SrEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5305W)
EPAS3O-FI-98-01 1
April 1997
RCRA Implementation
Plan (RIP): Fiscal Years
1998-1999
Printed on paper that contains at Jest 20 percent postconsumer fiber
-------
-------
\
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR I 0 1997
.OFFICE Of? . '
SOLID. WASTE AND EMERGENCY
RESPONSE.
MEMQRATSIDUM
SUBJECT: FY 1998-1999 Consblid
FROM:
TO:
Timothy .Fields, Jr.
Acting Assistant Ac
IWER Guidance
istrator
Regional Administrators I-X
State Environmental Commissioners
I am pleased to transmit the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response's '
(OSWER's) FY 1998-1999 consolidated national guidance. This guidance defines national
policy, strategic goals, priority activities, and core measures for the OSWER programs:
Recognizing our need to transition to the accountability structure in the Government Performance
and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, this guidance is consistent with EPA's national program
.objectives developed for GPRA, and should be used by Regions, States and Tribes to assist in
your grant negotiations. .
Since this is the first year that OSWER has issued consolidated national guidance, the
guidance cycles for each program do riot yet cover the same time periods. The Resource .
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Implementation Plan (RIP) covers FY 1998-1999,,while
the Underground Storage Tank (UST)/Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) and the
Superfund/Oil program guidance cover FY 1998. Both UST/LUST arid Superfund/Oil will revise
their guidance cycles to coordinate with the two-year cycle. OSWER's goal is to issue one
consolidated and streamlined guidance document on a two-year cycle with a brief, clarifying
addenda to the guidance issued as needed the following year.
The priorities and core measures for all OSWER programs for FY 1998 are covered in
this .memorandum and accompanying guidance documents. The only document which is not
included in this package, which will be issued separately, is the Superfund/Oil Implementation
Manual (SPIM) which is largely a technical manual covering standard operating procedures and
accountability for the Superfund/Oil programs. The priorities for these programs are covered in
this memorandum.
Recycled/Recyclable . Primed with Vegeiable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumen
-------
OSWER will continue to support the cross-cutting themes of Reinvention, Community-
Based Environmental Protection, and partnerships. We recognize that funding these areas may
necessitate a redirection of resources from our program areas. Environmental justice will continue
to be a priority throughout all the waste programs to ensure that all people have equal .protection
arid access to healthy and environmentally sound conditions. The waste programs have been an
Agency leader hi advancing the environmental justice agenda and we will continue to integrate
these concerns into our daily business. OSWER will also support the Agency priorities for
protecting children, supporting Tribes/and upholding citizen's rights to be knowledgeable about
the health of their environment. When Regions are directing resources to meet these cross-
cutting priorities, I expect the Regional Administrator to initiate contact with the appropriate
Regional Superfund or Waste Management Division Director and the program Office Directors in
Headquarters to notify them of shifts in resource allocations.
While the attachments provide specific priorities, goals, and performance measures for the
RCRA program and UST/LUST program, I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight
OSWER's highest priorities for the breadth of the waste programs. These program priorities also
emerge in Attachment I which shows the relationship between OSWER's goals, objectives,
subobjectives and measures.
Attachment I identifies OSWER's draft core performance measures which are the primary
program actions and environmental outcomes used to track program progress and to establish.
commitments between Headquarters, Regions, and States. Attachment I differentiates between
State and EPA generated measures and Attachment n provides additional narrative on the State'
generated measures. These draft core measures were designed to provide a limited set of
measures which reflect OSWER's most important program priorities. Since they were not
intended to cover every activity or task that States and EPA do, other types of environmental
program and fiscal data will be required as well to maintain .effective program management (EPA
and the States are also working to reduce these additional reporting requirements as well). These
draft core measures will be finalized through a forthcoming EPA/Environmental Council of States
(ECOS) process in the near future. We will forward the final measures as soon as they are
available.
OSWER will use the core performance measures to track progress toward achieving
environmental results and to make decisions about the program adjustments that are needed for
greater progress toward these results and our overall environmental goals. Having a mixture of
environmental results measures and program output measures facilitates making decisions about
changes to program implementation. We need to be able to determine whether we are achieving
the environmental results we want, and we need to be able to evaluate accomplishments in order
to respond with appropriate changes hi program emphasis, direction, and resource allocations.
OSWER will continue efforts with our State partners to shift from counting programmatic
outputs to measuring progress through a set of environmental indicators. OSWER's programs are
particularly challenging in terms of developing environmental measures which encompass our
cleanup, prevention, and response activities. However, we will continue working with
-------
ASTSWMO, ECQS, and other State organizations to refine the core measures.
State agency managers can use core measure information relevant to the State, to explain
the program's accomplishments to the public and other parties. EPA .will use the core measures
information for the same general purpose at both the Regional and national levels. EPA will
specifically use the information for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Therefore, X)SWER expects the core
measures to be included in State/Regional workplans and related agreements, unless special
circumstances dictate otherwise. - '
If a particular core performance measure does not fit a State's or Region's situation, that
measure may be modified as agreed to by both the State and the Region. For example, if a State
,is in the process of implementing a program and the data.needed to report on the related measure
are notyet available, the State and the Region can negotiate.a modification to the measure that
. reflects data/Informationthe State is currently able to report.
' " N -
Program Specific Priorities.
, ' . " ' ' \
OSWER has many related but individual programs for which we are accountable to carry
through successfully. OSWER has outlined priority activities to cover the full scope "of the waste
programs. These priorities are:
RCRA Program To continue permitting operating land disposal and combustion
facilities. To facilitate site cleanups through promulgating tailored standards governing ,
remediation waste, restructuring the RCRA Corrective Action program to expedite cleanups, and
using innovative approaches to move cleanups forward. Resources should be provided to'States
to aid in incorporating hazardous waste minimization into the permitting program. In FY98, the
RCRA program will make progress toward its milestones for recycling and source reduction
activities in the municipal solid waste program as well as the hazardous waste minimization
program.. In order to reduce the regulatory burden, RCRA requirements and standards for small
generators will be streamlined. OSWER will explore options for eliminating any unnecessary
requirements while maintaining protection of human health and the environment. The Agency will
continue implementation of the Subpart S rule for streamlining procedures for corrective action at
hazardous waste facilities.
Superfund Program To continue completing cleanup construction of the sites on the
National Priorities List.(NPL) while working in partnership with other federal agencies, State,
local and tribal governments, the surrounding communities, responsible parties and other
stakeholders. To implement the Agency's Superfund Administrative Reforms.
Resources are to be redirected to manage existing work to address only the highest risks at waste"
sites and facilities.
Brownfields Program To identify and reduce barriers to the beneficial reuse of
-------
f
Brownfields sites by continuing to empower state and local partners to assess, cleanup and reuse
former contaminated sites. OSWER will provide funding through revolving loan funds for
cleanups of those properties in our pilot areas, as well as targeted initiatives for brownfields ~
assessment and initiation of new site assessment pilot projects.
Federal Facilities Program « To promote site construction completions; empower
stakeholders participation through partnership agreements and site-specific/restoration advisory
boards; and promote reuse and redevelopment of Federally-owned or rhanaged facilities.
Oil Spills Program « To focus on inspections and working, with regulated communities to
ensure they are meeting program requirements. OSWER.is working towards significant
improvements in area contingency planning foroil spill. .
