significance.

       •      Complete RFAs at closing and closed facilities.  In any case, any unassessed
              facility should receive a qualitative environmental significance  ranking.
                                          3-2                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 3
PERMITTING
BOILERS AND INDUSTRIAL FURNACES (BIFs) ARE A SIGNIFICANT CATEGORY
OF FACILITIES THAT REMAIN TO BE PERMITTED

      Regions and States should develop a strategy to ensure that operating BIFs meet all
applicable requirements for safe operation.

      The Agency is committed to bringing these facilities into fully regulated status as
expeditiously as possible. Because of the nature of these facilities and public concern with
their operation, there is an expectation that many of these will be high priority facilities.
Regions and States should develop a strategy relying on the most efficient combination of
permitting and enforcement tools, including Part B permit call-ins, to ensure that BIFs meet
all applicable requirements for safe operation.
        * STARS Measures

        (R/C-la)     Number of RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs)
                    to receive operating permit final determinations during fiscal year

        (R/C-2a)     Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closure plan approval during
                    fiscal year

        (R/C-3a)     Number of post-closure Part B applications called in

        (R/C-3c)     Number of post-closure permit final determinations
                                       3-3
   FY'94 RIP

-------

-------
                                   CHAPTER 4


                         CORRECTIVE  ACTION
       In FY'94, the RCRA Corrective Action program will continue to follow the same
general implementation strategy as in FY'93.  The five principal elements of this strategy are:

       •      Focus program resources and actions at high NCAPS priority facilities;

       •      Continue to emphasize the stabilization initiative;

       •      Work toward completing assessments (e.g., RFAs) and NCAPS rankings for all
             remaining "unassessed" facilities;

       •      Build the program's capabilities through effective worksharing arrangements
             with the States; and

       •      Provide appropriate oversight of facility investigations and cleanup actions,
             based on owner/operator capabilities and facility conditions.

       This overall strategy .for the program is directed at achieving three overriding program
goals:  (1) ensuring that program efforts  are 'directed at "worst sites first"; (2) ensuring thai
the program operates efficiently; and (3) maximizing actual environmental results. The
program to date has made substantial progress in realizing these goals. However, as
evidenced by the GAO report Much Work Remains  to Accelerate Facility Cleanups, which
was released in March 1993, the success of this program will continue to be measured
primarily in terms of achieving actual cleanup results at the thousands of RCRA facilities thai
pose actual or potential threats to human health and the environment.

       In light of these strategies, the Corrective Action program's implementation efforts
must continue to be results-oriented.  As a general matter, emphasis must be placed on getting
cleanups underway.  Although this emphasis is in a large part reflected in the implementation
strategy outlined above, Regional and State implementors should continue to explore
innovative ways to streamline studies and procedures, encourage owner/operator initiatives.
and take advantage of other opportunities to achieve expeditious cleanup actions at RCRA
facilities.
                                        4-1                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 4
CORRECTIVE ACTION
DEVELOPMENT OF STRATEGIC GOALS FOR CORRECTIVE ACTION

      Building on the implementation strategy outlined above and the experience gained by
the program in the past several years, EPA believes that it is appropriate to establish a set of
specific, mid- to long-term implementation goals for the Corrective Action program. A
workgroup of representatives from Headquarters, Regions, and the States is developing these
program goals.  These goals will be oriented toward achieving specific environmental results
(e.g., eliminating human exposures to contaminants) rather than process measures (e.g.,
number of RFIs completed). This effort is expected to build on ongoing work that is being
done to define "measures of success"  for corrective action. A proposal for defining
implementation goals for the program should be available for wider review by Regions and
States by the end of FY'93.
FOCUSING RESOURCES ON HIGH NCAPS PRIORITY FACILITIES

             In FY'94, the Corrective Action program will continue to focus on high
             NCAPS priority facilities.

       These facilities generally have known releases to two or more environmental
pathways; therefore, they pose the greatest relative risk to human health and the environment.
The following are some practical guidelines to consider in addressing high priority facilities in
FY'94:                                      !

       •      The entry of facilities into the corrective action pipeline should be managed
             such that RFIs are imposed primarily at high NCAPS priority facilities. When
             permits are issued to medium or low| NCAPS priority facilities, Regions and
             States should generally structure the schedule of compliance to defer
             investigations or other work requiring oversight resources (exceptions to this
             general rule are discussed below). Alternatively, it may be possible in some
             cases to identify specific environmental goals or performance standards to the
             owner/operator and to allow investigations and cleanup actions to proceed with
             minimal, oversight.

       •      Regions and States should continue to reduce corrective action resource
             commitments for medium or low NdAPS priority facilities that are in the
             "pipeline".  Such disinvestments could involve reducing oversight levels,
             extending schedules of compliance, deferring further work once a stabilization
             action  has been implemented, or leveraging State activity at the facility.
                                         4-2
             FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 4                                                   CORRECTIVE ACTION
       •      Regions and States should continue to move high NCAPS priority pipeline
             facilities to final cleanup, provided that the facility is not a candidate for near-
             term risk reduction actions (e.g., stabilization actions).

             In a few specific cases, facilities that are medium or low NCAPS
             priority, but which have high "overall" priority, may warrant
             investment of corrective  action oversight resources.

       In some cases, pursuing corrective action at a facility that is not high NCAPS priority
may yield significant environmental benefits that are not directly related to cleanup of that
facility. In such cases, these environmental benefits could cause the facility to be of high
"overall" priority. The situations listed below may warrant continued investment of corrective
action oversight resources at medium or low NCAPS priority facilities:

       •      Innovative Technologies: A facility that is a good candidate for innovative
             technologies.  (OSWER Policy Directive 9380.0-17, June 10, 1991, encourages
             promoting innovative treatment technologies at RCRA corrective action and
             closure sites.)

       •      Enhanced Regulatory Control:  For example, a commercial RCRA TSDF that
             receives (or has shown interest in receiving) Comprehensive Environmental
             Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) wastes under the Off-
             Site Policy (OSWER Directive 9834.11, November 13,  1987), or a closed  land
             disposal facility (LDF) where the owner/operator is likely to go out of business.

       •      Incentives for Compliance:  A facility where action would produce incentives
             for compliance at other similar facilities.

       •      Cross-Media Benefits:  A facility that is part of a geographic or cross-media
             Agency initiative in which corrective action will further the goals of that
             initiative.

             Cuts in program resources should be accommodated in ways
             that minimize impacts on work at high NCAPS priority facilities.

       In FY'93, Congressionally mandated budget cuts  resulted in large reductions in
extramural resources available to the RCRA program, including corrective action. It is
possible that the program will have to deal with similar resource reductions in FY'94.  In
general, when reallocating funds or disinvesting in projects to accommodate these cuts,
Regions should seek to minimize impacts on ongoing work at high NCAPS priority facilities.
Potential corrective action activity areas that may be candidates for disinvestment in this
context may include: (1) oversight at medium/low NCAPs facilities; (2) oversight of State-
                                          4-3                                FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 4                                                  CORRECTIVE ACTION
lead facility cleanup; or (3) stabilization evaluations, where the Region has already identified
a substantial number of high priority facilities for stabilization actions.

             Facilities should be re-ranked, when appropriate.

       For some facilities, new information may become available which could have a
substantial effect on the NCAPS ranking for the facility. It is also possible that a facility's
ranking could change due to stabilization actions or the performance of other substantial
cleanup actions.  Regions and States are encouraged, hi these cases, to re-rank the facility
using NCAPS, and record the priority change in RCRIS. RCRIS is currently being updated
so that multiple rankings may be entered for a facility or an area.  Re-ranking  of facilities
will serve to ensure that rankings in the data base ireflect the actual environmental conditions
at those facilities.
CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STABILIZATION INITIATIVE
              The program will continue to emphasize near-term actions to
              address actual or imminent exposures and to prevent the further
              spread of contamination.

       In FY'94, the Corrective Action program will continue its focus on stabilization as the
primary strategy for cleanup of RCRA  facilities. The stabilization initiative consists of two
main activities:  evaluating facilities for feasibility of implementing stabilization measures;
and actual implementation of stabilization measures, including oversight of investigations
leading to implementing those  measures.

       Stabilization evaluations can occur at two points in. the corrective action process: after
an initial assessment (e.g., an RFA or equivalent), and after sufficient RFI information has
been gathered. The goals of this evaluation are to:  (1) determine whether there is any actual
or imminent human or ecological exposure to releases occurring at the facility; (2) determine
whether known releases are likely to significantly spread in the absence of near-term action;
and (3) identify priority information that the owner/operator should develop early in the RFI
to determine the need for stabilization (e.g., hydrogeological information on ground-water
flow rates and hydraulic conductivity or environmental sampling data for SWMUs/suspected
of having a release that is spreading). The Stabilization Strategy and Guidance contains
detailed information on both how to conduct the evaluation and on the many types of
stabilization measures. The evaluation should follow the Stabilization Evaluation  Checklist
contained in the guidance or an equivalent level of inquiry.
                                          4.4                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 4                                                    CORRECTIVE ACTION
       Stabilization determinations should be made first for facilities for which there is
sufficient RFI information to enable a thorough evaluation of near-term cleanup needs.
Stabilization determinations at facilities that have received only initial assessments should
address near-term cleanup needs as well as opportunities to focus and phase RFIs to more
expeditiously gather data for making stabilization decisions.  Generally, evaluations should be
completed according to NCAPS priority, with high priority facilities evaluated first.

       In FY'94, we expect to see a substantial increase in stabilization measures
implemented, building on the stabilization evaluations completed in FY'92 and FY'93. As
facilities are identified as candidates for stabilization, follow-on efforts should focus on quick
actions to address actual or imminent exposure to releases and to control the spread of known
releases.

       When the stabilization evaluation identifies the need for near-term measures to reduce
risks at the facility, the Region or State should act quickly to require the owner/operator to
initiate cleanup. Voluntary actions by owner/operators should be encouraged as one means .of
expediting near-term risk reduction actions. Time frames to complete these  near-term
measures will vary depending on the scope of the activities required to address actual  or
imminent exposure to releases and to control the spread of known releases.  Facilities  should
be evaluated at critical junctures in the corrective action process, such as once stabilization
measures are underway, to determine an appropriate schedule and oversight  approach for
.completing facility-wide investigations and comprehensive cleanup.

              High NCAPS priority facilities should be selectively moved
              through the pipeline to Stage III comprehensive cleanup.

       High NCAPS priority facilities that are not amenable to stabilization  measures  should
be moved toward expeditious, comprehensive cleanup.  Such cleanups may be phased over
time, or they can be implemented as a complete, one-time remedy selection. For facilities
where  stabilization measures have been implemented and  further stabilization is not required.
Regions and States should generally be able to disinvest oversight resources, at least for a
period of time. Although in some cases it will be necessary from an environmental
standpoint to aggressively follow stabilization with final remediation of the facility, it  should
be feasible to safely defer further cleanup at  many stabilized  facilities, thereby allowing
oversight resources to be applied to  other corrective  action work. Consistent with this
approach, some Regions have successfully issued "stabilization only" orders  or permits, which
contain schedules of compliance specifying corrective action  requirements only up to and
including implementation of stabilization measures.

       For any final remedy selected by an EPA Region,  the Statement of Basis/Response to
Comments  (SB/RTC) documentation should be sent to Headquarters for dissemination and
entry into the Remedy Decision Database, which will be discussed later in this Chapter.
                                          4-5                                FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 4
CORRECTIVE ACTION
SB/RTC documentation that has been prepared for large-scale stabilization actions also should
be sent to Headquarters, as should analogous information on State or voluntary cleanups at
RCRA facilities, when available.

      For data entry purposes, cleanup actions initiated at a portion of the facility that is at
the RFA stage or Stages I or II should be entered as stabilization actions.  Cleanup actions
initiated at a portion of the facility that is at Stage III will be considered final remedial
actions. This approach should facilitate a smoother transition from addressing the worst
SWMUs at a facility to the final cleanup. A stabilization measure may become the final
corrective action remedy only when implemented as the final corrective action requirements
specified in the permit or order, or when it ultimately meets the cleanup goals specified in the
permit or order.
COMPLETE NCAPS PRIORITY RANKINGS FOR ASSESSED FACILITIES AND
WORK TOWARD COMPLETING REMAINING RFAS FOR UNASSESSED
FACILITIES                                 I
       .•.•.'•>•
             Regions and States should complete NCAPS rankings for all
            facilities -which have had an RFA (or equivalent assessment).

       By the end of FY'92, the great majority of all assessed facilities had been prioritized
according to NCAPS.  Regions arid States should continue to complete NCAPs rankings as
additional initial assessments (e.g.,  RFAs) are completed for facilities.
                                             t

             Regions and States should work toward completing initial assessments
            for all unassessed facilities by FY'96.

       In early FY'93, several Regions had  assessed virtually  all facilities in their universe, or
were projecting to have assessments completed by the end of FY'93.  For some Regions,
however, substantial numbers of facilities remain to be assessed.  The program's goal is to
assess all facilities in the RCRA universe by the end of FY'96.

       Based on the plans presented in the FY'93 BYPs, we expect this to be a very realistic
goal.  Since achieving this  goal is expected to require  only modest resource expenditures in
FY'94, FY'95, and FY'96, it should not significantly impact efforts to pursue actual cleanur*
at high priority facilities. As before, Regions and States should direct new assessments at
facilities on a "worst first"  basis, based on available information and applied judgment.  It  IN
expected that closed and closing land disposal facilities will generally be priority candidate
for receiving new assessments.
                                         4-6
             FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 4                                                  CORRECTIVE ACTION
       For Regions that will have facilities that remain unassessed after FY'93, the FY'94
BYPs should reflect the goal of completing all assessments by the end of FY'96. For
purposes of determining which facilities should be counted as "unassessed", the criteria that
were presented in the FY'93 RIP should continue to be used. These criteria are presented in
Exhibit 4-1 of this Chapter.
BUILDING THE PROGRAM'S CAPABILITIES THROUGH EFFECTIVE
WORKSHARING ARRANGEMENTS WITH THE STATES

             EPA will continue to support and provide incentives for States to
             become authorized for corrective action.

       A critical component of the implementation strategy for the RCRA Corrective Action
program is to continue efforts to authorize States for corrective action, and to maintain and
build effective and productive worksharing relationships with the States. EPA will continue
to provide State grant "bonuses" for corrective action to authorized States in FY'94.

