United States Solid Waste and OSWER Directive #9420.00-09-3
Environmental Protection Emergency Response EPA 530-R-93-009a
Agency (OS-305) August 1993
&EPA RCRA Implementation
Plan: Fiscal Year 1994
Addendum
Printed on paper that contains at least 50 percent recycled fiber.
$& Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
AUG 1 7 1993
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
-
\
A
SUBJECT: Addendum to the FY X* *CRA/Implementation Plan
•' * I
Richard J. GuimondJ^- J\
Assistant Surgeon Generali
Acting Assistant Administrator
FROM:
TO: Regional Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I- X
State Waste Management Directors
Attached is the addendum to the FY 94 RCRA Implementation
Plan (RIP) . The purpose of the addendum is to provide additional
information and guidance to assist Regions and States in their
implementation and reporting efforts. The addendum includes
several key components:
• Additional guidance for implementing the Agency's new
hazardous. waste combustion strategy. This guidance
supplements the information provided in Chapter 3 of
the RIP;
• FY 94 Beginning-of-Year Plan (BYP) Guidance, developed
by a Headquarters /Regional Workgroup, clearly defining
the purpose, content, and format of the BYP (due to
Headquarters by November 17, 1993);
Definitions of our major RCRA program universes and £
selected key RCRA terms, intended to facilitate
consistent tracking of data in RCRIS;
• Corrections to the FY 1994 RIP Appendix A - STARS
Measures (Corrective Action section) , to add a measure
that had inadvertently been left out and to provide
additional clarification; and
• Responsiveness Summary, providing Headquarters' reply
to the major comments received on the draft RIP.
U.S. Environmental Protection Aftncy
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boufevard, 12th FtoBV
Chicago, IL 60604-3590
Printed on Recycled Paoer
-------
We originally anticipated including in the FY 94 RIP
Addendum the summary of enhancements to the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Information System (RCRIS) approved through the
configuration management process and scheduled for implementation
in the fall release of the software. However, the summary of
enhancements has already been released under a separate
memorandum as part of the RCRIS Quarterly Report (July 1993).
Therefore, we did not include it in the Addendum. For
information regarding the RCRIS Quarterly Report, contact Kevin
Phelps, Chief, Systems Development and Support Section, (202)
260-4697.
The Addendum also does not include a section on FY 1993 End-
of-Year Reporting. OSW is planning to run the Baseline
Performance Measures reports from the RCRIS National Oversight
Database after the final update of the fiscal year. Those
reports will constitute the End-of-Year reports. If Regions
choose, they may submit narratives to supplement the reports.
However, such narratives are optional.
Thank you for your active participation in developing the
various components of this addendum. As always, OSW and OWPE
•would appreciate any comments or suggestions you have for
improving next yearfs guidance development process.
Attachment
cc: Tom Kennedy, Executive Director, ASTSWMO
Jeffery D. Denit, Acting Director, OSW
Bruce M. Diamond, Director, OWPE
Devereaux Barnes, Director, PSPD
Susan Bromm, Director, RED
Suzanne Rudzinski, Chief, SRPB
Kevin Phelps, Chief, SDSS
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I - X
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OS-305)
August 1993
FY 1994
RCRA
IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
ADDENDUM
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
CONTENTS
I. Additional Guidance Regarding Imlementation
of the Hazardous Waste Combustion Strategy
II. FY 1994 Beginning-of-Year Plan Guidance
III. Definitions for Major RCRA Universes and
Selected Key RCRA Terms
IV. Corrections to FY 1994 RCRA Implementation
Plan Appendix A: STARS Measures (Corrective
Action)
V. FY 1994 RIP Responsiveness Summary
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE
REGARDING
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
HAZARDOUS WASTE COMBUSTION STRATEGY
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE t 9420.00-09-a
*
Additional Guidance
regarding
Implementation of the Hazardous Waste Combustion Strategy
The FY 1994 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) identified as a key
permitting strategic goal the development of a strategy to ensure
that operating Boilers and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs) meet all
appropriate requirements for safe operation. The groundwork set
forth in the RIP provides a framework for implementing the Agency's
draft strategy on hazardous waste combustion, as announced by
Administrator Carol Browner on May 18, 1993. It is now important
to provide additional RIP guidance to reflect the heightened
priority for source reduction related to combustible waste and for
combustion unit permits (mostly BIFs, but also includes interim
status incinerators), and to underscore the need to elevate the
priority of commercial BIFs.
The draft hazardous waste combustion strategy is designed to
reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated in this country and
to strengthen the Federal controls governing hazardous waste
incinerators and BIFs. A key component of the combustion strategy-
calls for a national review of the relative roles of waste
reduction and waste combustion in hazardous waste management. This
Administration is committed to source reduction as our first and
primary approach to waste management. EPA will use all its
persuasive abilities and its authorities to maximize source
reduction and to have generators take on waste minimization as
their top waste management priority.
The draft strategy also emphasizes the importance and priority
of permitting hazardous waste combustion facilities (incinerators
and BIFs) in FY94 for the Regions and States. The strategy calls
for EPA Regional Offices to give highest priority during the next
18 months to bringing under EPA's permitting standards all existing
interim status hazardous waste incinerators and BIFs. Lower
priority is given to new permit applications and permit
modifications for additional combustion capacity, except where new
capacity offsets the retirement of existing combustion capacity.
This priority will ensure that existing facilities are operating as
safely as possible to protect human health and the environment.
In addition, for all permits issued, the strategy provides
that the Regions use case-by-case authority to implement additional
controls as necessary to protect human health and the environment.