' Underground Storage Tanks/Leaking Underground Storage Tanks - To promote early
compliance with the December 1998 requirements for upgrading, replacing, Or closing
underground storage tanks (USTs); to accelerate the process of initiating and completing cleanups
of releases; and to increase the number of States approved to operate their own programs in lieu
of the Federal program. Regional Offices will continue to implement the UST program in Indian
country. Regional Offices should work with States to develop plans for post-deadline
enforcement of the 1998 UST requirements. Risk-based decision-making should be incorporated
into LUST corrective action programs run by States and (in Indian country) by EPA. Regional
Offices should work with non-approved States to help them qualify and apply for State Program
Approval. .
. Emergency Preparedness and Prevention - To encourage and assist States and Tribes-in
establishing their own chemical accident release prevention programs. This will enable States and
Tribes to deal with the significant requirements of the Clean Air Act and build better prevention
programs tailored to local priorities. Recognizing that informed citizens are one of the best tools
for continuous improvement, we should concentrate on promoting public access to community
right-to-knpw (CRTK) information, as well as helping local communities incorporate facility risk
information into their emergency planning programs.
. Technology Advocacy - With and through state, partners, be open in OSWER regulatory
and voluntary programs to the deployment of more effective and less costly technologies. Seek
opportunities for joint projects with state, industry, and Federal partners to improve the likelihood
of acceptance and deployment for field analytic and remediation technologies.
Structure
The RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) component of this consolidated guidance
is organized around two themes. The first addresses areas such as the Tribal Program or
Partnerships. These areas cross all aspects of the RCRA program. The second theme presents the
-------
priorities and strategies that directly support the four primary program objectives. These
objectives include preventing hazardous waste generation, managing waste safely, cleaning up
hazardous waste, and managing nonhazardous waste appropriately.
The Superfund Program Implementation Manual (SPIM) will be structured in a
similar manner focusing on our GPRA objectives and subobjectives. The manual highlights
Superfund's efforts to focus program activities on direct site cleanup efforts to meet the
President's goal of 900 site completions by the end of calendar year 2000. Other themes focus on
expansion of the Brownfields program, continued implementation of Superfund Administrative
Reforms, and.support of State/Tribal programs. These efforts support the Agency's Abandoned
Site Cleanup GPRA objective. It should be noted that therSPIM will be sent under separate cover
by August 1997,
,1 look forward to working with you towards successful implementation of the
OSWER programs.to achieve our national goals and priorities. If you have any questions
regarding this new consolidated guidance, process, please contact David Nicholas at (202) 260-
4512. - . ..-.-: -..-
Attachments .
cc:
Assistant Administrators
Deputy Regional Administrators
OSWER Office Directors
Regional Superfund and Waste Management Division Directors
OSWER Planning Contacts
State Environmental Directors .
Tom Kennedy, ASTSWMO
-------
-------
FISCAL YEARS 1998-1999
RCRA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FOR THE
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE PROGRAMS
February 1997
-------
-------
FISCAL YEARS 1998-1999 RGRA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
FORTHE .
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTE PROGRAM
I. INTRODUCTION
The RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) is a guidance document developed for the U.S. EPA, for
States authorized to implement the RCRA Program, and for Tribes. The RIP defines the national
policy and strategic goals and priority activities for the RCRA solid and hazardous waste
programs. In the past the RIP has been structured around'traditional areas such as Permitting and
Corrective Action. While these areas are still program priorities, we recognize a need to begin
the transition to the performance structure found in the Government Performance and Results ~
Act (GPRA) of 1993. As a result, the structure of the RIP is,organized to be compatible with the
Agency^s National Objectives developed for GPRA. These Objectives are included under the
Safe Waste Management goal and include: .
' Reduce or control risks to human health and the environment,
Manage facilities according to practices that prevent releases to the environment,
Have the capability to successfully respond to all known emergency actions to
reduce risk to human health and the environment,
Decrease the quantity and toxidty of waste generated,
Make formerly contaminated parcels of land available for residential, recreational,
commercial, or industrial reuse.
However, it is important to note that EPA's and OSW's development of GPRA Goals,
Objectives, and Subobjeetivesis a dynamic, ongoing process.
In addition to these priorities, OSW continues to be committed to the enhancement of Region,
State, and Tribal partnerships, environmental justice, and overall Tribal programs. Specifically,
in the area of environmental justice, OSW has assisted OSWER in developing an Action Agenda
which forms a strategy for addressing key environmental justice issues. The overall strategy
makes a concerted effort to identify explicit actions which can be taken by EfQ and the Regions
to address State and Tribal envkonmental justice issues, and the Agenda should be used to form
the basis of Regional strategies for site specific activities. Environmental justice concerns during
RCRA permitting activities continue to be a priority for the Agency and Regions should continue
to pursue implementation of RCRA-related environmental justice pilots.
II. GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
This chapter presents a number of guiding principles for managing the RCRA Program. The
principles discussed and activities presented in this chapter are those that support and cross all
program goals and objectives, and as such are essential to the effective implementation of
-------
the Objectives and Subobjectives listed in Chapter HI. Sections within this chapter include;
A. Partnerships -
B. Authorization
C. Tribal Programs
D. Information Management
E. Beginning of Year Plan.
PARTNERSHIPS
Relationships between the Agency and its State and Tribal counterparts are changing. States are
taking on increased responsibility as prime implementors of the RCRA. program, and Tribes,
with the. support of the Regions, are taking on greater roles within Indian Country." If we are to
be successful in attaining RCRA goals and objectives, we must continue to pursue partnerships
. with States and Tribes. With resources remaining constant or decreasing, we must jointly look
for more innovative approaches toward the use of limited Federal; State, and Tribal funds. A
past example of such an approach hasbeen work sharing which utilized State and Tribal
resources to assist the Agency at RCRA facilities, and hi doing so, helped build capacity and
capabilityTor State and Tribal programs. As the program moves forward, HQ and the Regions
must continue to look for partnership opportunities through activities such as technical
assistance, training, and types of work sharing hi delegated as" well as non-delegated programs.
Since the last RIP, there have been changes in the way the Agency conducts oversight of States
and Tribes. Two ongoing initiatives that target oversight changes are the National
Environmental Performance Partnership System (NEPPS) and Performance Partnership Grants
(PPGs). NEPPS emphasizes flexibility in.oversight and encourages increased development of
environmental indicators to measure progress, while'PPGs allow State and Tribal programs more
flexibility to move Federal funds from program to program and to reduce administrative burdens.
However, as we move toward increased flexibility, States and Tribes must also share the
responsibility for mahitaining the capability necessary to implement base or core program
elements. In addition, as responsibility shifts further toward the States, Tribes, and Regions,
accountability for Federal funds will become increasingly important. Reviews of State and
Tribal programs will still need to be conducted to evaluate this capability, and States and Tribes
will have a responsibility to report on the implementation of the program.
The key to any partnership is communication and developing a common understanding of what
needs to be accomplished, and agreeing on how to achieve and measure those goals. Strategic
planning should be a primary tool in maintaining this communication. As our program becomes
more performance based, we need to ensure that Regions, States, and Tribes include intermediate
and long term strategic planning in their annual negotiation process. One of the primary issues
as yet unresolved is determining the appropriate balance between accountability and flexibility.
NEPPS drives flexibility while GPRA drives accountability. As we continue to define a
-------
reasonable balance between'these two, we look forward to working with the States and
^ -P.g thetc^ F?