       The 16 States that are now authorized for HSWA corrective action represent 34
percent of the facilities in the total RCRA universe. Several States became authorized in
FY'92, and several more will have been authorized by the end of FY'93.  One of the issues
that must be addressed by the Region and a newly authorized (or about to be authorized)
State is the transition of facilities that are in the corrective action pipeline from EPA-lead
oversight to State-lead oversight.   A primary objective of authorizing States for corrective
action  is for the State to assume the full task of managing the corrective action process and of
achieving environmental results at all RCRA facilities in that State.  In many cases, however,
it is not feasible or productive to abruptly shift oversight roles and responsibilities for all of a
State's facilities upon authorization.  This is especially the case for facilities where the
corrective action process is well advanced, and where EPA staff have developed expertise
with the facility such that shifting oversight to the State would cause substantial delays in
implementing cleanup action at that facility.

        Concurrent with, and following the authorization of a State for corrective action, EPA
and the State should work to develop a transition strategy for the facilities in the corrective
action pipeline. Such a strategy, which may necessitate spelling out detailed, facility-specific
arrangements, should be included  as part of the MOU with the State.  It is recognized that a
full transition may take several years  to complete.

              EPA Regions should continue to build worksharing arrangements with
              unauthorized States.
                                          4-7                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 4                                                     CORRECTIVE ACTION
                                      EXHIBIT 4-1
                    Rules for Determining Unassessed Facilities
  DO NOT count as unassessed:
               Converters and non-notifiers that require an RFA/PA-plus, unless they have been
               through the Superfund screening process (i.e., PA, SI, HRS, NPL listing decision)
               and require no further remedial action junder CERCLA.

               This directive is based on the Federal Register notice of October 4,1989,
               concerning the NPL/RCRA Listing Policy. In that notice, the Agency added four
               categories of RCRA sites appropriate for CERCLA listing, including converters and
               non-notifiers. It is OSWER policy to refer only high priority converters and non-
               notifiers to CERCLA. Subsequently, if these sites are screened out under
               Superfund, they would be referred to the RCRA program. Because of this policy,
               the RCRA program is not considering these facilities a part of the RCRA universe *
               subject to corrective action,  until they return to RCRA after a Superfund site
               evaluation is accomplished.

               Facilities that received a PA-plus in FY'91 or FY'92.

               Facilities that received an adequate PA prior to FY'91. "Adequate" means that the
               Region found the PA to be equivalent to an RFA,  such that no further assessment
               is necessary and an NCAPS ranking can be performed.
  DO count as unassessed:
                TSDs not addressed above that have never received either a PA or RFA (or
                equivalent initial assessment).

                Facilities that received an inadequate PA prior to FY'91. "Inadequate" means that
                the PA is not considered to be adequate for purposes of NCAPS ranking or for
                issuing a permit or an order.

                RCRA facilities covered under the CERCLA NPL listing policy that have been
                returned to RCRA after a "no further action" determination by the CERCLA
                program. These facilities should be cojunted as unassessed only if the Superfund
                PA is insufficient for the RCRA program's needs.
                                           4-8                                 FY'94RIP

-------
CHAPTER 4                                                   CORRECTIVE ACTION
       Many unauthorized States are currently performing substantial corrective action work
under §3011 grant agreements.  Such arrangements benefit the program by leveraging
resources and building State capabilities for eventual authorization. Regions and States
should continue to negotiate and implement these mutually beneficial agreements in FY'94.

       In some cases, worksharing arrangements with States may involve EPA support of
State enforcement actions under State remedial authorities to address corrective action  at
RCRA facilities.  For instance, many States have State Superfund authorities and programs
that are capable of remediating historic waste management problems at a wide range of sites,
including RCRA regulated facilities.  An effective approach for achieving corrective action
objectives at some RCRA facilities may be to support State-lead cleanup actions under
alternative (e.g., non-RCRA) authorities. This approach could be useful, for example,  at
facilities that are not yet in the pipeline, but are known to be  high priority under NCAPS.
Another example  could be a facility that has received a permit, but at which the State  has
made substantial remedial progress using State authorities, and transitioning to RCRA
authority would be disruptive.  This approach could also be used in authorized States.  While
EPA does not authorize States for §3008(h), corrective action at interim status facilities in an
authorized State could be pursued under a State enforcement authority,  as an alternative to
taking action under §3008(h).

       In situations such as those mentioned above, EPA and/or the State may encounter
issues relating to  the equivalency of the State's authorities, procedures or cleanup guidelines
vis-a-vis RCRA §30Q4(u) or §3008(h). Regions are encouraged to be flexible in this regard;
in making decisions as to whether to support such State efforts, the primary focus should be
on whether the State can be expected to achieve cleanup results that are generally consistent
with those of the  RCRA Corrective Action program.  For example, a State Superfund
program could have operating guidelines (e.g.,  specific risk assessment  requirements), or
procedures (e.g., administrative  record requirements), that differ significantly from those of
RCRA. Such differences would likely not affect the State's ability to impose stabilization
measures, for example, at a RCRA facility.  Although States should be encouraged to use
RCRA guidance and procedures in these situations, rigid adherence to such guidance or
procedures should not be a condition for receiving grant funding.

        In a similar  vein, EPA intends to explore the concept of authorizing existing,
alternative State cleanup programs for RCRA corrective action. For example, a State
Superfund program may have legal authorities, as well as  administrative capabilities,
sufficient to address contamination problems at RCRA facilities. Authorizing such a program
for RCRA corrective action would thus avoid having to create a new and separate remedial
program in the State. EPA expects to address this issue in guidance or regulations in FY'93
or FY'94.
                                          4-9                                FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 4                                                CORRECTIVE ACTION
APPROPRIATE OVERSIGHT OF FACILITY INVESTIGATIONS AND CLEANUP
ACTIONS, BASED ON OWNER/OPERATOR CAPABILITIES AND FACILITY
CONDITIONS

             Regions and States should tailor the level of corrective action
             oversight, especially at medium or low NCAPS facilities already
             in the corrective action pipeline.

      In FY'94, Regions and States should continue efforts to disinvest at medium/low
NCAPS facilities by adopting approaches for those facilities that are less resource intensive
than full oversight.  We can only successfully target resources on high NCAPS  priority
facilities if we reduce resource  commitments to medium or low NCAPS priority facilities.
Although some progress has been made by a number of Regions in this area, one of the
general findings of the corrective action Regional reviews conducted in FY'92 and FY'93 was
that substantial opportunities remain for disinvestments.  This will continue to be a program
emphasis.  As suggested in the RCRA Corrective Action Oversight Guidance, issued January
1992, Regions and States should consider developing oversight plans for selected facilities
when making decisions on appropriate levels of oversight.
CORRECTIVE ACTION DATA QUALITY

             We will continue efforts to improve RCRIS data quality for corrective
             action.

       It is critical to the success and the credibility of the Corrective Action program that
EPA and the States continue the important work of improving the quality of corrective action
data in RCRIS.  To this end, several important new data elements will be added to RCRIS to
enhance our ability to accurately represent the program's  progress and results. In addition,
definitions of existing data elements have been updated and clarified.

       Two specific changes to the corrective action reporting system that will become fully
functional in FY'94 are of particular importance. First, changes will be made to allow
tracking of cleanups at RCRA facilities that are being implemented under State cleanup
authorities. This will allow us to present a more complete picture  of the actual progress
being made to remediate the facilities in the RCRA universe.

       Second, two new data elements will be added to RCRIS to  account for actual cleanup
results obtained through corrective action. These measures of success were developed by a
Headquarters-Regional working group. As discussed in the introduction to this Chapter of the
RIP, these measures are expected to be integral to developing long-term implementation goals
for the Corrective Action program.
                                        4-10                             FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 4                                                CORRECTIVE ACTION
FY'94 CORRECTIVE ACTION STARS MEASURES

       FY'94 STARS measures for corrective action are unchanged from FY'93. The
program will continue to assess the need for changes to these measures, specifically whether
actual STARS targets should be reinstituted in FY'95.
        * STARS Measures - FY'94

        (R/J-la)      Stage I: Information collection and study at high NCAPS priority
                     facilities

        (R/J-lb)      Stage II: Remedy development and selection at high NCAPS priority
                     facilities

        (R/J-2)       RCRA TSDFs evaluated for near-term actions to reduce risk and
                     control contaminant releases (e.g., stabilization evaluations)

        (R/J-3)       Number of TSDFs with actions underway to reduce risk and to
                     control the spread of contaminant releases (Actions are Stage III at
                     high NCAPS priority facilities and near-term risk reduction measures
                     at high, medium, or low NCAPS facilities.)

        (R/J-4)       Number of Stage I, II,  or III actions at high overall priority TSDFs
                     that are a medium or low NCAPS priority
      As discussed in Chapter 3 of the FY'94 RIP, there has been particular Congressional
interest in corrective action progress at closed and closing land disposal facilities.
Accordingly, Headquarters may need to assemble corrective action data (e.g., STARS
accomplishments) specifically for those facilities.
PLANNED HEADQUARTERS INITIATIVES FOR FY'94

      The following are some of the current Headquarters' efforts in the corrective action
area that may impact Regional and State implementation efforts in FY'94:

      Corrective Action Management Unit (CAMU)/Temporary Unit (TU) Rule.  This
final rule, expected to become effective in April 1993, provides greater flexibility for EPA
and States to select sensible, protective remedies.  This rule has generated considerable
                                       4-11                              FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 4                                  	CORRECTIVE ACTION


interest, and owner/operators are likely to approach implementors with CAMU-based cleanup
proposals beginning in FY'93.  It is critical that CAMU decisions are made carefully, with
particular attention to the limitations and decision criteria specified  in the final rule. Regions
and States can expect CAMU decisions to receive considerable scrutiny, from both within and
outside the Agency. It is essential that CAMUs be used as a means of enhancing the
protectiveness and effectiveness of remedies.      i
                                              i
       Suspension of the Toxicity Characteristic for Non-UST Petroleum Contaminated
Media.  It is likely that this rule (proposed on December 24, 1992) will be finalized in late
FY'93 or early FY'94.  Although the rule is not expected to create large implementation
responsibilities for EPA Regions, it is likely that Regions will be required to process
certifications (or similar requirements) from States that wish to pursue this suspension.

       Remedy Decision Database. Beginning in FY'94, a joint RCRA/Superfund Remedy
Decision Database will be put on-line.  This new database will contain information on RCRA
remedies and stabilizations, as extracted from the Statements of Basis submitted to
Headquarters from the Regions and States. This database is expected to assist implementors
by providing relevant information on remedies that have been selected and implemented at a
wide range of sites.

       Corrective Action Regional Reviews. As of March  1993, corrective action reviews
had been conducted in Regions I, H, ffl, V, and X.  Reviews of the remaining Regions should
be completed by the end of FY'94.

       RCRA Corrective Action/Superfimd Remedial Action Inspection Guidance.
Guidance on corrective action inspections will be developed by OWPE for program managers
and project officers. The guidance will address pre-inspection, inspection, and post-inspection
procedures specific to corrective action.

       Revised Corrective Action Plan. The 1986 RCRA Corrective Action Plan (CAP)
revisions will be completed in FY'93.
                                          4_12                              FY'94 RIP

-------
                                  CHAPTERS

                 OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
      This chapter identifies other RCRA hazardous waste implementation priority areas and
describes key activities within each area.  Other national priority implementation activities
include State implementation, waste minimization, the Biennial Reporting System, and
comprehensive State ground-water planning.

STATES AS THE PRIMARY IMPLEMENTORS OF RCRA

             EPA maintains a strong commitment to authorization of State
            programs and to enhancing the State/Federal relationship.

      Congress envisioned RCRA Subtitle C as a "delegated" program in which States are
the primary implementors of the national hazardous waste management program. As the
national program manager, EPA's major responsibilities include supporting and sustaining
States in the performance of their environmental management responsibilities. As the States
succeed in implementing an effective RCRA program, EPA succeeds.

      We continue to strive to enhance the State/Federal  relationship. During FY'94, EPA
will reconvene the RCRA State Implementation workgroup and continue exploring the
authorization process and management structure changes that will improve the pace of
Subtitle C authorization.  The workgroup will focus on data collected during FY'93 on the
root causes that impede greater participation by the States  in the RCRA  program.

      In FY!94, there will be additional emphasis on identifying impediments to State
authorization for key elements of the HSWA program (e.g., the Toxicity Characteristic and
Land Disposal Restrictions). State regulatory development efforts should focus also on gaps
in the pre-HSWA program that cannot currently be covered either by the State or by EPA in
a worksharing arrangement (discussed below).

      Historically, EPA and the States have viewed authorization as the ultimate measure of
success in the transition to State implementation of RCRA. While authorization progress
remains a primary  measure of State implementation success, it does not  alone present a
complete picture of RCRA implementation nationally.

      FY'92 data in the State Authorization Tracking System (StATS) suggest a significant
improvement hi authorization and adoption of RCRA rules. Between March  1991 (when EPA
delegated revision  program reviews to the Regions on a pilot basis) and  October 1992, overall
authorization progress improved from 23% of the program's authorizable rules to 44%.  This
represents nearly a doubling of the authorization success rate during this 18 month period.
                                       5-1                              FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 5
OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
When States' rule adoption progress is also assessed, the States in FY'92 have been either
authorized for or have adopted over 75% of the RCRA program rules that were due during
FY'92.  The StATS data indicates particularly promising developments in the HSWA
program. Over half the States have adopted or have been authorized for Corrective Action,
the Toxicity Characteristic, and major components of the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR)
program. Indeed, the States' adoption of State law counterparts to the RCRA regulations (as
a precursor to authorization) demonstrates commitment to full participation in the RCRA
program. Now that StATS gives us a reliable tool to track State rule adoption, we will look
at both adoption  and authorization to track success.

             As EPA and the States work together to build long-term State
             capacity to implement RCRA, Regions and States should explore
             shared implementation arrangements.  EPA encourages
             •worksharing arrangements, both to build State capability and to
             ensure the efficient use of State and Federal resources for
             environmental results.

       EPA recognizes that both EPA and the States will continue to experience serious
resource constraints in fully implementing RCRA during FY'94.  The statutory mandated
program has continued to add new implementation responsibilities (e.g., the Federal Facilities
Compliance Act of 1992), with little parallel growth of Federal and State funding to match.
Thus, as the States increasingly bear the burden of managing the RCRA program, EPA and
the States are redefining their roles and responsibilities.

       Due to the continuing expansion of RCRA and the complexity of the program, there
will be a continuing need for joint Federal/State implementation in the foreseeable future.
The program must promote optimal use of limited program resources and sharing of program
implementation responsibilities.