AUTHORIZATION
f f ^6S °r reV1S10DS t0 ^ RCRA Subtitle G P^ suPP°r* the Agency
Auth * f^W^temfagementandcle^P ^ hazardous waste sites. The State Y
Authorization strategic goals for FY '98 and FY '99 are to 1) encourage States to seS caoabilit^
"" n0t aUth° * *
reV1S10il aPPlications' ^3) reduce the barriers to authoriktion, thereby
authon2attonf ocess- The accomplishment of these goals should continue to
uirements that States possess adequate enforcement and equivalent programs
Prioritization of State Authorization Activities ^
the j efforts ^ the following areas: 1) the authorization of rules that
«d w ^ S g 0Pp0rtumties ^ ^ fil1 ^ gaps in current RCRA program coverae
and provide efficient use of existing technical expertise of both Regions andltaS^e^on?
£2m^T^^
System (StATS), and to provide for the codification of authorized State programs. .
Streamlining the Authorization Process
s, and to eliminate these barriers. EPA has proposed two separate procedures Sat
^T^r f e df ori^^
, April 29 1996). In addition to upcoming efforts to finalize the procedures Regions
are encouraged to 1) devote adequate resources to expeditiously review State appSons aS 2)
consider in their assessment of regulatory equivalency, the environmental effel of sttes' '
sSreZ±T±^fferfr^
-------
TRIBAL PROGRAMS
EPA. has the legal responsibility to implement the RCRA hazardous waste program throughout
Indian Country until such tune that statutory change provides the opportunity for. EPA to review
and approve Tribal programs under RCRA. At the same time, the Agency encourages work
sharing agreements and other cooperative arrangements with Tribal governments. EPA is'
currently assessing alternatives to providing Tribal program approval for Municipal Solid. Waste
Land Fills. Generally, EPA recognizes that Tribes have sovereignty over waste activities in
Indian country and-will play the central role in implementing waste and other environmental
programs'within then* jurisdictions. ' .'''-'
EPA should pursue integrated waste management approaches for Tribal activities .and consider
these integration activities a high priority. These approaches should integrate both solid waste,
as well as hazardous waste management programs. Regions should also work toward the
following; . . _ . '
Development of a hazardous waste inventory and cooperate with the Indian Health
Service as it develops an inventory of open dumps,
* Pursue opportunitiesto afford Tribes flexibility in landfill design and operation. In
addition, support, promote, arid strengthen Tribal endeavors through the implementation
of the national strategy on municipal solid waste once it is finalized,
Development of effective partnerships in the Subtitle C Program to encourage work .
.sharing arrangements between Regions and Tribes, as well as other Offices and Federal
agencies, and . . .
. Cooperate with HQ to develop a support mechanism for Tribes to provide training and/or
technical assistance in areas such as mining and military munitions on tribal lands.
Tribal funding remains an Agency concern. The Regions should maximize resources provided.
directly to Tribes/Alaskan Native Villages, who will determine their priority initiatives within the
basic RCRA framework. Tribal pilot projects should be a priority, and EPA Regions should
coordinate these projects with the Regional Indian Program Managers to ensure that RCRA-
related funding initiatives are matched with Tribal priorities described hi EPA/Tribal
Environmental Agreements. -
The Regions should pursue opportunities to enhance our partnership with Tribes. In technical
assistance, the Regions should work to integrate solid waste management, giving special
attention to providing resources to assist the Tribes in both planning and implementing
environmental codes and ordinances and developing organizational infrastructure for sustainable
Tribal environmental programs. Further, HQ and the Regions should ensure that Tribal
governments have every opportunity for participation in making decisions that directly affect the
reservation populace and environment. Finally, the Agency should facilitate sharing of
information on Tribal training opportunities, and EPA Regions should provide resources and
technical assistance to Tribes to develop the capability to run environmental programs.
-------
RCRA INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
(BRS) in order to s
***> e «m
success
HQ has committed to relying entirely oil Rrors B, '
^
RCRA Verses to assure a national consistent
q
WIN/INFORMED Initiative
-------
Detailed information gathering sessions taigeting universe identification, program
equation, waste activity monitoring, handler monitoring and assistance, and
Design activities.
BEGINNING OF YEAR PI^AN
sginning of Year Plan (BYP) as a strategic
nt*n+ nOTI7S'». 1 ' i . ' '
,. ner"? '-'o w is also examining this tool -with
its structure, timing of issuance, and scope. As GPRA plannina mandates bet in
?, we view the 1998 BYP as a transition instrument and develop o^£l^YP £
ongoing. * *-**QDj.rii>
HI. ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORTTIES AND BMPLEMENTATlbN
STRATEGIES
TJ1*888?8 ^ Envkonmental Priorities and Implementation Strategies that directly
support die four pnmary program objectives of preventing waste generation, managing^
safely, cleaning up environmental contamination, and managing non-hazardous waST
appropnately. These four areas are discussed in greater detail in the following four sections.
A. Waste Minimization
B. Managing Waste Appropriately
C. Corrective Action Cleanup Program
D. RCRA Subtitle D Program
WASTE MINIMIZATION
EPA Goat; Safe Waste Management
Subobjective: By 2005, reduce the most persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic chemicals i
hazardous waste streams by 50% as compared with a baseline year of 1991.
n
r of hazardous
, relative to the amount safely recycled in 1993.
-------
Persistent (P) chemicals generally do. not break down in the environment. Bioaccumulative (B)
chemicals tend to concentrate in animal and plant tissue. 'Highly toxic (T) chemicals present risk
to human health and the environment even at very low concentrations. PBTChemicals,
therefore, are of great concern regardless of how they are managed, and reducing the presence of
mese chemicals Jn waste will reduce their threat to human health, and the environment
EPA articulated the goal of reducing PBT chemicals in waste as part of the Waste Minimization
National Plan (WMNP), released.in 1994. The WMNP places particular emphasis on source
reduction, followed by recycling, as preferred waste management strategies, and encourages
increased efforts to prevent transfers of PBT chemicals from one medium to another. The
W>fNP's focus on chemicals, rather than on waste streams, enables and encourages multimedia
waste ininimization activities involving RCRA and other programs. EPA will use 1991 as the
baselind'year to account for earlier waste minimization progress and for data quality.reasons.
Vision ..-'-'- / .
Our vision is for Regions, States, and Tribes to use RCRA authorities, other authorities, and non-
regulatory mechanisms to achieve measurable reductions in the quantity and toxicity of
hazardous wastes, with special emphasis on reducing the presence of PBT chemicals in waste.
Strategies -,
Pursuant to the GPRA, EPA will measure and report national progress toward the PBT goal
beginning in 2000. This goal and the reporting requirements related to it, present many
challenges to EPA, .States, and Tribes. However, a number of different activities are underway to
assist in this effort. First, OSW is developing prioritization products to assist Regions, States,
and Tribes in identifying PBT chemicals and in linking the chemicals with RCRA wastes. The
products include: a Prioritized Chemical List with relative rankings of chemicals based on PBT;
a>rosswalk that will help identify which RCRA waste codes may contain these .chemicals; a
software package that will automate the identification of PBT chemicals and RCRA waste codes;
and.a sHbrter list of PBT chemicals (National Measurement List), derived from the Prioritized
Chemical List, for national measurement and GPRA reporting. OSW will refine the products
during Spring 1997 based on identified Regional, State, and Tribal needs, develop appropriate
user support materials, and make the products and user support materials available through the
RCRA.Hotline (703-412-9810). OSW is interested in working with Regions, States, and Tribes
to develop appropriate training on how to use the prioritization tools as well as discussing
potential applications.
In parallel with the development of prioritization products, OSW will also be developing
methods to measure progress toward our waste minimization goals. These include: a "waste
stream measurement method" to track reductions in quantities of hazardous wastes containing
chemicals on the National Measurement List (Summer 1997); and a "PBT measurement method"
to track reductions of the PBT chemicals in wastes (early 1998).
-------
Although we encourage Regions, States, and Tribes to undertake activities to reduce the presence
m waste of chemicals on the National' Measurement List, we recognize that some Regions
States, and Tribes may have already established waste minimization goals that are not completely
synonymous with the National Measurement List. In addition, the first of the prioritization and
measurement tools is only now becoming available. This guidance, therefore, is intended to be
flexible and long-term. We see the next few years as transition years in which Regions, States
and Tnbes will be moving toward activities that reduce PBT chemicals in wastes (or in the '
°0ntaining PBT chemicals> «Pd toward quantitative measurement
In FY98, we encourage activities that move toward;
Development of prioritization schemes focused on specific sectors, chemicals, waste '
streams; geographic locations, etc., . ' .
Activities to achieve reductions of these chemicals or waste streams in these sectors or
geographic locations, .- .
. . Methods to measure reductions, and .
Use of the Prioritized Chemical List, the National Measurement List, the crosswalk- the
software pnontization package, or other tools in development of prioritization schemes.
OSW also encourages Regions, States, and Tribes, regardless of their organizational structure to
identity multi-program priorities for waste minimization and to pursue options that prevent
cross-media transfers of pollution. PBT chemicals in hazardous waste can be reduced through
use of RCRA authorities, yet efforts can be strengthened and results can be greater when other
media programs and authorities are also involved. Further; an increasing number 'of States and
inoes are choosing to explore Performance Partnership Grants and Agreements, which afford
^tSmJ?^^^^68*^^6^0^8^1161^0^^^ For States and Tribes adopting
the PPA/PPG framework, Regions, States, and Tribes are encouraged to discuss waste
minimization as part of the PPA mechanism.
Regions, States, and Tribes are encouraged to consider how their partnership can further waste
minimization goals. For States and Tribes with waste minimization goals other than for PBT
chemicals in hazardous waste, Regions should work to translate how the State or Tribal activities
will relate to PBT reductions. In addition, Regions should consider whether there are
opportunities during negotiations of other State and Tribal grants to focus on PBT's. Regions are
also encouraged to identify or create incentives for States and Tribes to focus on PBT's.
Below are some examples of activities that Regions, States, and Tribes can take that will help
transition toward PBT reductions and being able to quantitatively measure reductions (examples
or Regions that have carried out these types of activities are included in parentheses) These
examples are only a representative sample, OSW is currently developing a comprehensive list
or examples for reference that, will be available in April of 1997.
-------
: 9
Qualitative examples:
Identify State, Tribal and/or Regional concerns with, specific PBT chemicals (Region 5's
Virtual Elimination Project forMercury) and use RCRA, pther authorities, or voluntary
efforts to target for waste minimization
Feature generk waste minimization efforts in SEPs (Region 7) or specifically address
PBT chemicals in hazardous wastes
Consider how the efforts of other media programs could/would influence hazardous
waste generation, especially.wastes containing PBT chemicals \ ^
. Quasi-quantitative examples:
XJseBRS and other-data to target faculties for waste reductions ...
Identify the number of previously large quantity generatorsithat are now. small quantity
generators (due to waste minimization efforts); and/or the number of previously small
quantity generators that are no longer in the Subtitle C system (due to waste rnimmizatibn
' . efforts)
Identify me number of permits completed that included a discussion of waste
-, mmimization options between the permit writer and company .
Quantitative examples: -
Quantify reductions of wastes-generated containing PBTsas a result of SEP's or other
waste minimization activities
Quantify reductions inPBTs in hazardous wastes for top generators or general reductions
Measure reductions of a specific chemical of concern within a. Region, State, or. Tribe
MANAGING WASTE APPROPRIATELY
Goals and Objectives
The strategic goals, for permit and closure activities at hazardous waste facilities are to;
(1) demonstrate substantial progress in permitting land disposal and combustion facilities
consistent with the priority ranking (as determined .by NCAPS ranking) of the facilities, and-
(2) demonstrate substantial progress in reducing risks at inactive land disposal facilities.
These permitting goals are consistent with the Agency's proposed Subobjectives for strategic
planning and GPRA for the safe management of hazardous waste; (1) By 2005, 90% of existing
hazardous waste management facilities (based on the universe baseline from 1996) will have
approved controls in place to prevent dangerous releases to air, soil, and groundwater, and (2) By
2005, reduce hazardous waste combustion facility emissions of dioxins and furans by'90.%
particulate matter by XX%, and acid gases by XX% from levels emitted in 1994
-------
Strategies
The Permitting and Closure priorities for the next two years are:
1. Permit issuance at priority interim status land disposal and combustion facilities-
2. Permit renewals for priority land disposal and combustion facilities; and
3. Closure plan approval, post closure-permit issuance, or verification of closure
activities at priority inactive land disposal facilities.
top Priority fo^ .
combusuonfacihties. -When deciding on priorities between the remaining two priority areas the
Regions and States should decide which activities provide the most environmental teneSd
meets the long-terrn strategic goals discussed previously. (90% of facilities have .approved control
in place, 90% emission reduction from hazardous waste combustion). We recognize that
compliance and enforcement activities are important Regional and State functions that
SwST ^ I****0* activities- EI>A *M a karate guidance oh implementation of
the RCRA compliance and enforcement program. After Regions and States have permitted their
operating land disposal and combustion facilities, work on priority (as determined by NCAPS
ranking) treatment and storage facilities is appropriate.
Regions and States should implement.activities to achieve both.timely reduction of existing risk
aad long term prevention of future risks at facilities in 'the permitting universe. Regions and
States should emphasize permitting of priority land disposal facilities, and combustion -facilities
Of course treatment and storage facility permits may be issued, but they should not be the focus
of work when land disposal and combustion facilities remain unpermitted. Due to resource '
considerations, Regions and States will be given flexibility to determine how many facilities are
targeted for these priority permitting activities. However, by 2005 we expect that 90% of the
existing permit universe will have controls in place through either permits or approved closure
activities. .
States and Regions must choose how to handle lower 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. Regions and States should expedite action at priority
facilities, even if this means deferring activity at lower priority facilities.
Regions and State should continue their permitting priorities for combustion facilities in
accordance with the priority scheme included in the 1994 Waste Minimization and Hazardous
Waste Combustion Strategy. This consists of giving higher priority to existing interim status
facilities for which a final permit decision would result in the greatest environmental benefits to
fee surrounding communities or the greatest reduction in overall risk to the public. Regions and
States should include permit renewals in this category if they meet the priority criteria. Low
pnonty should continue to be given to those permit applications of new, non-replacement
combustion facilities. Regions and States should continue to call in all outstanding permit
-------
. 11
applications according to the permitting priority, but in a manner that would not trigger
permitting time requirements which may divert resources away from the high priority permit
actions. '
The combustion permitting priorities may be affected by the Hazardous Waste Combustion
MACT (Maximum Achievable Control Technology) Rule which is expected to go final in
March of 1998. Permit modifications to accommodate the new MACT standards may become a
significant work load in the combustion permitting area. The current implementation thinking
for the MACT rule, calls for a phasenn of the standards over three years. Guidance for
implementing the MACT rule will likely be issued in 1998 and will include any adjustments to
me combustion permitting priorities identified here. -
Regions arid States should continue to conduct a variety of activities to address environmental :
risk at priority inactive land disposal facilities. At.some facilities, post-closure permits should be
issued, while afothers, environmental risk may be addressed using enforcement actions or State
mechanisms. For previously permitted facilities, the permit should be extended to cover the
post-closure care period. At unpermitted facilities, Regions and States should select the activity
to address the facility based on site-specific factors including the financial status of the owner or
operator, recalcitrance, and availability of suitable State mechanisms^ The Agency expects to
promulgate the RCRA Post Closure Rule hi 1997, which will allow closure of certain regulated
units as part of corrective action. In this case, the units will be flagged in the closure universe as
having been referred to corrective action. .