       In FY'94, EPA  Headquarters continues to encourage the Regions and States to identify
 worksharing opportunities that will fill gaps in current RCRA program coverage and that
 afford the most  cost-effective allocation of technical expertise. Worksharing may extend to
 both authorized  and unauthorized elements of a State's program, as long as the activities
 address RCRA priorities agreed to by the Region and State. While authorization status may
 define lead roles for specific areas, it alone should  not encumber the identification  of
 worksharing opportunities.
                                          5-2
                                                                            FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTERS                                          OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
             An additional tool to facilitate State authorization and ensure
             effective program  implementation is authorizing individual
             regulations that are part of incomplete or "overdue" clusters.

       In a November 1992 memo, EPA Headquarters issued additional authorization
program guidance on the "Cluster Rule," further amplifying EPA's discretion to authorize
State authorities in cases where a "cluster" of required material is overdue for review or
incomplete in some respects (memo dated November 6, 1992, signed by Sylvia Lowrance,
titled "Classification of EPA Policy on Authorizing Incomplete or Late 'Clusters' under 40
CFR 271.21 and Availability of Public Information Under RCRA §3006(f)"). This policy
encourages progress in authorizing as many  RCRA provisions as possible, since the Regions
may now approve application  material from  the States without having to await the resolution
of all issues associated with any component  of a cluster application. Individual regulations
that meet authorization standards may be approved, even if other regulations in the cluster are
held back while issues are resolved.           .

       During FY'94, EPA and States are strongly encouraged to identify components from
various clusters and pending applications that are candidates  for accelerated authorization
under the November 1992 Cluster Rule interpretation.  Priority should  be placed on
authorizable rules that are free from any capability issues,  that have particular strategic
importance to a State's needs  and resources, and that were adopted under pre-HSWA statutory
authority that cannot take effect as RCRA requirements until approved by EPA.

             Another means  to enhance joint State and Federal
             implementation is through interim authorization.

       In December  1992, EPA published an immediate final rule to extend (barring adverse
pubk'c  comment) the availability  of HSWA interim authorization for 10 additional years —
until January 1, 2003. HSWA interim authorization was recently used for the State of Idaho
to demonstrate capability over a 2-year period, which ended  in a determination that the State
had the corrective action expertise and infrastructure to warrant receiving final authorization
in FY'92. Also during FY'92, two additional States  were  granted corrective action interim^
authorization as an intermediate step toward full authorization. The extension of interim
authorization authority for 10  more years will ensure that these and other States retain the
greater flexibility afforded by  interim authorization in taking on implementation
responsibilities for the complex HSWA program.

       In FY'94, EPA Headquarters encourages Regions and States to be more innovative in
using HSWA interim authorization as both a vehicle  for building full State capability for
HSWA and  as a means for implementing HSWA worksharing  leading to full State
implementation.  The emphasis will also be  placed on identifying approaches that will make
interim authorization a more attractive option for States, particularly approaches that will
                                          5-3                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTERS                                         OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
minimize the paperwork necessary to perfect HSWA interim authorization to final
authorization status.

Enhancing Tribal Capacity in RCRA

      In the last three years, EPA has made a significant commitment to attaining its Native
American program objectives:  assisting tribes in safely managing hazardous and solid waste
and implementing the requirements of RCRA; promoting tribal capacity in managing these
wastes and regulating waste-related activities; and expanding and enhancing EPA's RCRA
presence on tribal lands by leveraging the Agency's resources with other Agencies (the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service and Housing and Urban Development) that
also have jurisdiction.

      Using limited resources, EPA Headquarters and the Regional offices assisted in
developing waste codes and ordinances, provided draining on waste management and, through
extramural funds, provided technical assistance to supplement tribal expertise on waste issues
of particular concern.
       *•' c *   *

      For FY'94, EPA Headquarters suggests that the Regions continue these efforts to
enhance tribal solid and hazardous waste management capabilities by using circuit riders to
provide  on-site, hands-on assistance to the tribes; supporting the development of tribal
infrastructures; implementing multi-media approaches to reservation environmental issues; and
fostering innovative waste management programs which provide an opportunity for tribal.
State, local and Federal collaboration on waste issues through the sharing of resources and
expertise.

WASTE MINIMIZATION

             Pollution prevention is the Agency's]preferred approach to
             environmental management where if j is technically and
             economically feasible.  The minimization of RCRA wastes is an
             integral component of this Agency's \commitment to pollution
             prevention.   To make pollution prevention successful, it must be
             incorporated into every facet of the RCRA program, including
             Regional and State implementation activities such as enforcement
             actions and permits. The Regions are encouraged to support
             State pollution prevention efforts through the RCRA grant in
             accord with  the Deputy Administrator's guidance dated
             November 12, 1992.

      Throughout the stated goals of the Agency, OSWER, and RCRA program, there is an
emphasis on prevention of  pollution.  The environmental goals stated in this document an: i<>
                                         5-4                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTERS                                          OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
reduce or prevent risks and maximize environmental benefits at high priority facilities.  The
challenge is to balance progress between prevention and cleanup activities.  Prevention and
reduction of risks in the RCRA program have historically been thought of as proper
management of treatment, storage, or disposal of hazardous wastes or effective, expedient
corrective actions; at the same time, waste minimization (i.e., source reduction and recycling)
could have  an equally important role to play. Waste minimization results in preventing
generation of the waste and subsequent releases, and therefore, in some instances, eliminates
rather than  reduces risks.

       Many  States and Regions are taking on the challenge of implementing waste
minimization  into the RCRA program in varying ways.  However, there is a need to ensure
that we maximize our efforts to infuse waste minimization into the RCRA program. Waste
minimization  activities under RCRA are eligible for funding through 3011 grants.  In doing
so, we need to ensure that our efforts are reasonable and nationally consistent, yet allow for
flexibility in State implementation, fit into the prioritization scheme laid out in this RIP, and
consider the competing demands on resources to carry out the full range of RCRA
requirements  given the common goals stated hi the OSWER Strategic Plan, the National
Policy, and the RIP.

       RCRA's objectives are defined in Section  1003, and include minimizing "the
generation of hazardous waste by encouraging process substitution, materials recovery,
properly conducted recycling and reuse, 'and treatment."  RCRA Sections 3002(b) and 3005(h)
require hazardous waste generators and TSDFs to certify that they have waste minimization
programs in place at their facilities (through the manifest and permit conditions, respectively).
A generator must certify on every manifest and a TSDF must, as a permit condition, certify
no less than annually that they have a program to minimize hazardous waste and that their
proposed management method  is the most protective method that is also practicable.

       Although HSWA does not give specific authority to assess the adequacy of these
programs, the certification requirement provides the facility an opportunity to begin to
identify ways to reduce hazardous waste generation!  In addition, review  of these facility
programs by  State and Regional staff can play a major role in promoting waste minimization
by providing  a knowledge, base of the broad range of facility-specific programs and waste
minimization opportunities. This knowledge base enables EPA and the States to foster waste
minimization at similar facilities or for similar types  of industries and/or  processes. EPA
encourages discussion of waste reduction through the permit and enforcement processes, as
well as the use of State authorities to require reduction where applicable.
                                          5-5                               FT94RIP

-------
CHAPTER 5
OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
       EPA developed guidance for reviewing such programs and to assist the regulated
community in complying with the requirement to have a waste minimization program in
place.  This document has recently been revised and reissued as the Facility Pollution
Prevention Guide (EPA/600/R-92/088, May 1992).

             EPA's authority for hazardous waste generators includes
             requirements for generators to submit biennial reports as
             specified in §3002(a)(6)(C) and (D). \

       EPA encourages Regions and States to use the information submitted by facilities in
the Biennial Reporting System (BRS) to prioritize which facilities may have waste
minimization opportunities, to verify that waste minimization efforts are being undertaken at
facilities, and to ensure that the efforts result in the reduction of hazardous waste generation.

       This information can be used to gain an understanding of the kinds of information that
would be useful to industries within the Regions or States, and to have a more focused
discussion with the facility at the time of permitting or enforcement. For example, the BRS
can be used to look at the largest volume  generators of specific wastes. Using this
information in conjunction with an understanding oif process changes that can lead to waste
minimization, or which wastes may be recyclable, can help prioritize the information that is
developed to distribute to various facilities.
                                                                        '
       Information is also available in the BRS on the source of the waste being generated, as
well as how that waste is managed (including on- and off-site recycling).  The Regions and
States can use this information to prioritize the generators of those wastes which are creating
shortfalls and to discuss waste minimization opportunities at those facilities. Where feasible,
if these facilities are also TSDFs, many of the mechanisms discussed above can also be used
to discuss waste minimization opportunities.

       One way to implement waste minimization activities without creating excessive
burdens on resources and competing priorities is to evaluate whether waste minimization
opportunities exist at facilities that are already identified as high priority facilities.
Opportunities include using enforcement actions where appropriate to negotiate waste
minimization (as discussed in Chapter 6),  and using State authorities, where feasible, in the
permitting process to require Hazardous Waste Reduction Plans. When not feasible,
opportunities include using the permitting process to discuss waste minimization alternatives
at the facility, particularly for the wastes that are specified in a permit; assisting the facility in
understanding regulatory requirements for any changes that result when initiating and
following through on waste minimization  opportunities; and, with an understanding of the
facility, giving technical assistance or information (such as  fact sheets, names, and locations
of technical assistance centers, etc.).
                                          5-6
                      FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 5	OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES


       In addition, the Region or State is free to prioritize a facility based on, among the
other factors listed in Chapter 2, its waste minimization potential if appropriate.

             The Waste Minimization STARS measure allows Regions to
             report Regional and State waste minimization initiatives as an
             effective gauge of movement in this priority area of the RCRA
             program.

       Descriptions of individual initiatives and activities that support these initiatives will
serve as the mechanism for evaluating progress in merging waste minimization goals with
other aspects of the RCRA program. This narrative measure will allow Regions to share
unique and specific initiatives, such as cross-media  permit projects, special projects or waste
minimization case studies, new outreach or technical assistance programs, facility waste
minimization program review implementation plans, targeting strategies, or grant programs.
        * STARS  Measure

        (R/PM-3)    Describe waste minimization activities undertaken as part of waste
                     minimization strategy.
BIENNIAL REPORTING SYSTEM

             The Biennial Reports required of hazardous waste generators
             and TSDFs provide information which supports several
             important RCRA objectives.

       Many key decisions and activities in the RCRA program rely on Biennial Report data.

       •      Understanding the full hazardous waste management system including trends in
             generation, treatment, storage, disposal, and waste minimization.

       •      Providing baseline and trend data for environmental indicators.

       •      Providing information to assist States in preparing Capacity Assurance Plan
             (CAP) submissions.

       Exhibit 5-1, 1993 Biennial Report Cycle, demonstrates State and Regional activities nd
timeframes related to the Biennial Report.  During the first quarter of FY'94, States and
Regions should distribute the 1993 Biennial Reports to Generators and TSDFs.  Headquarters
will distribute Biennial Reporting System (BRS) software V.3.0. to States and Regions. BRS
                                         5-7                                FY'94 RIP

-------
    CHAPTERS
                          OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
                                       EXHIBIT 5-1
                                 1993 Biennial Report Cycle
          ACTIVITY
States distribute 1993 Biennial
Reports to Handlers
\                     TARGET DATES
   Oct  Nov  Dec Jan Feb Mar April  May June July Aug Sept  Oct  Nov Dec
States collect, enter, and QA
handler data
 States provide initial full submission
 of data to Regions
 States and Regions conduct QA
 identify and correct errors
                                            Key: •Start Date
                                                  Close or Due Date
 Regions provide initial full
 submission of data for each State
 to Headquarters
 States, Regions, & HQ conduct
 data QA; States address
 problems HQ & Regions identify;
 States provide complete data
 submission that passes all Basic
 Edits to Region
  Regions provide complete data
  submission for each State to HQ to
  complete BR data requirement
                                              5-8
                                                                                FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTERS        	.      	OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES


software will allow States and Regions to enter the 1993 Biennial Report data, perform the
necessary data quality checks, and transfer the data to Headquarters for the National Oversight
Database.

       States and Regions should collect the 1993 Biennial Reports and begin to enter the
Biennial Report data into BRS during the second quarter of FY'94.

       During the third quarter of FY'94, States and Regions should complete data entry of
1993 Biennial Reports and begin the data quality checks using the tools provided in BRS.

       States and Regions should continue to perform data quality checks to identify and
correct errors during the fourth quarter of FY'94. Each State should provide an initial full
submission of 1993 Biennial Report data to the Region by July 1, 1994.  Upon receipt of each
State's data submission,  Regions should perform additional data quality checks and work with
each State to correct identified errors. Regions should provide an initial full submission of
1993 Biennial Report data for each State to  Headquarters by September 30, 1994.
         * STARS  Measure

         (R/PM-2)     Number of States for which the Region receives an initial full
                      Biennial Report data submission by July 1, 1994.
CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLANS
             EPA will use 1993 State Capacity Assurance Plans (CAPs) to
             assess whether there is adequate hazardous waste management
             capacity on a national level. States must have approved CAPs
             to be eligible for remedial funding.  If any national shortfalls are
             identified, States will be required to target their efforts to
             address those specific shortfalls.

       EPA expects to issue final policy and technical guidance on the capacity assurance
planning process for the 1993 CAP submission in the second quarter of FY'93.

       Based on this schedule, States will be developing Phase ICAPs during FY'93 for
submission in the first quarter of FY'94.  In Phase I, States will submit base year and
projection data on hazardous waste demand on Subtitle C management capacity. Although
States can use equivalent data, the CAPs have been developed to rely on data collected in the
                                         5-9                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 5
OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
1991 Biennial Reports and contained in the BRS. The Agency will conduct the national
aggregation of the States' data to determine if any shortfalls exist on a national level.

       During the third quarter of FY'94, States participating in Phase II will be developing
Phase II CAPs for submission in the first quarter of FY'95.  In Phase II, States will submit
plans to address shortfalls, mainly through increased waste minimization efforts.

       During the third quarter of FY'95, States identified by EPA as participating in Phase
III will be developing Phase in CAPs.  In Phase III, States may assure capacity through
increased waste minimization efforts, interstate agreements, or development of new capacity.
EPA will have six months between each phase to assess CAP submissions.