Measures
Final permit determinations, permit "renewals, land disposal closure plan approvals, and
verifications of facility 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 life of the
facilities. We understand that RCRIS may have to be modified to account for the verifications of
facility closure.
CLEANUP SECTION
GPRA Objective and Subobjective
Objective 1: By 2005, EPA and its partners will conduct cleanup actions to reduce or
control risks to human health and the environment at XX sites.
Subobjective : By 2005, 95% of high-priority facilities will have human exposures controlled and
70% of high priority facilities will have groundwater releases controlled. A baseline will be
developed in 1997.
-------
Measures: RCRIS codes - Human Exposures Controlled Determination (CA725) and
Groundwater Releases Controlled Determination (CA750).
Pate Sources: RCRIS Database. Data will be entered by EPA Regions and authorized States
Data will be aggregated at the national level.
Human exposures controlled and groundwater releases controlled are results that can be achieved
through interim measures .such as stabilization activities or through implementation of a final
remedy Although these results are important milestones for cleanup programs, achieving these
results,does not imply that a facility is "cleaned up." Facilities are o^cSte ooS!^
stabilization and final cleanup even after they'have achieved these milestones until the final
cleanup standards have been met. The environmental indicators such as human exposures
controlled and groundwater releases controlled represent new ways of measuring success in a
program. There will'be a period of adjustment, where the.program needs to get familiar with
using the indicators. Because there is not a great deal of implementation data as yet, changes
may te needed for the 2005 target. Modifications to the existing indicator definitions may be
required if it is. determined that they are;not tracking the interim results in the best way. There
may also be additional indicators such as ecological exposures, non-groundwater releases and -
meeting final cleanup standards that need to be developed to better cover the scope of results
achieved by the program.
The ^objective addresses high priority faculties. This group includes those facilities that are
identified as High NCAPS facilities in the Corrective Action Workload Universe and State
priorities that may not be High NCAPS^based on risk but are high cleanup priorities for other
' ^o^-0115 SUCh ** environmental justice. A baseline list of these facilities will be developed
in 1997 Finally, the program recognizes that there are some extremely large and complex sites "
that will not be able to achieve the indicators by 2005. .
Activities: stabilization measures implemented, stabilization constructed complete remedy
selected, CM constructed complete. .
The GPRA Objective and Subobjective have been established to quantify progress toward
meeting the overall goals of the program. Three primary goals have been identified for the
RCRA cleanup up process: 1) to prevent or reduce the exposure of humans and ecological
receptors to contamination; 2) to control the migration of contamination; and 3) to achieve a
reducuonin toxicity by meeting final cleanup up standards for the agreed upon land use of the
tacility. These goals are not hierarchical, but all are important components of the overarching
goal of nsk reduction.
The Agency is moving toward relying on performance measures instead of process measures to
document the success of the program. The measures listed above have been identified to track
progress against the Subobjectives. Additional national program measures currently tracked in
KCKIS W" continue to he med for management and reporting purposes. These additional
-------
I
measures can also be included in the State/EPA performance partnership agreements but
identification of which specific measures are leftto the discretion of the Regions and States Th«
program will work to better define results measures (particularly the development of ecological
measures to track progress under goal 1). «««gicai
Strategies
The RCRA cleanup program is becoming a more results-based program. The strategies defined
ex^dt^^rp A"? '** Mea °f leVeraging dl PP*sible ^ources to achieve-results.and
-expedite tiie RCRA cleanup process. The program continues to use these strategies, emphasizing
the use of innovative and flexible approaches to cleanup! , gies, empnasizing
1- -Stabil^on.remains the program's Wghest implementation priority. Actions take^
under fee stabilization initiative can result directly m achieving two of the. goals listed
*°ve(i.e., Prevented or reduced exposure and contrbUed niigration of ntaminants) and
will moveia facihty toward achievingthe third goal. Public participation needs to be
considered during the implementation 6f the stabilization initiative. In cases where the
stabilization effort is expected to be long-term, address the entire facility, or there is
significant community concern, the public should be given the opportunity to comment
on the remediation activity. . ^ *"«««.
2. With the increasing emphasis on tracking performance and measuring results accurate
data entry is critical. la FY96, the program updated the National PARS reports
Implemented should review the reporting and linkage requirements in these new reports
to insure that their data are correctly entered into RCRIS. Otherwise, the national reports
will not capture the information. - , -.
3. The program will continue to focus oh worst sites first-(ffigh NCAPSfacilities)
- However, Agency initiatives, such as Brownfields, environmental justice, and community
- based environmental protection, are also priorities. Implemented should find a balance
between work on High NCAPS facilities and other initiatives. The program has
established guidance that recommends working on total of no more than 15% Medium
and Low priority facilities where there are High priority facilities still unaddressed.
4. Forallfacihties.that will remain in the Corrective Action Workload Universe as
currently defined in RCRIS, we should continue to complete assessments and'rankings to
allow the program to accurately describe our primary universe and show that resources
are directed toward the highest priority facilities.
5. When utilizing HSWA permits and orders, Regions and authorized States should monitor
comphance with corrective action requirements and take necessary action to enforce
compliance with order and permit requirements.
6. As stated above, the program should leverage all possible resources to achieve the goals
of the program. Several mechanisms are available to streamline and increase the pace of
RCRA cleanup. Many of these, and additional areas of flexibility, are more-fully
discussed m the Subpart S Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (61 FR 19432 '
-------
T4
Working with owner/operators to implement priority stabilization actions as early in the
process as possible; .
Encouraging the use of innovative technical tools, including new site characterization
techniques and treatment technologies, especially for stabilization;
Using performance standards to specify cleanup requirements in permits and orders,
' rather than reviewing and approving detailed plans;
Communicating with owner/operators and public early in the process;
Encouraging owner/operators to initiate appropriate cleanup actions voluntarily (i.e.,
without prior direction/approval including cases where there is no existing permit or
order, and no oversight by regulators);
. Disinvesting or substantially scaling back oversight of lower priority sites, as well as.
certain High priority facilities where the owner/operator is capable and trustworthy;
, Working closely and effectively with other State/Federal agencies (elg., State voluntary
programs) to address corrective action, avoid duplicative oversight and work toward
authorizing State RCRA Programs; .
Avoiding unnecessary procedural steps whenever feasible (e.g., eliminate the CMS if a
desirable remedy can be identified without one); ' '
Using Superfund Presumptive remedy guidance when appropriate;
Formally recognize in permits and orders, as appropriate,- that remediation of
contaminated media to a desired media cleanup standard is technically impracticable;
' Focusing investigations and cleanup actions based on the specific environmental
priorities within the facility (e.g., stabilize the hot spots or off-site releases while
investigating the rest of the site);
Using the full range of implementation tools.including alternative State authorities and
RCRA enforcement authorities under §7003 and §3.013. In addition, multimedia and
cross-program approaches such as coordinating with the Superfund Program and using
authorities under the CERCLA statute may help expedite investigation and cleanup;
During the development of the HWIR rulemaking, the following existing policies and
guidance documents were identified which can be used to support flexibility;
- RCRA Section 3020 exemption for reinjecting grpundwater,
- Site-specific LDR Treatability variance, '
- The contained-in policy,
- Streamlined permits (research and development demonstration and emergency permits),
- Policy on treatment in 90-day accumulation tanks and containers.
RCRA SUBTITLE D PROGRAM
Overall Vision
National efforts to manage municipal solid waste (MSW) and related non-hazardous waste in
1998 and 1999 should be based on two related frameworks: first, the concept of integrated solid
waste management, which holds that this waste stream requires a coordinated mix of strategies,
-------
15
chosen according to the environmental, economic, and social situations and priorities of the
individual jurisdictions.
Second, wherever feasible, preference should be given to strategies mat maximize the diversion
of waste from disposal facilities, with source reduction (including reuse) as the highest priority
approach, followed by recycling (including composting). The other, less preferred approach is '
disposal, which includes combustion and landfilling.
National efforts for industrial non-hazardous waste in 1998.and 1999 should focus on the
development and initial implementation of voluntary guidance addressing appropriate
management standards for the reduction, recycling, and disposal of this huge waste stream. A
guidance document will be developed in partnership with the Slates and with input from
, industrial and environmental stakeholders. !
Roles and Relationships
Implementation of RCRA Subtitle D in 1998 and 1999, as in previous years, will rely on
partnerships among EPA HQ, EPA Regions, States, Tribes, and local governments, with
continued involvement by the private sector, non-governmental organizations, and the public.
The EPA, State, and Tribal partnership is especially important for implementation of the MSW
Landfill Criteria under Subtitle D and the Disposal Standards for the Receipt of CESQG Wastes
at Non-Municipal and Non-Hazardous Waste Disposal Units, including approval of permitting
programs.
The program areas described in this Guidance are those that require some level of Regional,
State, Tribal, and local participation to be fully successful. Regions have a large degree of
flexibility in responding to .the programs outlined below and in determining the extent of their
. involvement, as well hi negotiating roles with States, Tribes, and others. Iri developing their
specific planning documents, Regions are-encouraged to identify then* own priorities, including
those beyond the national initiatives noted here.
Objectives and Program Direction
The objectives for the RCRA non-hazardous solid waste program derive from the Agency's
proposed RCRA commitments under the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
The following section outlines the relevant GPRA Objectives and Subobjectives, and the priority
program directions for FY 1998 and 1999 stemming from them, as well as several additional
program directions underlying the overall solid waste program.
-------
.16
Safe Waste Management
>.
RCRA Objective 2: By 2005, XX facilities will be managed according to practices that prevent
releases to .the environment . .
Subobjective: By 2005,100% of existing MSW disposal facilities in States and Tribes (based on
the universe baseline from 1996) will have approved controls in place to prevent dangerous
releases to air, soil, and groundwater v .
Program direction: Work with States, Tribes, and the disposal industry to protect human health
and the environment, through implementation of the MSW Landfill Criteria, Continue to
develop and implement statutory and regulatory amendments as necessary to ensure safe
management at landfills and Tribal sovereignty.
Subobjecrive: By 2005,. XX % of facilities which dispose pf non-hazardous industrial, waste
(based on the universe baseline from 1996) will have appropriate controls hi place to prevent
dangerous releases to air, soil, and groundwater.
Program direction: Work with the States, Tribes, industry, and the environmental community
in implementing the recommendations in the voluntary guidance for industrial non-hazardous
wastes. Implementation will mostly be in the form of advocating the guidance document and
working with the stakeholders to.provide an understanding of the recommended management
practices. It will also be necessary to advocate the public involvement principles and the
alternatives to industrial non-hazardous waste disposal (i.e., source reduction, recycling, and
treatment).
RCRA Objective 4: By 2005, EPA and its partners will decrease the quantity of waste
generated by XX% and the toxicity of waste generated by XX%.
Subobjective : By 2005, per capita generation of municipal solid waste will be reduced to the
1990 baseline level of 4.3 pounds per day.
Subobjective : By 2005, recycling, including composting, will divert over 35% of municipal
solid waste from landfilling and combustion (increasing from the 1995 baseline of 26%).
Program direction: Work with the business community to promote substantial reductions in
commercial waste generation and continued increases in business recycling. Build on the .
success of voluntary, market-based initiatives, such as the Waste Wi$e partnership, and increase
emphasis on such key municipal and related waste streams as construction and demolition debris,
transport packaging, electronics, and small appliances, and on such emerging trends as extended
product responsibility and design for reuse and recyclability.
-------
17
Program direction: Work with Federal, State, and Tribal agencies and the private sector to
develop sustainable markets for recycled products, by building supportive economic
development infrastructures, encouraging availability of financing, and fostering demand through
'buy recycled' programs. Implement the Administrator's Recycling Means Business Strategy,
including such key components as the Jobs through Recycling program, the Comprehensive
Procurement Guidelines under RCRA Section 6002, and implementation of Executive Order
12873: '. '\ -." ;' : ' . '. . ' . ' .' - .':.
Additional Program Directions
Work with Tribes to strengthen their integrated waste management programs j including
; developing needed capabilities, closing inadequate landfills* and building source
. 'reduction and recycling programs. EPA will endeavor to provide Tribes flexibility in .
landfill design and operation similar to that available toapproved. States.
Work with States, Tribes, and localities to develop models for cost-effective source
. reduction, reuse, recycling, and other programs, and
Work with all levels of government, all sectors of industry, public interest groups, and
citizens to develop and disseminate high, quality data and information on important
topics, such as; .
the benefits and costs of waste management options, .
costs and results of various program approaches, and . -
characterization of the national MS W waste stream and such priority industrial
waste streams as construction and demolition debris and other waste streams that
present good targets for success.
-------
-------
j.
3
I 1= EPA Outcome Measures
. = State Core Measures
/ SUBOBJECTIVE 1A: By 2005, EPA'
I and Its partner will decide whether
I Federal Superfund cleanup Is needed]
I at XX% of the waste sites listed In
I CERCLIS.
% of potential
Superfund Sites that
F have met the criteria for
Fed. Superfund action
f SUBOBJECTIVE 1D: By 2005,
through Increasing the equitable
treatment of PRPs, EPA will Increase |
or maintain the % of PRPs reaching- j
settlement by X% annually up to
\ XX%.
Number of PRPs reaching
settlements will be maximized
and Unilateral Administrative
f Orders will be Issued reasonably
f and fairly to non-settling PRPs In
accordance with EPA policy.'
r SUBOBJECTIVE 1H: By 2005,95%
f of high priority facilities will have
I human exposure controlled and 70%
high priority facilities will have
groundwater releases controlled. A
baseline will be developed In 1997.
/Activities targeted at
/controlling/preventing spread of
' / contamination, preventing Human
( exposure, and reducing the risk to
\ human hearth and the
\ environment.
minimize or mitigate significant human health
and environmental threats posed by releases or
\ potential, releases of hazardous materials.
11) The population prevention measures
for NPL and non-NPL sites, 2) AH.
drinking water, 3) materials volume
remediated' land, ground water, and
'surface water, risk measures, acreage
returned to protective use, 4) the
amount.pf work done by f=RPs.
SUBOBJECTIVE 1E: By 2005, EPA will
address cost recovery at 100% of all NPL
and non-NPL sites with total past cost
equal to or greater than $200,000 which
need to be adressed prior to the expiration
of the Statute of Limitations.
1) the total value of cost recovery
settlements and judlcal actions achieved
and past cost considerations' recoverable,
2) the amount of money EPA has
collected from PRPs compared to the
total achieved In cost recovery
settlements and Judlcal actions.