       EPA Headquarters and Regions will continue to work with States to facilitate
preparation of the 1993 CAPs and to clarify issues that may arise related to EPA policy and
technical guidance.
COMPREHENSIVE STATE GROUND-WATER PLANNING

       EPA has responsibility under a number of environmental statutes to protect and clean
up ground water.  Ground-water protection and cleanup is a strong mandate of RCRA.  EPA
recognized in the Agency's 1991 Ground-Water Protection Strategy that the primary
responsibility for coordinating and implementing ground-water protection programs has
always been and continues to be vested with the States.  Currently, EPA is working with
States to develop a framework for comprehensive State ground-water protection plans. These
plans will assist States in developing ground-water protection programs and ensure, through
shared EPA/State efforts, effective protection of ground-water resources.

       The RCRA Subtitle C program can make valuable contributions to this planning
process and can benefit from an integrated State pl&n to protect its ground-water resources.
In addition, as States begin to submit their comprehensive ground-water protection programs
for EPA's review and discussion, RCRA program managers may participate with the Regional
ground-water coordinators in that evaluation and negotiation phase.

       Examples of relevant RCRA Subtitle C program outputs that could contribute to
comprehensive State plans include hazardous waste permit application information (e.g.,
hydrogeology); permit based ground-water protection standards; monitoring and reporting
requirements for ground-water wells (e.g., construction, location data analysis, and detection
monitoring compliance); and coordination of State RCRA permits with underground injection
control, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and 404 permits (whether they are
controlled by the State, EPA, or the Corps of Engineers).
                                        5-10
                     FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 5	OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES


       State comprehensive ground-water planning may support the RCRA Subtitle C
program in several ways.  Identified valuable and vulnerable ground waters (e.g., well head
protection areas) may be the basis for targeted geographic initiatives and for identifying high
environmental benefits facilities. Ground-water classification may provide valuable inputs to
EPA and State corrective action programs in determining appropriate cleanup options and
levels.  Application of ground-water data from comprehensive resource assessments can
supplement the RCRA Subtitle C assessment and remedy selection process as part of an
overall plan for ground-water protection and can be used to identify high-resource ground
waters over which construction of new facilities may be banned.
                                       5-11                               FY'94RIP

-------

-------
                                   CHAPTERS

                   COMPLIANCE  MONITORING
                         AND ENFORCEMENT


GOAL OF THE RCRA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

      The goal of the national RCRA enforcement program is to attain and maintain a high
rate of compliance within the regulated community by establishing a comprehensive
compliance monitoring program and taking timely, visible, and appropriate enforcement
actions against violators. As a program, we must focus our limited resources on the most
environmentally significant handlers, further the Agency's goal of preventing pollution, and
encourage a holistic view of compliance through support of multi-media enforcement.

      This goal is consistent with OSWER's FY'94 -'97 Strategic Plan and the risk-based-
and targeted approach of the Office of Enforcement's Four-Year Strategic Plan. The
OSWER Strategic Plan recognizes that a successful State/EPA partnership needs to be
tailored to each State's capability and needs.  With this in mind, OSWER is committed to
providing technical and administrative assistance and training to States and Tribes in a variety
of areas that will enhance the States' and Tribes' capability to enforce State and/or Federal
requirements.  The Office of Enforcement's Four-Year Strategic Plan maintains an integrated,
multi-media focus designed to identify violations involving the most significant risks to the
public health and the environment and also to serve as the foundation for aggressive cross-
media enforcement.

      The Agency's concept of environmental  protection continues to focus on targeted
multi-media (e.g., requirement-specific, pollutant-specific, and geographic) compliance and
enforcement activities.  This type of targeting, compliance, and enforcement activity will
continue in FY'94. The Regions should provide cooperation and support to States initiating
targeted and multi-media activities. The Regions and States are encouraged to support the
FY'94 Office  of Enforcement's multi-media initiatives and case cluster efforts endorsed by
the Agency's Enforcement Management Council.

      The RCRA enforcement program encourages the regulated community to implement
pollution prevention/waste minimization within  their normal business practices.  In his memo
of November  12, 1992, "State Grants Guidance: Integration of Pollution Prevention," the
Deputy Administrator encouraged the Agency's environmental programs to incorporate
pollution prevention/waste minimization activities into State grants.  The RCRA enforcement
program encourages and supports these activities. The program also encourages the Regions
and States to undertake the following pollution  prevention/waste minimization activities in
                                        6-1                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6                    COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
support of the RCRA enforcement program: (1) assisting in educating the regulated
community about pollution,prevention; (2) incorporating pollution prevention/waste
minimization outreach into inspections; (3) determining compliance with waste minimization
requirements; and (4) incorporating pollution prevention/waste minimization projects into
enforcement settlement agreements.

      Environmental equity is also a special concern to the Agency, as inequity is counter to
the Agency's mission to protect human health and the environment. The RCRA enforcement
program is committed to ensuring equitable enforcement of environmental regulations
regardless of race, ethnicity, economic status, or community.  A few Regions have established
Environmental Equity Policies, including enforcement policies. The RCRA enforcement
program endorses these efforts and supports the consideration of environmental equity in
establishing enforcement priorities, targeting enforcement actions, and encouraging the
regulated community to address environmental equity in the settlement  of enforcement cases.
SETTING LEVELS OF ACTIVITY FOR FY'94

       In the past, Regions and States attempted to [strike a balance between competing
national and Regional/State program priorities based on specific levels of program
performance established annually in the RIP.  However, to meet today's challenge of tailoring
Regional and State enforcement programs to deal with an expanding universe while achieving
the greatest environmental benefit with ever more limited resources, the RIP will no longer
mandate specific levels of inspection/enforcement program activity. Instead, the RIP will
define a core compliance monitoring and enforcement program and establish criteria and
guidelines for the Regions-and -States to  use in their annual planning of program activities.
These criteria and guidelines were developed to ensure that the core national RCRA
enforcement program remains intact and mat uniformity exists across the Regions and States.
The Regions and States shall use these criteria when establishing their compliance monitoring
and enforcement program activities, explain these projected activity levels in the Beginning of
Year Plans (BYP), and report on accomplishments in the End of Year Reports (EYR).
(Additional guidance on the substance and timing of the BYP and  EYR reports will be
released in an addendum to the FY'94 RIP around May 15, 1993.)

       The Agency recognizes that the ever-increasing inspection and enforcement workloads
associated with the core program will continue to tax RCRA enforcement resources and
further limit Regional and State abilities to address priority activities outside of the  core
compliance monitoring and enforcement program.  To address these concerns, the Agency
will use the RIP-Hex concept to allow the Regions and States to focus on Regional and State-
                                         6-2                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6                     COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
specific environmental priorities by disinvesting from certain core activities and reinvesting
those resources into "other"1 enforcement program activities.

       Under the new approach for setting program activity levels, Regions and States will
not have to use RIP-Flex to shift resources among core program activities. As a result, we
are not setting any limits on disinvestment/investment under RIP-Flex.  Since the new
approach will give Regions and States even greater flexibility in applying their core
enforcement resources, it is envisioned that'the need to use RIP-Flex will be reduced.

       Beginning  in FY'94, the Regions should only use REP-Flex for two categories of
disinvestment and investment activity. First, if at any time a Region or State invests in
activities outside of the core compliance monitoring and enforcement activities set out in the
RIP ("other" activities as characterized above), the Region must describe those investments in
their BYP.   Second, in light of our responsibility and  accountability for meeting statutory
obligations, the Regions must describe any disinvestment from a statutorilv mandated core
program activity in the BYP.   The Region must then describe specifically where those
disinvested resources are to be  reinvested - in core program activities or in "other"
enforcement program activities  - and explain why this reinvestment provides greater
environmental benefit.
CRITERIA TO DETERMINE THE LEVEL OF ACTIVITY IN THE RCRA
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM

       Beginning in FY'94, the Regions and States will establish activity levels for each of
the core program components based on three criteria. While Regions and States may have
different program priorities, these three criteria have been developed to ensure the core
national RCRA program remains intact and there is consistency across the Regions and States

       •      Maintenance of a Visible Enforcement/Compliance Presence

                    It is very important that a visible enforcement presence be maintained
                    across the RCRA program.  Recognizing that priorities must be
                    established, we have indicated a recommended level of "significance" to
                    be associated with each core program component.  These "significance"
    1  "Other" activities are those that fall outside the identified core compliance monitoring and
enforcement program.  Such "other" activities could be  outreach and technical  assistance.
pollution prevention, State enforcement initiatives, etc.
                                         6-3                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
                   guidelines are to be considered as each Region and State constructs
                   their unique set of programmatic activities for FY'94.

      •      Environmental Significance of Facilities

                   The environmental significance of a facility may be based on a High
                   Priority ranking as determinecl, Chapter 2, Facility Priority Setting and
                   Evaluation, of this RIP.  Other considerations contributing to a high
                   environmental significance could be technology complexity, proximity
                   to population centers and to environmentally sensitive areas, and public
                   perception of the facility.

      •      Statutory and Other Program Commitments

                   This includes facilities which are subject to statutory requirements (e.g.,
                   §3007(c), (d), and (e) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, CERCLA
                   §121(d)(3), and the Federal Facility Compliance Act, and other
                   commitments (e.g., in response to an IG or GAO audit, congressional
                   hearing, in litigation, RCRA implementation Study, etc.).


 THE RCRA COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT CORE
 PROGRAM COMPONENTS

       There are three major core program components that are essential to the goals of the
 RCRA enforcement program.  They are:

       I.     Conducting Compliance Monitoring \Activities;

       II.    Bringing Enforcement Actions; and

       III.   Returning Facilities to Compliance.
                                            r
 I.     CONDUCTING COMPLIANCE MONITORING ACTIVITIES

       The first core program component, compliance monitoring, is divided into four general
 categories: TSDFs; generators; transporters/brokers; and general compliance monitoring
 activities. These categories area further divided into subcategories.  Guidance  is provided on
 the appropriate level of compliance monitoring in each subcategory as follows:
                                        6-4
                                                                         FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6                    COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
      •     Very Significant: means the level of resources and effort applied to this
            activity are high and the program's presence in this activity must be sufficient
            to create a highly visible profile in the regulated community or at the site.

      •     Significant: means the level of resources and effort applied to this activity are
            sufficient to ensure the program's presence in the activity and create a visible
            profile.

      •     Lower Significance:  means the level of resources and effort applied to this
            activity may be reduced, but some level of activity should occur.

Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)

      •     Statutory Inspections

                   Federal TSDFs:                                 '            .
                   Inspections of TSDFs owned or operated by a Federal agency, as
                   identified  in §3007(c) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended by
                   the Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA). For Federal facilities
                   falling under the FFCA, EPA must conduct inspections at highly visible,
                   environmentally significant facilities in accordance with guidance,  which
                   Headquarters will issue for FY'94, on implementing the FFCA.  The
                   new mandates of the FFCA are a very high priority for FY'94.
                   GUIDELINE: VERY SIGNIFICANT

                   LDFs Not Inspected in FY'93, Including New LDFs:
                   GUIDELINE  - VERY SIGNIFICANT

                   Commercial TSDFs:
                   These facilities must receive a Compliance Monitoring Inspection (CEI)
                   within the 6 months prior to receiving CERCLA waste.  In addition, a
                   Comprehensive Ground-Water Monitoring Evaluation (CME) or
                   Operation and Maintenance Inspection (O&M) must be conducted
                   within 1 year  prior to the receipt of CERCLA off-site waste.
                   GUIDELINES: COMMERCIAL TSDFs RECEIVING CERCLA
                   WASTE - VERY SIGNIFICANT
                                       6-5                              FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6                   COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
                   Non-Combustion TSFs Not Inspected in FY'93, Including New
                   TSFs:2
                   GUIDELINE - SIGNIFICANT

                   State and Local TSDFs:
                   Annual inspections of a TSDF operated by a State or local government
                   agency, as identified in §3007(d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.
                   GUIDELINE - SIGNIFICANT

             Other TSDF Inspections

                   Ground-Water Monitoring inspections (CME or O&M):
                   A CME should be conducted at all new or newly regulated land
                   disposal facilities (LDFs).  Once it is determined that the facility's
                   ground-water monitoring system is adequately designed and installed,
                   the O&M becomes the  appropriate ground-water monitoring inspection,
                   A CME or O&M should be conducted at every LDF at least once every
                   three years. Inspectors should conduct CMEs more  frequently under
                   any of the following circumstances:
                                             i
                         Complex compliance or corrective action requirements exist at
                         regulated units;

                         The ground-water monitoring  system is determined to be
                         substantially inadequate;

                         Significant changes to the ground-water monitoring system have
                         been made; or

                         Significant changes to the local ground-water (hydrological or
                         hydrogeological) regime have occurred or are suspected.
                   GUIDELINE - VERY SIGNIFICANT

                   Combustion Facilities:

                         Combustion TSFs that did not receive an in-depth inspection in
                         FY'93, including Boilers and  Industrial Furnaces, RCRA
                          hazardous waste incinerators,  and incinerators burning hazardous
       2Combustion TSFs are addressed on pages 6-6 and 6-7 under Combustion Facilities.
                                        6-6                              FY'94RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6                     COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
                         wastes at Superfund sites.  In-depth inspections are defined in
                         the Hazardous Waste Incinerator Inspection Manual, OSWER
                         Directive No. 9938.6.  These facilities should receive an in-depth
                         inspection in FY'94.
                   GUIDELINE - VERY SIGNIFICANT

                         Combustion TSDFs that received an in-depth inspection in
                         FY'93 and were classified as High Priority Violators.  This
                         includes all Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, RCRA hazardous
                         waste incinerators and incinerators burning hazardous wastes at
                         Superfund sites.  These facilities should receive an in-depth
                         inspection in FY'94.
                   GUIDELINE - VERY SIGNIFICANT

                         Combustion TSFs that did receive an in-depth inspection in
                         FY'93.  This includes all Boilers and Industrial Furnaces, RCRA
                         hazardous waste incinerators, and incinerators burning hazardous
                         wastes at Superfund sites.  These facilities should receive a
                         walk-through inspection in FY'94.  Walk-through inspections are
                         defined in the Hazardous Waste Incinerator Inspection Manual,
                         OSWER Directive No. 9938.6. These facilities should receive a
                         walk-through inspection in FY'94.
                   GUIDELINE - SIGNIFICANT
Generators
             LQG Facilities Never Inspected:
             Regions and States should continue their progress towards inspecting every
             LQG that has never received a CEI.
             GUIDELINE - SIGNIFICANT

             Other LQG and SQG Inspections:
             GUIDELINE - LOWER SIGNIFICANCE

             Delisting Inspections:
             Generators that have petitioned successfully for delisting and have received
             standard and conditional exclusions should be inspected for compliance of their
             standard exclusions.
             GUIDELINE - LOWER SIGNIFICANCE
                                        6-7                              FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Hazardous Waste Transporters/Brokers

             Regions and States should determine hazardous waste transporter compliance
       with 40 CFR Part 263.  Regional and State RCRA inspectors should consider joint
       inspections and other compliance monitoring activities (e.g., sharing information with
       their respective Regional or State DOT counterparts).  Improvement in intra-Agency
       communications can provide an early warning of potential transporter problems.
       GUIDELINE - LOWER SIGNIFICANCE

General Compliance Monitoring Activities

       •     Oversight of State Inspections:
             Oversight of State inspections continues to be a critical concern of the
             enforcement program.  However, we recognize that the level of oversight of
             State inspections may vary based on the status of an individual State program.
             As part of the BYP, each Region will provide a State-specific narrative,
             describing its plan for State oversight, including inspections, to be conducted in
             FY'94  (Additional guidance on the substance and timing of the BYP and
             EYR reports will be released in an addendum to the FY'94 RIP on May 15,
              1993.)