SUBOBJECTIVE 11: By 2005, cleanups
groudwatenorsollls'
latedbyAleum
jdnderRCfAmbtKlel
completedjundi
'A or
AGENCY GOAL
'₯ wfS
nageitient!
OBJECTIVE 1: By 2005, EPA a
fts partners will reduce or control the risk
to human health and the environment
at XX sites.
/ SUBOBJECTIVE 1L: By 2005,
£r'|iPA;p'have"1rpWi%v I 'fg" e%
? peraglncyAgrepientsaml If 0
oilmt federal faclfflS NPL sHeWI .8$ -'»
\ l58attheend
V
STIVE lC.;;By,2005,
EPAjhd'Jti%rtners will complete
constactlon a^ sttes^n the NPL In I
k -.cSk.effectlvf-and timely manner. '
EPA will appropriately leverage
PRPs in this initiative.
Number of Supertund activities
that have reached and
Implemented protective
response decisions within X% of J
time, and X% of cost based of
post-SARA trends.
1,
J1) progress toward ROD goal
attainment, 2) media affected, 3)
direct contact threats addressed for
sites, 4) estimated amount of money f
PRPs contributed toward cleanup
eluding response and cost recovery J
funds.
SUBOBJECTIVE 1F: By 2005, EPA will
Improve the participation as well as the
perception held by communities impacted by
waste problems of their direct involvement in
every phase of the waste management and.
cleanup process and will also Improve citizen
understanding of site risks at 50% of the
surveyed Superfund sites.
, SUBOBJECTIVE 1G: By 2005, EPA will
futher enhance the role of States and Tribes
' in.the implementation of the waste programs,
reduce unnecessary overlap between the
federal program and the associated state
and tribal program, and aid In the economic
redevelopment of Brownfields sites.
' 1) Improvement of the
preception of communities in
their Involvement In the clean-up
process, 2) Improvement of the
citizen understanding of the risk
at the site.
% increase in the total j
/sites addressed under j
1 both state and federal]
programs.
/VSiUBOBJECTIVE U: By 2005, the risk
;':' ^assessment techniques Including
appropriate models, methodologies, and
"'So'Mfces of
/ Number of
/ Cleanups Initiated
\ and/or Completed, j
NotSI Output measures will also be collected.
slee|EP?vOSWER|4/2/1997112:011
jpage 1 of 1|
-------
EPA Outcome Measures
= State Core Moasures
/ SUerJ'BJECTtVE2A:By2005,
/ xxxfidWeswIllbalncompillinca
I wjth the: ipl prevention, control, Hid
I countermesturo provltlon of ths oil
\ poilulton prevention reguWJon.
T
# of facilities brought
Into compliance with
SPCC provisions.
SUBOBJECTIVE 2C: By 2005,90% of
existing hazardous waste management
facilities will have approved controls In
place to prevent dangerous releases to
air, soil, and groundwater (compared to
the universe baseline from 1996).
Controls that are
'put In place to prevent
^releases to air, soil, and
groundwater.
\
ndJ
AGENCY GOAL
Safe Waste
# of facility
response plans
approved.
SUBOBJECTIVE 2D: By 2005, reduce
hazardous waste combustion facility emissions of
dloxlns and furans by 80%, partlculats matter by
and add ruin gaset by*K%, from level*)
' emitted In 1SW*' "
BJECTIVE
y 2005, XXX facilities wi
e managed according to practices
that prevent releases to the
environment.
/SUBOBJECTIVE 2E: By 2005,90% of
the new landfills, waste piles, surface
lmpoundm»fits, and land appfcallon units
recelvhfl ngn-hazardous induslrlal waste
will hive appropriate controls In place to
prevent dangerous releases to air, sol),
^ J and giroundwatef.
^ _^..'' * ..
/SUBOBJECTIVE 2F: By 2005.100%\
of existing MSW disposal faciWissln 1
Stales (based on universe baseline I
from 1996) wi have approved controls I
In place lo prevent dangerous releases I
L lo air, soil, and groundwater. I
^ Controls that are put
Inplace to prevent
lanqerous releases to air,
soil, and groundwater.
^ Controls that are put In
place to prevent
langerous releases to air,
soil, and groundwater.
' SUBOBJECTIVE 2G: By 2005, the
amount of the nation's radioactive
waste managed under the purview of
the Atomic Energy Act that does not
meet EPA disposal standards will be
reduced by 1.2%.
SUBOBJECTIVE 2H: By 2005, 228,000,
UST facilities regulated under RCRA
Subtitila I will be equipped to meet
EPA/State requirements for leak
detection, spill conlainment, overfill
prevention, and corrosion protection.
' Controls that are put ln\
/'place to prevent dangerousV
releases to air, soil, and i
groundwater. /
/ # of UST systems
/ equipped to meet the
( requirements for leak
\ detection and upgrading
sms \
Btthe \
rleak i
irading. /
SUBOBJECTIVE 21: By 2005, of (he
facilities who have submitted risk
management plaWenl '
chemical riMand prodlses, 20%nof
fadlitlegha%s6 slgngant|skwlll
reducM the%>tentlafflf having a
i £ . rKimlral aVftittMt
% of facilities that have
reduced their chemical
risks. % reduction in the
/number of reportable facility
chemical accidents.
SUBOBJECTIVE 2 J: By 2005,50% of the \
states will be Implanting a prevention program I
and 60% of,l.ECP.| will have proactiyely I
''expandfid the^rfesp:bnsjbilities to include I
aventing'riieqfiiwi accidents and reducing I
(|f risk In 6M corrifnun.cry through the use of I
comm^tty F|^ht-t6j
-------
"a-
o-
EPA Outcome Measures
State Core Measures
f SUBOBJECTIVE 3B: By 2005. EPA will
demonstrate significant Improvements In
area contingency planning for oil spills. We |4
will do this by publishing updates to area
contingency plans In each of the 13
, originally-designated areas.
/% Improvement In
area contingency
planning.
AGENCY GOAL:
nagame
OBJECTIVE 3: By 2005, EPA
and its partners will have the capabilitie
to successfully respond to 100% of known
emergency actions to reduce the risk to
human health and the environment.
-; SUBOBJECTIVE'3A: Each year, all \
significant oil spills in the Inland zone will bel
responded to in an effective manner by the I
responsible party, the state or local spill I
responders, or if necessary, by the EPA. I
7
^(1)The#of significant oil
ipills responded to by EPA.
(2) The # of significant oil
spills EPA monitors.
SUBOBJECTIVE 3C: EPA will reduce the risk of
hazardous chemical accidents. By 2005:1)all facilities
where accidental releases have been Investigated by EPA,
EPA will have acted upon the recommendations generated
by the investigation; 2)EPA will communicate the safety
hazards and recommendations to the appropriate industrial
sector; and 3)50% of that sector will have acted upon the
recommendations to prevent future accidents.
I SUBOBJECTIVE 3D: By 2003,50% of the
nation's largest communities (populations greater
than 1 mil.) .will be prepared to respond to nuclear,
' biological, and/or chemical terrorist events. They
' isye assessed their vulnerability*,
ielr local e^gency plahj and takon first;
ler and'enwgency ntjMiagejnent train!
[n the unique aspWof thplerfnrlst even!
f SUBOBJECTIVE 3E: Each year through 2005,1
the Federal Radiological Emergency Response '
Program will take response actions necessary or |
jj.j-wsjst localfjjSjgtafjjEgglona! responders to -
" preve'ntijeduiftor riijtjgate the Imminent and
; substantial ht$*jan heaHh and environmental
\threats. "«.-«*
/1) Number of facilities investigated
by EPA that have acted upon
recommendations. 2) % of the
' industrial that have acted upon the J
recommendations to prevent
'..future accidents.