        •     Non-Notifiers:
              GUIDELINE - VERY SIGNIFICANT

              Used Oil Facilities:
              The Used Oil regulation should have  a limited impact on used oil generators
            - unless the oil fails as a TC waste.  Processors and re-refiners of used oil will
              be enforcement's main concern.  Regions should determine if these processors
              and re-refiners of used oil are complying with the new management standards
              in their unauthorized States.             	
              GUIDELINES-PROCESSORS AND  RE-REFINERS - SIGNIFICANT
              OTHERS - LOWER SIGNIFICANCE

        When conducting inspections in FY'94, several key areas merit attention.  Regions  and
  States are encouraged to target inspections at generators and facilities with a significant
  Dotential for pollution prevention.  Inspectors are encouraged to follow the guidance as
  outlined in the "The Role of the RCRA Inspector in Promoting Waste Minimization  (memo
  dated September 12, 1991; OSWER Policy Directive 9938.10.).  Inspectors should determine
  if the facility is involved in importing or exporting hazardous wastes.  For TSDFs,
  compliance activities should focus on notification requirements and spot checking hazardous
  waste manifests for compliance as identified under  40 CFR Part 264. For generators,
                                          6-8                                   4 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6                     COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
compliance activities should focus on export notifications and spot checking hazardous waste
manifests for compliance as identified in 40 CFR Part 262.

       It is also important that inspectors become familiar with recent or new regulations
and determine compliance with these during the facility's inspection. Such recent regulations
are:  the Toxicity Characteristic Rule; Air Emissions Rule; Wood Preserving Rule in 40 CFR
264 and 265, Subpart W; and the recent (FY'93) technical corrections.  New regulations that
may impact the compliance program are: the Third-Third rule; Phase I - Land Disposal
Restrictions, Hazardous Debris, which identifies and defines a "containment building", which
must be inspected for compliance; and Waste Code F033, which deals with handlers of
chemicals used as a surface wood preservative.  Finally, special emphasis should be given to
conducting inspections to support Agency enforcement initiatives (RCRA-specific or multi-
media). See the following Enforcement Addendum for planned FY'94 Agency Enforcement
Initiatives.

H.     BRINGING ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

       The second core component of an aggressive compliance monitoring and enforcement
program is the initiation of appropriate enforcement actions when non-compliance is
discovered.  The Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) was developed to strengthen the RCRA
enforcement program, especially against High Priority Violators, by establishing a scheme of
classifying RCRA violations and violators, providing guidance on timely and appropriate
response, and delineating conditions for EPA enforcement action in authorized States.  Of
particular significance in FY'94 is targeting to monitor and enforce RCRA permits and
closure plans, and aggressively enforcing corrective action requirements in permits and orders.

       To maximize the impact of our enforcement actions, several key concepts must be
considered when actions are developed.

             Maintain High Civil Penalties

                   Since implementing the Revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (RCPP,
                   December 1987), the Agency has realized a significant increase in
                   assessed and collected dollar amounts for civil penalties.  The Regions
                   should continue to implement the RCPP and its related guidance, and
                   document clearly and completely penalty calculations. The Regions
                   should continue to submit penalty calculations to Headquarters and to
                   perform self-assessments of their efforts to implement the revised
                   policy. Headquarters will continue to review Regional penalty
                   calculations and issue additional penalty policy guidance, where
                                        6-9                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6                     COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
                    requited or requested by the Regions. Although not required, the
                    Regions should continue to encourage the States to utilize the RCPP.

             Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response

                    The RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (ERP, October 1990) sets
                    forth the enforcement program's priorities by classifying violations,
                    mandating appropriate actions;, and establishing timeframes for
                    enforcement actions. To maintain our credibility with the regulated
                    community, 'any enforcement response must be timely and appropriate.
                    The majority of cases should strive to meet the ERP timeframes.  hi
                    general, extensions to the ERP timeframes are justified only for those
                    reasons specifically permitted by the ERP or for cases that are held to
                    be part of a multi-case enforcement initiative (national, Regional,
                    geographic, or State). As always, the Regions and States should
                    continue to identify and address problems and issues that affect
                    enforcement response.

             Publicize Enforcement Actions

                    The RCRA Implementation Study identified the need to publicize the
                    nature and environmental significance of RCRA enforcement actions.
                    Over the past two years, the Land Disposal Restrictions and Illegal
                    Operators' Initiatives, all of the Agency's Multi-Media Initiatives and
                    major RCRA cases received significant press attention. The RCRA
                    enforcement program should -continue to  seek media coverage for
                    initiatives and significant individual cases.  The Federal and State
                    enforcement programs are  encouraged to identify additional avenues to
                    disseminate information to the public and specific audiences about our
                    activities.

             Utilize Full Panoply of Available Actions/Authorities

                    Regions and States must give careful consideration to the full array of
                    available enforcement tools when tailoring an action to a given site.
                    Each case should be judged so the most effective means of addressing
                    violations and returning the facilities to compliance is achieved.

                    Administrative actions will continue to be the most utilized, but judicial
                    action should be considered for egregious or repeat violators or violators
                    of previous administrative  agreements or where court supervision of
                                         6-10                               FY'94RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6                     COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
                   injunctive relief, multi-media enforcement, or establishing legal
                   precedent are important.

                   Regions and States are also encouraged to screen for RCRA cases that
                   may warrant criminal investigation. The enormous deterrent effect of
                   well-targeted criminal cases will enhance the RCRA enforcement
                   program's compliance goals and advance the credibility of the Agency's
                   enforcement program. The publicity and stigma attached to a criminal
                   conviction make criminal enforcement a very effective tool.

             Use Innovative Enforcement Tools

                   Economic sanctions, model orders, Supplemental Environmental
                   Projects (SEPs), field citations, and Alternative Dispute Resolution
                   (ADR) are some innovative enforcement tools which the Regions and
                   States are encouraged to use.  Regions and States should identify
                   appropriate cases for economic sanctions such as suspension and
                   debarment and refer the cases  to the Grant Administration Division.
                   Prior to referring the cases, Regions and States should refer to the
                   Suspension and Debarment Guidance, finalized in FY'92.

                   Model orders are available to the Regions and States. In the newly
                   revised §3008(h) order, Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)  has been
                   incorporated as an alternative mechanism for supporting compliance.
                   Headquarters encourages all Regions to pilot ADR in FY'94, if they
                   have not already done so, and  continue its use in appropriate cases.

                   Some States are using field citations. This creative enforcement tool
                   allows inspectors to issue small fines and orders immediately, when
                   they identify relatively minor violations.  Headquarters encourages 
-------
CHAPTER 6                     COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
      RETURNING FACILITIES TO COMPLIANCE

      The third core component, of the RCRA enforcement program focuses on the need to
return violating facilities to compliance.  Over the years, EPA and the States have taken
numerous enforcement actions in an effort to return regulated facilities to compliance.  Land
disposal facilities, in particular, have been the subject of great scrutiny by both EPA and the
States. Congressional oversight of our activities at LDFs has been high.  This increased
attention results from the belief that ground-water contamination from LDFs poses the
greatest threat to human health and the environment. It is essential that Regions and States
commit to follow-up on Significant Non-Compilers that fail to comply with past enforcement
actions. Follow-up inspections and related activities (e.g., §3007 letters), coupled with
escalated enforcement actions are essential components of an effective enforcement program.
Each Region has developed a Compliance Actions/IFinal Orders (CAFO) tracking system to
monitor compliance with CAFO provisions.  If violations continue under the CAFO, the
Region should quickly refer the facility for appropriate criminal or civil judicial action, as
necessary.                                     ;             .
                                              I
       The October 1991 Return to Compliance (RTC) Study examined the compliance
histories of 259 LDFs that had been out of compliance for three or more years.  The study
highlighted the important deterrent effect and program credibility associated with returning
facilities to compliance. The Regions and States should continue to address those facilities
that have remained in significant non-compliance for extended periods of time, particularly
where there are significant environmental benefits from returning the facility to compliance
that should be weighed against the enforcement costs of being able to return the facility to
compliance. If necessary, Regions should use their State-EPA Agreements and other
oversight mechanisms to commit States to review closure plans at sites where closure would
achieve environmental benefits.

ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY

       The OSWER Strategic Plan recognizes that a successful State/EPA partnership needs
to be tailored to each State's capability and needs. : With this in mind, the plan commits to
providing technical and administrative assistance and training to States and Tribes in a variety
of areas that will enhance the States' and Tribes' capability to enforce State and/or Federal
requirements.

Headquarters' Training Efforts

       Headquarters remains strongly committed to providing the opportunity and resources
to ensure that adequate training is made available to Regional and State enforcement
personnel.  Headquarters will continue to offer the RCRA and Advanced Inspector Institutes
                                         6-12.                             FY'94RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6	  COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT


as well as developing innovative techniques to deliver training and increase its efforts to
institutionalize training. Some of the innovative techniques involve satellite technology,
computer-based training programs, and video training courses. Regions and States are
strongly encouraged to procure the necessary hardware, (e.g., computers, CD-ROM, laser disk
player) to take advantage of these new training opportunities.  Though Headquarters will
continue to develop training materials, there are training materials from other Federal, State,
and private sources that take advantage of computer-based hardware. The Regions and States
are encouraged to develop in-house training courses to promote a better understanding of the
RCRA program. Headquarters will support these efforts by sending knowledgeable personnel
from RED to assist in presenting enforcement information at these  courses.

      It is anticipated that the following training will be developed and delivered in FY'94:

      •      RCRA Inspector Institute (Denver, Colorado);

      •      Advanced RCRA Inspector Institute (Different Locations);

      •      BIF Computer-Based Enforcement Training;

      •      Corrective Action Inspection Training; and

      •      CME and O&M Interactive Computer-Based Training using CD-ROM.

Strategies, Policies, and Guidance

      Headquarters will continue to develop or update  enforcement guidance and
enforcement strategies, as needed.  Every effort will be made to issue enforcement strategies
prior to the effective date of the new rules. RCRA enforcement guidance documents and
strategies anticipated to be available in FY'94 include:

      •      Revision of the Enforcement Response Policy; .

             Used Oil;

      •      Phase II Air Emissions;

             LDR Phase II Soils/TC; and

      •      Special Collection Systems.
                                        6-13                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6                    COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
                          ENFORCEMENT ADDENDUM3


AGENCY MULTI-MEDIA INITIATIVES - FY'94 - '95

Data Quality Initiative

       The Data Quality Initiative is a national, cross-program enforcement initiative that will
focus on vigorous enforcement of reporting, recordkeeping, self-monitoring, and other data
requirements which are fundamental to the success of EPA's programs. Data quality is an
important cross-program priority in view of the concern that environmental compliance data
submitted to the Agency is inaccurate, and in some; cases, false.  This initiative will be a
phased two-year initiative (FY'93 and FY'94) with clustered enforcement activity occurring at
various times over the two-year period.

Federal Facilities Initiative

       In addition to their environmental significance, Federal facilities are an enforcement
priority due to their traditionally lower compliance rates in comparison to private  sector
facilities.  The initiative will involve the targeting of 20 high priority facilities for inspection
in each of the next two years (FY'93 and FY'94),  from the standpoint of non-compliance,
risk, overlap with other Regional initiatives, environmental equity, and pollution prevention
opportunity.  Follow-up enforcement activity is also expected in both fiscal years.

International Initiatives

       An international initiative on the Gulf of Mexico is scheduled for spring or summer of
FY'93. Regions IV and VI are the players primarily involved with this initiative.  Follow-up
on this initiative will be necessary  in FY'94.

Transportation Maintenance Facilities Initiative

       This initiative will focus on rail, air, ship and other transportation  maintenance
facilities.  Traditionally, these facilities have not been priorities with EPA's regulatory
programs. Nevertheless, they may cause significant environmental harm.  In FY'93, the
initiative involved a number of NEIC multi-media inspections at various transportation
    3 Following review by new Agency leadership and the Enforcement Management Council,
 it is possible that some of these initiatives will be amended, amplified, or dropped.
                                         6-14                              FY'94 RIP

-------
 CHAPTER 6       	     COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT


 maintenance facilities with the goal of determining the nature and extent of environmental
 damage.  Depending upon the results of these investigations as well as a comprehensive
 review of prior investigations from other sites, the initiative may involve clustered
 enforcement activity in FY'93 or FY'94.

 Prevalent Bioaccumulation Substances

       Over the past few years, the Agency has expressed a concern over persistent
 substances that persist and damage the environment and human health over a long period of
 time.  Many of these substances are know to cause human cancer and cause adverse effects
 on human development. Many substances (e.g., organic compounds, heavy metals, etc.) are
 known to bioaccumulate. This initiative will focus on those generally perceived to be among
 the most prevalent and dangerous. These substances are:  Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
 Mercury,  and Hexachlorobenzene (HCBs).  This initiative is scheduled for  FY'94.

       The objectives of this initiative are to: (1) reduce risks to human health and
 ecosystems caused by these substances;  (2) improve public awareness about health risks posed
 by these substances and their biological pathways of exposure; and (3) provide support to the
 Great Lakes Initiative and other Agency initiatives,  including the Sediments Strategy.

 Dichloromethane Initiative

       A halogenated organic compound, Dichloromethane can cause acute and chronic health
 effects from occupational and environmental exposure. Dichloromethane is the number one
 TRI carcinogen and as reported from 1989 TRI information, 500 million pounds were
 produced and 130 millier, pounds were released to the environment. The industries most
 likely to use Dichloromethane are: Chemical, Plastics, Measuring/Photographic, Multiple  SIC
 codes, Electrical, and Transportation.  These six industries accounted for 89% of total releases
 and transfers in 1989.  This initiative is scheduled for FY'94.

       The objectives of this initiative are to:  (1) significantly reduce total emissions;  (2)
 promote pollution prevention and product substitution; and (3) improve compliance rates of
 associated industries.

 Critical Habitat Enforcement Initiative

       This initiative is designed to direct enforcement efforts to address recognized threats to
critical habitats.  This initiative will complement the Agency's ongoing efforts to address
habitat issues, including the Agency's Habitat Strategy. Increasing recognition is being given
to habitat health and vitality as a measure of success.  This initiative is scheduled for FY'94.
                                        6-15                              FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 6	COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
                                              \

      Critical habitats will be defined based upon the priorities of Federal, State, and local
environmental authorities. Assistance can be provided in correlating threats to critical habitats
with incidences of non-compliance that are contributing to those threats.  Success, in part,
will be measured by the achievement of enforceable agreements for habitat restoration,
pollution prevention, and overall reduction of risk to critical habitats.

Industry-Specific Initiative

      The details of this initiative are undetermined at this time.
                                        6-16                               FY'94 RIP

-------
                                   CHAPTER?

                           ACCOUNTABILITY
      EPA Headquarters, Regions, and States are accountable to our constituents for our
progress and accomplishments.  Traditionally, EPA has relied on STARS to track progress in
key activities.  In FY'92 and '93, we broadened RCRA accountability mechanisms to include
the Beginning of Year Plan (BYP) and the End of Year Report (EYR).  For FY'94, the
purpose of these mechanisms as well as their places in the accountability cycle are being
revisited by a Headquarters/Regional  workgroup.  The results of the workgroup are expected
to be released in an Addendum to the FY'94 RIP around May 15, 1993.  Our goal continues
to be to make these documents more  effective tools for articulating program expectations and
accomplishments.

      The  public spotlight on the RCRA program, and corrective action in particular, is only
expected to grow more intense as we enter the second decade of program implementation.  AS
significant Federal resources are dedicated to this program, Headquarters is asked to supply
statistics and information on what environmental improvements these resources are
supporting.  Even in a program that will ultimately be delegated entirely to the States, there
will always remain a role for Headquarters in monitoring the progress and quality of
implementation efforts nation-wide.  Information on what is  occurring in the field is essential
to our ability to represent these aspects of the program accurately.

      Effective accounting will enhance our management of the RCRA program by
providing a reliable gauge of progress and environmental success as the basis for defining
future program needs and direction.  Accounting mechanisms must allow OSWER to provide
a national picture of the progress we are making in meeting  EPA's public commitment to
manage the RCRA program effectively and to implement key Government Accounting Office
and RCRA Implementation Study (RIS) recommendations for improvement.  They must also
be well structured so that they do not become needlessly burdensome and time consuming.
For FY'94,  we will carefully define the purpose and content of each accountability
mechanism and the manner in which we will use these tools in a yearly RCRA management
cycle.

      The accountability mechanisms that the RCRA program relies on are STARS, the
BYP, and the EYR.  Ultimately, our goal is to rely more heavily on environmental indicators
as well.   OSWER will use this information to present status reports on our program to EPA's
senior managers and to respond to inquiries regarding our accomplishments and goals from
interested parties.  The information in the BYP and the EYR collectively will indicate how
the Regions are balancing .the many RCRA program activities to address competing
environmental priorities.
                                        7-1                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER?                                                    ACCOUNTABILITY
      These accountability mechanisms are designed to accomplish the following goals:

      •      Articulate environmental priorities in the RCRA program, as identified by
             Regions and States;

      •      Portray our management choices to balance activities to meet these diverse and
             competing environmental needs with available resources;

      •      Provide reporting flexibility for Regions and States to define their
             environmental priorities through a combination of qualitative and quantitative
             reporting mechanisms; and          ;

      •      Provide sufficient detail to critically evaluate program accomplishments and
             direction and make timely corrections when necessary.

BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN (BYP)

             The Beginning of Year Plan (BYP) is a near- and long-term strategic
             planning document that describes the environmental priorities, planned
             activities, and management choices that the Regions and States are
             making.

      Regions should develop the BYP in coordination with States and describe specific
implementation priorities and the balance of activities to meet environmental needs and
maintain progress across the RCRA universe. OS^TER will use the BYPs to understand
environmental priorities in the RCRA program, from Region to Region, and aggregated at the
national level. The BYP will also highlight the  Regional/State strategy for addressing
different types of facilities, initiatives, and priority activities that may not be reflected in
STARS.

      Details about the FY'94 BYP, including the date it is due to Headquarters and the
content to be included, will be sent as an Addendum to the FY'94 RIP around May 15, 1993.

END OF YEAR REPORT (EYR) AND BASELl}
-------
 CHAPTER 7	^	-	ACCOUNTABILITY


 FY'94 RIP Addendum. The baseline performance measures (including STARS) are
 management reports organized by specific activity areas - operating permit issuance,
 closure/post-closure activities, facility priority ranking, corrective action, compliance
 monitoring and enforcement, and State authorization.  All measures except State authorization
 are in RCRIS, and authorization data is available from the State Authorization Tracking
 System (StATS).  RCRIS contains baseline performance measure software that is available to
 produce management reports throughout the year at the implemehtor and oversight levels.

       The baseline performance measures have several purposes:

             Provide a More Complete Picture of Accomplishments:  Different regulatory
             mechanisms may be appropriate at different facilities to achieve timely
             environmental results.  Because RCRA  is such a complex program, a single
             measure may flag a key activity, but it does not provide an accurate picture of
             environmental results or program accomplishments. For example, in order to
             understand environmental  progress at post-closure facilities, we need to look at
             the status of corrective actions, enforcement, and permitting activities at those
             facilities.

             Compare Progress Across the RCRA  Universe:  Once we have defined the
             most effective set of baseline performance measures to track progress toward
             environmental results and program accomplishments, we can compare progress
             across the RCRA universe. We can then compare our activities to facility
             priority  rankings to judge our progress relative to environmental needs.  In
             addition, we can make mid-course corrections to more effectively carry  out
             strategic goals or to modify those goals  to reflect real world constraints.

       •     Provide Common Ground for Measuring Accomplishments: These baseline
             performance measures are  a powerful program management tool for State and
             Regional implementors and national oversight. By using the same measures,
             making the same  comparisons, and tracking results in the same way, we are
             making significant progress toward a common definition of our expectations for
             success and accountability for accomplishments.

       In Headquarters, we will use the baseline performance measures in two ways:  for
periodic RCRA baseline performance reports and for the RCRA EYR. Within OSWER, these
measures will support national program oversight activities, such as tracking program
accomplishments and progress toward the strategic management and policy goals in the RIP.
OSWER may also use  this management information to supplement STARS in the Deputy
Administrator's quarterly management briefings.  Regions and States are encouraged to use
the baseline performance reports on a regular basis.
                                        7-3                              FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER?                                                     ACCOUNTABILITY
       The timing and the content of the Regional component of the EYR will be specified in
the FY'94 RIP Addendum.

STARS

             STARS highlight a limited number of program activities and
             accomplishments that are key indicators of progress for the
             highest levels of EPA management.

       RCRA permitting, corrective action, and enforcement STARS measures are
benchmarks for facilities meeting their regulatory obligations and surrogate measures for
progress toward environmental results. They also emphasize strategic management goals for
the program (i.e., emphasis on activities that are likely to get the most timely and efficient
environmental results for our program resources). A compilation of FY'94 STARS measures
is presented in Appendix A.

       In FY'93, consistent with direction throughout EPA, we redefined STARS in three key
aspects. First, recognizing that STARS cannot adequately portray the complex environmental
priorities and range of activities in the RCRA program, we substantially reduced the number
of STARS measures to capture only the highlights of program progress. As indicated in
Chapter 2, consistent with the Strategic Management Framework, corrective action STARS
are focused on measuring progress at high priority facilities. In addition to limiting STARS
measures, we developed the baseline perfonnance measures for our own program management
purposes.

       Second, in FY'93 w^ eliminated targeted measures.  This approach highlights the full
set of STARS performance measures and the importance of all these activities. Further,
measurement of accomplishments across  these highlighted activities  may provide stronger
encouragement for continual improvement than targets set in advance.  FY'93 was a pilot
year to test this approach to STARS. EPA will continue without STARS targets in FY'94.

       We are asking Regions to provide projections and a list of candidate facilities for the
STARS measures, which we will negotiate with each Region at the beginning of the fiscal
year.  The projections may  be provided as a range of actions (for example, 15-20 operating
permits). We will not enter projections into the STARS system. Instead, we will use them  to
indicate relative emphasis on activities and to project time frames to complete activities at
particular categories of facilities.
                                         7-4
FY'94 RIP

-------
 CHAPTER?                                                      ACCOUNTABILITY
RCRA ANNUAL ACCOUNTABILITY CYCLE

             A well defined yearly RCRA accountability cycle will help all
             RCRA implementors develop and use these management and
             accountability tools most effectively.

       The schedule of accountability events will be included in the FY'94 RIP Addendum,
scheduled for release around May 15, 1993.
ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS

             Environmental indicators are measures of environmental quality
             that provide information on program progress in terms of the
             environmental results achieved.

       While activity measures such as STARS are important tools for indicating the progress
of key program activities, an ideal accountability system would also measure the
environmental results of those activities.  Environmental indicators are being developed at the
State, Regional, and national levels to provide information on environmental status and trends.
and to eventually link this information to RCRA program activities.

       At the national level, RCRA environmental indicators are being developed to begin
monitoring the environmental results of three RCRA program activities: corrective action, safe
management, and waste minimization.  Because of the difficulties in collecting and compiling
environmental data at the national level, as well as the challenges of linking that data to
program activities, national environmental indicators are being developed in stages.

       The first stage is limited to using readily available data in RCRIS and BRS to report
indirect indicators of environmental quality. For example, OSWER is reporting the number
of high, medium, and low corrective action priority facilities taking action to control
contaminant releases (actions include both near-term risk reduction and long-term cleanup
actions). This indicator is indirect because it does not report the actual environmental effect*
of the actions, yet it is nonetheless valuable because it does report the number of sites w hen-
progress is being made and the portion of "worst sites" that are being addressed.

       The next stage of environmental indicator development includes more sophisticated
analyses of indirect environmental indicators, linking them more closely with possible
environmental effects.  For example, OSWER is developing an indicator that links the nunifx-r
of outstanding class I violations (as of the last inspection) at a facility to the amount  of
handled at that facility.  This indicator, which involves a cross-walk of BRS and RCRIS.
reports (in aggregate) the compliance status of the facilities that handle the majority of
                                         7-5                               FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER?                                                      ACCOUNTABILITY
hazardous waste. Although this is still an indirect indicator, it is more closely tied to possible
environmental effects than a simple report of the number of facilities with class I violations,
since italso incorporates the volume of waste handled.
                                                          •
       The final stage of environmental indicator development is to measure the actual
environmental effects of EPA and State actions to protect human health and the environment.
Achievement of this goal involves a multi-year process of continually improving the current
indirect measures through data analysis and improvement of current data sources, use of case
studies, and possibly additional limited data collection efforts in order to better measure the
environmental progress of the RCRA program.

DATA MANAGEMENT

             Beginning in FY'93, Headquarters will rely on RCRIS and BRS
             for information to support all official reporting on the RCRA
             universe, program activity, and environmental results.

       Effective data management through RCRIS and BRS is central to EPA's ability to
ensure accountability for actions undertaken to implement the RCRA program.  In  the past,
STARS measures have been the focus of reports generated from RCRIS. However, beginning
in FY'93, OSWER will rely on the broader baseline performance measures reported from
RCRIS as well. We encourage program implementors at the Regional and State level to use
this same set of performance measures as a tool to manage and oversee the program.

       Headquarters, Regions, and States strongly agree on the importance of relying
exclusively on RCRIS and BRS as the common basis for RCRA data management and
reporting. This will require a focused effort to ensure that these systems are fully operational
and reliable.  Regions and States must be responsible for routine maintenance of the data base
to ensure completeness and accuracy of the data.  Quality assurance/quality control at the data
entry level is essential to guarantee that Regions and States get proper credit for their
activities and accomplishments.  Headquarters is responsible for ensuring the adequacy of
system software, providing guidance, and maintaining operations.

       We are fully aware of current mainframe capacity problems and have committed
resources to expand the platform to guarantee timely access to all users. Finally, there are a
number of issues related to standardization of RCRIS data entry and retrieval procedures.
The Data Quality Focus  Team was formed to examine the difficulties experienced  by EPA
Headquarters, Regions, and States in collecting and reporting consistent quality information.

       The Team is currently addressing the data quality problems which stem from the lack
of standard definitions for common terms frequently used throughout the RCRA program.
The Focus Team's immediate objective is to develop clear definitions for key terms, obtain
                                         7-6                                FY'94RIP

-------
CHAPTER?	^	.	ACCOUNTABILITY


concurrence from users and management, and standardize use of the terms. To date, the
Team has proposed definitions for major programmatic universes, as well as for several status
and handler type terms, and has received comments from a majority of the Regions. The
definitions are being finalized and will be part of the FY'94 RIP Addendum to be sent out
around May 15, 1993.

       Successful data management depends on our shared commitment to our respective
responsibilities.  We must work together to ensure that our major information systems operate
reliably and efficiently and that the data they maintain accurately and completely reflects
critical program accomplishments.
                                        7-7                                FY'94 RIP

-------

-------
                                  CHAPTER 8

                 MUNICIPAL AND  INDUSTRIAL
                 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

      The objectives of EPA's municipal solid waste (MSW) program are to:  (1) ensure
protection of health and the environment; (2) comply with the mandates of Subtitle D of
RCRA; (3) facilitate market development initiatives in support of the national recycling goal
and economic development; (4) foster source reduction efforts; (5) support an Agency team
approach to promote and implement integrated waste management; and (6) provide national
leadership presence through technical assistance and information development and
dissemination. The objectives for EPA's industrial solid waste program are to:  (1)
characterize the universe of industrial (non-hazardous) solid waste and management practices;
and (2) set priorities for detailed risk assessment.

      These municipal and industrial solid waste objectives directly support  OSWER's
strategic planning goals of minimizing waste and ensuring that wastes are managed in an
environmentally sound manner. While States, Tribes, and local governments  remain the
primary implementors of the national municipal and industrial solid waste program, EPA's
role is to facilitate effective implementation. Facilitation activities include regulation, policy,
and guidance development; training; technical assistance; and information development and
dissemination. The priorities and activities set forth below will help achieve the strategies in
the OSWER plan for meeting our goals.