Number .of communities that have
revised their emergency response j
plans to Include counter terrorist
measures. Number of
communities that have received
counterterrorisrn training.
(page 1 of 1|
-------
Q
* EPA Outcome Measures
< State Core Measures
SUBOBJECTIVE 4A: By 2005,
reduce the most persistent,
bloaccumulatlve, and toxic
chemicals In hazardous waste
streams by 50%.
T
/ Decrease the quantity \
/ of waste generated, \
/decrease the toxicity of waste\
\ generated, and Increase i
\ recycling of waste, f
SUBOBJECTIVE 4E: ByZOOS,
achieve a 25% Increase In the
amount of hazardous waste safely ]
recycled, relative to the amount
safely recycled In 1993.
Decrease the quantity of
I waste generated, decrease J
the toxlclty of. waste
generated, and Increase
recycling of waste.
JBJECTIVE4: By
"2005, EPA and its partners^
will decrease the quantity of waste
generated by xx% and toxioity of
waste generated by
xx%.
' SUBOBJECTIVE 4C: By 2005,
recycling, including composting, will
divert over 35% of municipal solid
waste from landfilllng and
combustion (increasing from the
1995 baseline of 26%).
SUBOBJECTIVE 40: By \
2005, per capita generation of 1
municipal solid waste will be 1
reduced to the 1990 baseline I
level of 4.3 pounds per day. I
T
Decrease the quantity of
/ waste generated, decrease
the toxicity of waste
generated, and increase
recycling of waste.
Decrease the quantity of
f waste generated, decrease
the toxicity of waste
generated, and increase
recycling of waste.
2:011 c:\all3user\acl\planing4.acl|
[page1 of 1|
-------
EPA Outcome Measures
- State Core Measures
I SUBOBJECTIVE5A:By2005,
EPA will sign 300 cooperative
agreements for assessment at
brownfield properties, and will
perform targeted site assessments In
i 100 cities at Brownfield properties.
(1)#ofco-op.
agreements signed for
' assessment at brownfield J
properties.
,,-
Number of sites which
f targeted site assessment,
for Brownfield properties j
were performed.
feWfste
nagerferi
OBJECTIVE 5: By 2005, XX%
(from 1996 baseline) of formerly
contaminated parcels of land are made available
for residential, recreational, commercial, or
industrial reuse.
iSUtpBJECtlVE5D:By '4
fev -,.:'
-------
-------
Attachment II
STATE GENERATED PROGRAM MEASURES
Environmental Goal
Environmental Objective
Core Environmental Indicator
Programmatic Objective
Core Program Outcome Measure
Program Activity/Output Measure
Safe Waste Management
By 2005, EPA and its partners will decrease the '
quantity of waste generated by XX% and the '
toxicity of waste generated by XX%. ,
The States and EPA will work together t6 develop
indicators of change in the'condition of the soil,
shallow groundwater, or ecosystems as appropriate.
Reduce the most persistent, bioaccumuiative, and
toxic compounds in our nation's hazardous-Waste
streams by 50% as compared to the 1991 baseline
year. - . . .. .
Decrease the quantity of waste generated, decrease-
the toxicity of waste generated, and increase
recycling of waste.
Reduce toxicity of waste by reducing selected
PBTs.
*see subobjective 4A
-------
STATE GENERATED PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Environmental Goal
Safe Waste Management
Environmental Objective
Core Environmental Indicator
Programmatic Objective
Core Program Outcome Measure
Program Activities
(Core Program Output Measure)
By 2003, EPA and its partners will conduct .
Cleanup activities to reduce human health and the
environment at XX sites.
The States and EPA ..will work together to .
. develop indicators of change in. the condition
of the soil, shallow groundwater, or ecosys-
tems as appropriate. ' . .
By 2005, cleanups of 370,000 sites where
groundwater. or soil is known to be affected
with petroleum contamination from under-
ground storage tanks (USTs) regulated under
RCRA Subtitle I will be initiated or completed
Under the. supervision of EPA or its partners.
Number of Cleanups Initiated and/or
completed. . ' -
Number of confirmed Releases
Number of Emergency Responses Taken
See subobjective II
-------
STATE GENERATED PROGRAM MEASURES
Environmental Goal
Environmental Objective
Core Environmental Indicator
Programmatic Objective
Core Program Outcome Measure
Program Activity/Output Measure
* see subobjective IB
Safe Waste Management
By 2005, EPA and its partners wiD conduct cleanup
actions to reduce or control risks to human health
and the environment at XX sites.
Human Exposures Controlled, Groundwater
Releases Controlled
i - ' '
By, 2005 95% (1950) of high priority facilities will .
have human exposures controlled and 70% of high -
priority facilities! will have, groundwater releases
controlled. A baseline will be developed in 1997.
Activities targeted at controlling or. preventing the
spread of contamination, preventing human -':
exposure to such releases, and reducing the risk to
human health and the environment.
1) The number of facilities with stabilization
actions. 2) Number of final remedy construction
completions. '
-------
-».*»
..-*-.«
STATE GENERATED PROGRAM MEASURES
Environmental
Environmental Objective
Core Environmental Indicator
Programmatic Objective
Core Program Outcome Measure
Program Activity/Output Measure
. Safe Waste Management
By 2005, xx facilities will be managed according to
practices that prevent, releases to the environment.
The States and EPA will work together to develop
.indicators of change in the condition of the soil,
shallow groundwater, or ecosystems as appropriate?.
\ ' ' *
,By 2005, 90% of existing hazardous .waste
management facilities (based on 1996 universal
baseline) will have approved controls in place to
prevent dangerous releases to- air, soil and
groundwater. . -. 7
Control that are put in place to prevent dangerous
releases to air, soil, and .groundwater. .
1) Number and types of permits or approvals issued.
2) Number of closure plans approved for hazardous
waste management facilities.
*see objective 2G
-------
STATE GENERATED PROGRAM MEASURES
Environmental Goal
Environmental Objective
Core Environmental Indicator
. Safe Waste Management
By 2005, xx facilities will be managed according to
practices that prevent releases to the environment.
The States and EPA will work together to develop
indicators of change in the condition of the soil,
shallow groundwater, or ecosystems-as appropriate.
Programmatic Objective
Core Program Outcome Measure
Program Activity/Output Measure
By 2005, reduce hazardous waste combustion
facility emissions of dioxins and furans by 90%
particulate matter by 50% and acid gases by 50%
from levels emitted in 1994.
Control that are put in place to prevent dangerous
releases to air, soil, and groundwater.
1) Number and types of permits-or approvals issued.
2) Number of closure plans'approved for hazardous
waste management facilities
''see objective 2D
-------
STATE GENERATED PROGRAM MEASURES
Environmental Goal
Environmental Objective
Safe Waste Management
By 2003, XX facilities will be managed according to
preventive practices.
Core Environmental Indicator
Programmatic Objective By 2005, 228,000 underground storage tank (UST)
facilities regulated under RCRA Subtitle I will be
equipped to meet EPA/State requirements for leak"
detection, spill containment, overfill prevention, and
corrosion protection.
Core Program Outcome Measure Number of UST Systems Equipped to Meet the
Requirements for Leak Detection and Upgrading
Program Activities
(Core Program Output Measure) Total Number of Petroleum UST Systems
Number "of Closed Petroleum UST Systems
Total Number of Hazardous. Substance UST Systems
(active and closed)
-------
NOTES
-------
-------
-------
------- |