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE NATIONAL PRIORITIES

             Enhance the Federal-State/Tribal partnership and foster
             implementation of the revised criteria by assisting States/
             Tribes to develop effective and approvable permit programs.

      The primary focus of our activities in FY'94 will be to continue to assist States/Tribes
in implementing the revised municipal solid waste landfill criteria through the development of
permit programs that meet the requirements. The draft State/Tribal Implementation Rule
(STIR) will be used by EPA as our interpretation of the statutory requirements.  The revised
criteria were promulgated in final form on October 9, 1991 (40 CFR 258). The draft STIR is
scheduled for proposal in 1993.

      States are required to adopt and implement a permit program to ensure compliance
with the revised criteria.  RCRA requires the Administrator to determine whether State permit
programs are "adequate"  for purposes of RCRA. Authority to approve State permit programs
                                       8-1                              FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTERS                                          MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
as adequate was delegated to the Regional Administrators in April 1992. Additionally, EPA
is providing the opportunity for Native American Tribes to seek program approval.  Our goal
is to have all approvable programs deemed adequate by October 1993.  States/Tribal permit
programs that have not received approval by October 1993 will be unable to offer
owner/operators the flexibility that the criteria makes available to approved States/Tribes.

       In addition to developing permit programs that meet the adequacy determination
criteria, States/Tribes need to prepare for implementation of the revised criteria.  Efforts
should be focused on ensuring that closing facilities comply with the revised criteria,
including developing permitting and enforcement strategies, and addressing the need for
continued capacity as facilities close. As throughout the RCRA program, environmentally
significant facilities should be addressed first.

             Support recycling efforts  through market development and
             procurement implementation activities.

       EPA will continue to support recycling efforts through market development activities.
These activities include development and implementation of procurement guidelines,
procurement workshops and follow-up activities, arid outreach and education efforts. EPA
also will continue to facilitate State and local market development initiatives, which foster
economic development.

       Recycling outreach and development efforts will continue. Regions are encouraged to
work with States, local governments, and businesses to conduct waste audits to find
opportunities to reduce and recycle waste.  In general,  EPA will continue to provide technical
assistance, including training,-speeches, and guidance, to States, Native American Tribes, and
local governments.

             Encourage source reduction activities among localities,
             businesses, and households through education, project
             support, and technical assistance.

       Outreach and education efforts in source reduction will continue. Voluntary reductions
of toxic releases by industry will be fostered through workshops and other information
initiatives. Regions are encouraged to facilitate State/Tribal and local source reduction efforts
by providing technical assistance.
                                          8-2                                FY'94 RIP

-------
CHAPTER 8     	      .	MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL


INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE NATIONAL PRIORITIES

             Complete data collection and analysis activities.

       Relatively little is known about the large and diverse universe of industrial non-
hazardous waste. However, it is clear that these wastes range from relatively benign to
potentially hazardous.  EPA recently formulated a plan for characterizing industrial non-
hazardous wastes.  The Agency decided to focus on industries which release the greatest
volumes of industrial non-hazardous waste and the largest releases of toxic chemicals released
to land and surface waters as reported under the Toxic Release Inventory requirements of
SARA/Community Right to Know Act. EPA has identified four industries ~ chemicals,
primary metals, petroleum refining, and pulp and paper — where it will focus its efforts on
gathering information to determine whether any risks are  posed by these industries.

             Work closely with a select group of States  in which the bulk of
             these industries' wastes are disposed.

      "EPA plans to work closely with States to gather and analyze State information on
waste characteristics, management requirements and residual risks, if any. The Agency will
also include input from other interested States and parties.
                                        8-3                               FY'94 KIP

-------

-------
  APPENDIX A



STARS MEASURES

-------

-------
                                        OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
                                                FY 1994
                                   RCRA Subtitle C: Permitting and Closure
GOAL:
Ensure the environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous waste.
OBJECTIVE:   Create a more effective and rational RCRA Subtitle C program.
ACTIVITY:     Track operating permit final determinations and permit modifications at
              RCRATSDFs.

MEASURE:     Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive operating permit final determinations
              during fiscal year.
ACTIVITY:     Track progress of closure activity at RCRA TSDFs

MEASURE:     Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closure plan approval during fiscal year.
ACTIVITY:     Track progress of Post-Closure permitting activity at closing Land
              Land Disposal units at RCRA TSDFs

MEASURE:     Number of Post-Closure Part B applications called in.
                                                                  STARS CODE:
                                                                  TARGETED:
                                                                  REPORT ONLY:
                                                                  SUNSET:
                                                                  STARS CODE:
                                                                  TARGETED:
                                                                  REPORT ONLY:
                                                                  SUNSET:
                                                                  STARS CODE:
                                                                  TARGETED:
                                                                  REPORT ONLY:
                                                                  SUNSET:
R/C-la
NO
YES
2/94
R/C-2a
NO
YES
2/94
R/C-3a
NO
YES
2/94

-------
MEASURE:    Number of Post-Closure final determinations
STARS CODE:     R/C-3c
TARGETED:      NO
REPORT ONLY:   YES
SUNSET:         2/94

-------
                                              OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
                                                        FY 1994
                                   RCRA Subtitle C:  Permitting And Closure Definitions
R/C-la
Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive operating permit final determinations during fiscal year.  Count only one permit per facility
per date. A single permit covering multiple processes (e.g., Land Disposal and Storage and Treatment) at a single facility will be
counted only once.  Facilities receiving two permit;: will be counted twice.
R/C-2a
Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closure plan approval during fiscal year.  Count only one closure plan approval per facility
per date. A single closure plan covering multiple processes (e.g., Land Disposal and Storage and Treatment) at a single facility
will be counted only once.  Facilities receiving two closure plan approvals will be counted twice.
R/C-3a
Number of RCRA TSDFs Post-Closure applications called-in during fiscal year.  Count only one Post-Closure application called-
in per facility per date. Facilities with two separate Post-Closure applications called-in will be counted twice.
R/C-3c
Number of RCRA TSDFs Post-Closure final determinations made during fiscal year.  Count only one Post-Closure final
determination during fiscal year per facility per date.  Facilities with two separate Post-Closure final determinations during the
fiscal year will be counted twice.

-------
                                         OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
                                                 FY 1994
                                  Program Area:  Municipal Solid Waste Program
GOAL: Ensure the environmentally sound management of solid and hazardousVastes.
OBJECTIVE:   Ensure the proper management on municipal solid wastes in all States/Tribes.
ACTIVITY:    Submittal of State/Tribal final application for determination of adequacy of
              State/Tribal MSWLF permit program.

MEASURE:    Number of States/Tribes submitting final applications for determination
              of adequacy under Section 3.
ACTIVITY:    Regional final determination of adequacy of State/Tribal permit programs.

MEASURE:    Number of Regional final determinations of adequacy completed (include both
              determinations of adequacy and determinations of inadequacy).
STARS CODE:     R/D-la
TARGETED:       NO
REPORTED ONLY: YES
SUNSET:          2/94
STARS CODE:     R/D-lb
TARGETED:       NO
REPORTED ONLY: YES
SUNSET:          2/94

-------
                                             OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
                                                      FY 1994
                                       Municipal Solid Waste Program Definitions

R/D-la

Number of States/Tribes submitting final complete applications for determination of adequacy; report by State/Tribe.

R/D-lb

Number of determinations Region publishes in the Federal Register; report number of determinations by adequate and inadequate
State/Tribe and Partial vs. Full.

-------
                          OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                                               FY 1994
                                     Program Area: RCRA Enforcement
GOAL:

OBJECTIVE:

MEASURE:
Ensure the environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous waste.

Create a more effective and rational RCRA Subtitle C Program.

Report the number of formal administrative actions issued year-to-date
(including 3008(a), 3008(h), 3013, and 7003).
MEASURE:    Report the number of civil judicial actions issued year-to date.
MEASURE:    Report the number of criminal referrals, year-to-date.
MEASURE:    Report the total number of facilities currently in significant
              non-compliance.
'STARS CODE:    R/E-la
TARGETED:      NO
REPORT ONLY:   YES

*STARS CODE:    R/E-lb
TARGETED:      NO
REPORT ONLY:   YES

*STARS CODE:    R/E-lc
TARGETED:      NO
REPORT ONLY:   YES

*STARS CODE:    R/E-2a
TARGETED:      NO
REPORT ONLY:   YES
    '  These measures support the required enforcement core information as outlined in the Deputy Administrator's memo
  of January 14. 1993.

-------
                           OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                                                 FY 1994
                                      Program Area:  RCRA Enforcement
GOAL:

OBJECTIVE:

MEASURE:



MEASURE:



MEASURE:



MEASURE:



MEASURE:
Ensure the environmentally sound mana&ement of solid and hazardous waste.

Create a more effective and rational RCRA Subtitle C Program.

Report the number of SNCs that have had formal actions and have not returned
to compliance with any violations which caused them to be in SNC.
Report, year-to-date, the number of enforcement settlements which incorporate
pollution prevention or pollution reduction activities (administrative and
judicial orders).

Report, year-to-date, the number of TSDFs in full physical compliance (no
outstanding Class I violations)
Report, year-to-date, the number of TSDFs where there are no violations of the
compliance schedules for Class I violations.
Report the ratio of TSDs with subsequent violations of the same type after a
a FY'91 final enforcement action to TSDFs without subsequent violations of the
same type after a FY'91 final enforcement action.
'STARS CODE:     R/E-2b
TARGETED:       NO
REPORT ONLY:    YES

STARS CODE:     R/E-3
TARGETED:       NO
REPORT ONLY:    YES

*STARS CODE:     R/E-4a
TARGETED:       NO
REPORT ONLY:    YES

*STARS CODE:     R/E-4b
TARGETED:       NO
REPORT ONLY:    YES

STARS CODE:     R/E-5a
TARGETED:       NO
REPORT ONLY:    YES
    These measures support the required enforcement core information as outlined in the Deputy Administrator's memo
of January 14, 1993.

-------
                           OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                                                  FY 1994
                                       Program Area:  RCRA Enforcement
GOAL:

OBJECTIVE:

MEASURE:



MEASURE:



MEASURE:



MEASURE:



MEASURE:
              Ensure the environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous waste.

              Create a more effective and rational RCRA Subtitle C Program.

              Report the ratio of TSDs with subsequent violations of the same type after a
              FY'92 final enforcement action to TSDs without subsequent violations of the
              same type after a FY'92 final enforcement -action.

              Report, year-to-date, the number of Land Disposal facilities that received an
              FY'94. (State and Region combined.)
              R^nnrt _w»nr_tn_Hatf» tfi*» nnmHar r*f TVaotm <»»»«•  G«-rt-rt/v*** iv WML*/, in*/ iAumi/wi. \/j. M. ivutmviii) oiviagv lawiiiuCd llicll
              an inspection in FY '94. (State and Region combined.)
              Report, year-to-date, the number of Generators (SQG and LQG) that received an
              inspection in FY '94.  (State and Region combined.)
              Report, year-to-date, the number of Hazardous Waste Transporters that received
              an inspection in FY '94. (State and Region combined.)
STARS CODE:     R/E-5b
TARGETED:       NO
REPORT ONLY:   YES

'STARS CODE:    R/E-6a
TARGETED:       NO
REPORT ONLY:   YES

*STARS CODE:    R/E-6b
TARGETED:       NO
REPORT ONLY:   YES

*STARS CODE:    R/E-6c
TARGETED:       NO
REPORT ONLY:   YES

*STARS CODE:    R/E-6d
TARGETED:       NO
REPORT ONLY:   YES
   'These measures support the required enforcement core information as outlined in the Deputy Administrator's memo
of January 14,  1993.

-------
                              OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                                                      FY 1994
                                            RCRA Enforcement Definitions


R/E-la

This measure reports the number of formal administrative actions issued year-to-date including 3008(a), 3009(h), 3013 and 7003.

R/E-lb

This measure reports the number of civil judicial actions referred to the Department of Justice or State Attorney General.

R/E-lc

This measure reports the number of cases.referred for possible criminal action.

R/E-2a

This measure reportsjhe number of SNCs in existence as of October  1, 1993.  In this measure SNCs are defined as- (1) For the
penod prior to 1988 , LDFs with Class I violations for GW, FR and C/PC; (2) For FY '88-'89, LDFs with Class I violations
for GW, FR  and C/PC or corrective action compliance schedules  at all TSDFs; (3) For FY '90, TSDFs that are classified as  High
Priority Violators (HPVs) according to the revised Enforcement Response Policy (ERP). Included are those TSD facilities that are
designated HPVs because of land disposal restriction violations; or (4) For FY '91 and beyond, any TSDF, Generator or
Transporter identified as a High Priority Violator according to the Enforcement Response Policy.
     I'll tlv.ll  I'
-------
                             OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                                                      FY 1993
                                       RCRA Enforcement Definitions fcontinued)
From the universe of SNCs in existence as of October 1, 1993 which have been out-of-compliance for three or more years, this
measure reports the number of SNCs that have had formal actions and have not returned to compliance with all violations which
caused them to be in SNC. In this measure SNCs are defined as: (1) For the period prior to 1988, LDFs with Class I violations
for GW, FR and C/PC; (2) For FY '88-'89, LDFs with Class I violations for GW, FR and C/PC or corrective action compliance
schedules at all  TSDFs; or (3) For FY '90, TSDFs that are classified as High Priority Violators (HPVs) according to the revised
Enforcement Response Policy (ERP).  Included are those TSD facilities that are designated HPVs because of land disposal
restriction violations; or (4) For FY '91 and beyond, any TSDF, Generator or Transporter identified as a High Priority Violator
according to the Enforcement Response Policy.

R/E-3

This measure reports the number of EPA enforcement settlements which require the performance of a specific pollution
prevention or waste  minimization projects (administrative and judicial orders).  It only includes the following projects: pollution
prevention, pollution reduction, environmental restoration, environmental auditing, and enforcement-related environmental public
awareness.

R/E-4a

This measure reports, year-to-date, the number of TSDFs in full physical compliance with no outstanding Class I violations.

R/E-4b

This measure reports, year to date, the number of TSDFs where every outstanding Class I violation is on a compliance schedule
as a result of a  formal enforcement action and there are no violations of any of the compliance schedules.
                                                          10

-------
                              OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                                                       FY1993
                                       RCRA Enforcement Definitions (continued)
 R/E-5a
The purpose of this measure is to determine whether formal (initial or final) enforcement actions deter non-compliance.  The
universe of facilities for this measure is all TSDFs that had at least one formal enforcement action issued against them in FY '91
(October 1, 1990 - September 30, 1991).  From this universe, the measure compares the number of TSDFs that had a subsequent
violation of any type addressed in any of the FY ' 91 actions against the number of TSDFs that did not have a subsequent
violation of any type.
R/E-5b
The purpose of this measure is to determine whether formal (initial or final) enforcement actions deter non-compliance. The
universe of facilities for this measure is all TSDFs that had at least one formal enforcement action issued against them in FY '92
(October 1, 1991 - September 30, 1992).  From this universe, the measure compares the number of TSDFs that had a subsequent
violation of any type addressed in any of the FY '  92 actions against the number of TSDFs that did not have a subsequent
violation of any type.
R/E-6a
This measure reports, year-to-date, the number of LDFs including operating, permitted or closing land disposal facilities (except
Underground Injection Control (UIC) facilities) inspected in FY '94.  This would include Federal/State/Local/Commercial LDFs
as identified under §3007 (c), (d) and (e) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.  Inspections to be counted are Compliance Evaluation
Inspections (CEIs).                                               .
R/E-6b
This measure reports, year-to-date, the number of TSFs including operating or permitted treatment and storage facilities inspected
in FY 94.  This would include Federal/State/Local/Commercial TSFs as identified under §3007 (c), (d) and (e) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act. Inspccti&ns to be counted are Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs).
                                                         11

-------
                            OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
                                                    FY 1993
                                     RCRA Enforcement Definitions (continued)
R/E-6c

This measure reports, year-to-date, the number of Generators, LQGs and SQGs, inspected in FY '94.  Inspections to be counted
are Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs).

R/E-6d

This measure reports, year-to-date, the number of Transporters inspected in FY '94.  Inspections to be counted are Compliance
Evaluation Inspections (CEIs).
                                                       12

-------
GOAL:
                           OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
                                    FY 1994
                        RCRA Subtitle C:  Corrective Action

 Prepare for and respond to in a timely and effective manner to releases of hazardous substances into the
 environment.
OBJECTIVE:   Develop an integrated cleanup program
ACTIVITY:

MEASURE:
MEASURE:



ACTIVITY:

MEASURE:
MEASURE:
Track progress of facilities through two of the three corrective action pipeline stages.

STAGE I:  Information Collection and Study at High NCAPS Priority Facilities.    STARS CODE:
                                                                     TARGETED:
                                                                     REPORT ONLY:
                                                                     SUNSET:

STAGE II: Remedy Development and Selection at High NACPS Priority Facilities.  STARS CODE-
 High NCAPS Priority Facilities.
Track progress toward completing key activities in the corrective action program.

Number of TSDFs evaluated for near term actions to reduce risk and control
containment releases (i.e., stabilization evaluations).
Number of TSDFs with actions initiated to reduce and control the spread of
containment releases. (Actions are Stage III at High NCAPS priority
priority facilities and near term risk reduction (i.e., stabilization
measures underway) at H/M/L NACPS facilities).
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:

STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
R/J-la
NO
YES
2/94

R/J-lb
NO
YES
2/94
R/J-2
NO
YES
2/94

R/J-3
NO
YES
2/94
                                                    13

-------
                                              OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
                                                        FY 1994
                                     RCRA Subtitle C: Corrective Action Definitions
R/J-la

Stage I: Information Collection and Study at NCAPS high priority facilities. Consider the following activities to be part of this
Stage of the corrective action process:  RFI Workplan Approved (CA150), RFI Approved (CA200).  This measure will count the
number of facilities which have moved into this stage for the first time. The facility must also have received at least one
stabilization measures evaluation (CA225) to count for this measure.  Facilities should only move into this stage if they are not
feasible candidates for stabilization and are still of high corrective action (NCAPS) priority OR stabilization is underway, but the
facility must continue through to final remedy for other acceptable reasons.


R/J-lb
this Stage of the corrective action process:  CMS Workplan Approved (CA300), CMS Approved (CA350), Remedy Selected
(CA400), Corrective Measures Design Approved (CA450).  Count facilities which have moved into this stage of process for the
first time. The facility must also have received at least one stabilization measures evaluation (CA225) to count for this measure.
Facilities should only move into this stage if they are not feasible candidates for stabilization and are still of high corrective action
(NCAPS) priority OR stabilization is  underway, but the facility must continue through to final remedy for other acceptable
reasons.


R/J-2

This measure will count the number of facilities which have received at least one  stabilization measures evaluation (CA225).
                                                           14

-------
R/J-3
This measure will count the sum of: (1) the number of H/M/L corrective action (NCAPS) priority facilities with stabilization
measures implemented (CA600) at one or more areas, and (2) the number of high corrective action (NCAPS) priority facilities
which have moved into Stage III for the first time.  Stage III -- Remedy Implementation, incorporates the following activities-
CMI Workplan Approved (CA500), CMI Completed (CA550).  Facilities should only move into Stage III if they are not feasible
candidates for stabilization and are still of high corrective action (NCAPS) priority OR stabilization is underway, but the facility
must continue through to final remedy for other acceptable reasons. Stabilization measures implemented at an area (as defined in
RCRIS) of a facility while that area is in Stage HI, should be considered Stage III remedy  implementation activities.
                                                         15

-------
GOAL:
                           OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
                                    FY 1994
                         RCRA Subtitle C: Biennial Report

Ensure the environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous wastes.
OBJECTIVE:

ACTIVITY:

MEASURE:
States actively plan for adequate capacity to ensure the safe management of their wastes.

Track progress of States Submission of the 1991 Biennial Report.
Number of States for which the Region receives an initial full Biennial Report
data submission by July 1, 1994.
STARS CODE:     R/PM-2
TARGETED:       NO
REPORT ONLY:    YES
SUNSET:          2/94
                                                     16

-------
                            OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
                                    FY 1994
                       RCRA Subtitle C: Waste Minimization
Minimize the quantity and toxicitv of wagte rr^ted bv commercial, industrial and governmental activify
ACTIVITY:


MEASURE:
Track Regional and State waste minimization initiatives as an effective gauge of movement in this priority area of
the RCRA program.                                                                 ^    }
Describe waste minimization activities undertaken as part of the waste
minimization strategy.
                                                                     STARS CODE-     R/PM
                                                                     TARGETED:  '     NO  "
                                                                     REPORT ONLY:   YES
                                                                     SUNSET:          2/94
                                     17

-------

-------
                 APPENDIX B

  BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN GUIDANCE
[Note: This appendix will be released in an addendum to the FY'94 RIP
                  on May 15,1993.]

-------

-------
                APPENDIX C

     END OF YEAR REPORT GUIDANCE
[Note: This appendix will be released in an addendum to the FY'94 RIP
                 on May 15,1993.]

-------

-------
               APPENDIX C-l

  BASELINE PERFORMANCE MEASURES
[Note: This appendix will be released in an addendum to the FY'94 RIP
                 on May 15,1993.]

-------

-------
      APPENDIX D

 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS

-------

-------
                                APPENDIX D


                        LIST OF ACRONYMS


AOG        Agency Operating Guidance

BIF         Boiler and Industrial Furnace

BRS        Biennial Reporting System

BYP        Beginning of Year Plan

CAMU      Corrective Action Management Unit

CAP        Capacity Assurance Plan

CEI         Compliance Evaluation Inspection

CERCLA    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980

CERCLIS    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
            System

CME        Comprehensive Ground-Water Monitoring Evaluation

EMC        Enforcement Management Council

EPI         Environmental Priorities Initiative

ERP        Enforcement Response Policy

EYR        End of Year Report

GAO        General Accounting Office

HRS        Hazard Ranking System

HSWA      Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments

LDR        Land Disposal Restrictions

MCL        Maximum Contaminant Level
                                     D-l
FY'94 RIP

-------
MSW       Municipal Solid Waste


NCAPS     National Corrective Action Priority Ranking System


NEIC       National Enforcement Investigations Center


NPL        National Priorities List


O&M       Operation and Maintenance Inspection


OERR      Office of Emergency and Remedial Response


OSW       Office of Solid Waste


OSWER     Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response


PA         Preliminary Assessment


RCPP       RCRA Civil Penalty  Policy


RCRIS      Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System

                                            I-
RFA        RCRA Facility Assessment


RIP         RCRA Implementation Plan


RIS         RCRA Implementation Study
                                            i.

RTC        Return to Compliance


SEAP       State Authorization and Enhancement Plan


SI          Site Investigation


STARS     Strategic Targeted Accomplishments for Results System


STIR       State/Tribal Implementation Rule


SWMU     Solid Waste Management Unit
                                            i

TCLP      Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure


TSDF      Treatment, Storage, and  Disposal Facility
                                       D-2
FY'94 RIP

-------
TU          Temporary Unit



UIC         Underground Injection Control
                                       D-3                              FY'9-4 HIT

-------
APPENDIX D
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
                          GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
Beginning of Year Plan (BYP)

       A BYP is a management document prepared by each Region, in coordination with the
       States, to outline environmental ranking of all TSD facilities in the Region; the
       strategic approach to balance activities to meet these needs; projected accomplishments
       in the coming year; and Regional/State priorities and initiatives. This planning and
       management tool must be submitted to Headquarters by October 15, 1992.

End of Year Report (EYR)

       An EYR is a document prepared by each Region to summarize Regional and State
       accomplishments and progress, priority shifts, and emerging issues/events. This
       accountability tool must be submitted to Headquarters by November ID, 1992.

Environmental Benefits

       This is one of two criteria used to evaluate a facility's priority; this addresses the
       opportunities to avoid future risks and make long-term environmental improvements.
       Factors that support this evaluation include: new capacity; innovative technologies;
       waste minimization; cross-media benefits; incentives for compliance; and enhanced
       regulatory control. The environmental benefits criterion should be evaluated at
       facilities ranked medium and low for environmental significance to determine whether
       to elevate them to high priority.

Environmental Indicators

       Direct measures of the health and environmental effects resulting from RCRA
       activities. Since these data are not readily available, OSW currently reports surrogate
       or intermediate measures that indirectly indicate environmental effects of the RCRA
       program. These measures include trends in the amount of hazardous waste generated
       by industry  group, as well as a baseline to track the effectiveness of future  waste
       minimization efforts, and the number of facilities with actions underway to control
       contaminant releases.
                                         D-4                              FY'94 RIP

-------
APPENDIX D                                          GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
                GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS (CONTINUED)
Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI)

       The EPI is a program led by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response which
       utilizes Superfund resources to complete PAs at RCRA facilities. These initial
       assessments are called PA-pluses because they should provide the level of SWMU
       information necessary to support a RCRA permit or order.  The PA-plus's should also
       provide sufficient information for both NCAPS in RCRA and the HRS in Superfund.


Environmental Significance

       Environmental significance is one of two criteria used to evaluate a facility's priority.
       This term addresses known and potential releases from TSDF regulated units and other
       SWMUs.  Factors that support this evaluation include known or suspected release,
       migration potential, exposure potential, and waste/unit chracteristics. If RFA, EPI/PA
       or equivalent data are available, the facility should be ranked using NCAPS; if not, a
       qualitative ranking should be assigned.

Facility Priority

       The Strategic Management Framework uses two criteria to evaluate a facility's
       priority: environmental significance and environmental benefits to be gained from
       Regional or State actions.

Initial or Preliminary Assessment

       This activity is completed when a facility has received an RFA or PA-plus.  The data
       obtained from the initial assessment is used to complete a priority ranking under
       NCAPS.

 National Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPS)

       A nationally uniform facility ranking tool that is used to evaluate the overall
       environmental significance of the facility and rank it for corrective action proposes.
       The evaluation is based upon RFA or equivalent data.
                                        D-5                               FY'94 RIP

-------
APPENDIX D
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
                GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS (CONTINUED)
Other Considerations
                                              I
       While the Strategic Management Framework uses environmental significance and
       environmental benefits as the criteria for determining a facility's priority ranking, EPA
       recognizes that there are circumstances when facilities that are not ranked as high
       priority must be addressed. In these cases, other considerations (such as public
       concern and State law provisions) may be the basis for talcing permitting or corretive
       action at a facility.  The goal is to limit the number of "other consideration"  facilities
       where long term, resource intensive activities are being conducted to 15 percent of
       total facilities being actively addressed.

REP-Flex

       Regions and States may disinvest up to 25 percent of Regional or State enforcement
       resources allocated for national priority enforcement activities and reinvest in Regional
       or State-specific enforcement priorities.

Stabilization

       Any near term  actions taken to reduce risk and prevent or minimize the further spread
       of cntamination.  For data entry pruposes, cleanup actions initiated while a facility is
       at the RFA Stage or Stages I and II will be considered stabilization actions.  Cleanup
       actions initiated during Stage III will be  considered final remedial action.
                                              i'
Stages I, n, and HI
                                              i
       A means of categorizing the facilities in the corrective action pipeline. Stage I
       includes information collection and study; Stage II includes remedy development and
       selection; and Stage III includes remedy implementation.
STARS
       The Strategic Targeted Accomplishments for Results System (STARS) is an Agency-
       wide mechanism to highlight a limited number of program activities and
       accomplishments that are key indicators of progress for the highest levels of EPA
       management. In addition to this quantitative accountability mechanism, the RCRA
                                         D-6
                  FY'94 RIP

-------
APPENDIX D	          GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS


                GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS (CONTINUED)
       program also relies on the BYP and EYR to articulate environmental priorities, portray
       management choices, provide reporting flexibility, and evaluate program
       accomplishments and direction.

State Authorization and Enhancement Plan

       Regions will submit these plans as part of the BYPs. They will outline Regional
       activities to build State capability and encourage authorization.  The plans will include
       the work currently shared and should present a schedule of milestones for improving a
       State's capability.

Strategic Management Framework

       A national management tool in the RCRA Subtitle C permitting and corrective action
       programs to target resources to environmental priorities. The components are: (1)
       ranking a facility's environmental priority, (2) choosing appropriate prevention and/or
       cleanup activities to address priority  facilities, and (3) providing accountability for
       projected activities and measures for these choices. The Strategic Management
       Framework does not apply to the non-facility aspects of Subtitle C, the Subtitle C
       enforcement program, or the Subtitle D municipal and industrial solid waste program.

Worksharing

       A cooperative approach to maximize the opportunity for productive sharing of the
       RCRA program between  States and EPA Regions.  It serves to build State capability
    ^ as a basis for authorization and ensures efficient and complementary use of State and
       Federal resources to achieve environmental results.  Worksharing can include both
       authorized and unauthorized elements of a State program.
                                       D-7                              FY'94 RIP

-------

-------

-------

-------