These additional controls may include an interim dioxin emission
standard, a more stringent standard for particulate emissions and
greater opportunity for public involvement in the permitting
process. In addition, the strategy calls for the Regions and
States to conduct a full risk assessment (including indirect
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
exposure) before any new permit is issued.
As stated above, implementing the draft combustion strategy is
a high priority for FY 94 and must be considered together with
other priority activities. Regions and States should use the
existing flexibility in the ranking criterion for evaluating
overall environmental priority of facilities and elevate the
priority of appropriate combustion facilities.
Among the BIF universe, commercial BIFs will have the highest
priority. Therefore, the first step to be taken in implementing
the draft strategy is to call in the Part B permit applications for
all commercial BIFs by May 1994. All remaining BIF Part Bs should
be called in during the succeeding 24 months (i.e.. by May 1996).
Permit determinations should be made as expeditiously as feasible
to control those operations that can be operated safely as well as
deny permits at those facilities that cannot be operated safely.
In addition, more use of permits and enforcement actions
should be made to effectively result in more source reduction
initiatives by generators of hazardous waste. A strategy should be
developed to identify generators that the Regions and States will
work with closely under RCRA authorities, other State authorities,
education and technical assistance, and voluntary mechanisms.
Additional guidance regarding implementation of the hazardous
waste combustion strategy, particularly in terms of identifying
appropriate combustion facilities to be elevated in priority, is
included in the FY 94 Beginning-of-Year Plan (BYP) guidance.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
Range of Possible Waste Minimization Activities
The May 1993 Combustion and Waste Reduction Strategy reaffirms
the Agency's commitment to waste minimization. Regions and
Headquarters are strongly encouraged to aggressively seek
opportunities for promoting and creatively implementing waste
minimization concepts. Although many Regions have already
initiated Region-specific waste minimization activities, several
have requested additional guidance for waste minimization
activities that they might initiate or pursue to enhance their
existing programs. In response to that request, Headquarters has
identified a number of waste minimization activities that Regions
may want to participate in to assist in implementing the Combustion
and Waste Reduction Strategy or to enhance their own waste
minimization programs.
Public Outreach:
• Headquarters will be sending letters to all Large Quantity
Generators (LQGs) identified as reporters for the 1991
Biennial Report to encourage them to make their waste
' minimization "programs in place1* available to the public.
Regional assistance will ensure that letters are sent only to"
organizations that are correctly identified as LQGs.
Generators receiving the letters will likely contact the
Regions. Therefore, the Regions should be prepared to provide
referrals to technical assistance centers, etc.
• The Regions may want to enhance public awareness by using the
Biennial Reporting System data which identifies the LQGs.
Examples of how to use the information include: 1) to
conduct outreach to selected generators to establish a
dialogue with them on their use of combustion capacity; 2) to
publicize, through local media, these generators'
contributions to combustion facilities located in the Region;
or 3) to exchange this information with other Regions where
the waste is being shipped, so that those other Regions may
publicize information ivT -r-tifying the contributors to the
combustion activity in those Regions.
Permitting:
• The Regions should continue to include the waste minimization
certification requirements in TSD permits for generators who
manage their hazardous waste on-site. Headquarters will
continue to work on resolving the Information Collection
Request issue related to expanding waste minimization
requirements in permits.
-------
'JCIJ!
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
•• The Regions could reward, through positive publicity, those
permitted TSDs managing hazardous -.aste generated on-site,
which are certifying at least annually that they have a waste
minimization program in place.
Enforcement:
• The Regions are encouraged to vigorously enforce the LQGs'
requirement to certify, on the manifest, that they have a
program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste
generated; the small quantity generators' (SQGs) requirement
to certify, on the manifest, that they have made a good faith
effort to minimize waste generation; and the permitted TSDs'
requirement to certify, no less than annually, that they have
a program in place to reduce the volume and toxicity of waste
generated which is managed on-site.
• The Regions can continue to use Supplemental Enforcement
Projects, according to applicable guidance, to require waste
minimization and pollution prevention activities as part of
enforcement settlements.
Capacity Assurance Process:
• The Capacity Assurance guidance can be used to encourage
States to promote waste minimization. Headquarters will be
providing training to the States on this topic, in the context
of Capacity Assurance Planning, in FY 94.
Technical Assistance/Grants:
• The Regions are encouraged to develop and maintain ties with
state-based and academic waste minimization/pollution
prevention technical assistance centers, to be able to refer
inquiries from the regulated community to appropriate
resources. Headquarters encourages Regions to use the
guidance on state • grant flexibility to promote state
involvement in providing technical assistant--.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
FY 1994
BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN
GUIDANCE
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE t 9420.00-09-a
FY 1994
BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN
PRIORITY RANKING
PERMITTING
CORRECTIVE ACTION
ENFORCEMENT
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE f 9420.00-09-a
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the FY 1994 Beginning of Year Plans (BYPs) is to provide a description of
how the Regions and States are implementing and enforcing the RCRA program. In particular,
Headquarters intends the BYPs to be used for strategic planning (i.e., by providing information on
what States and Regions are planning to accomplish, both in the near and long term) and to serve as a
basis for more timely Headquarters feedback to the Regions. It is hoped that the FY 1994 BYP will
become a baseline from which Headquarters will be able to more effectively monitor the progress of
RCRA program implementation and enforcement. The BYP also provides Headquarters with data
that enables it to better communicate the direction and the successes of the RCRA program.
In the past. Headquarters has not requested such a comprehensive description of the RCRA
enforcement program in the BYPs. However, for the first time, the Regions and States are setting
their own compliance monitoring and enforcement.activity levels based on criteria and guidelines
established in the FY 1994 RIP. As a consequence of this added flexibility, the Regions and States
must provide Headquarters with a more detailed picture of bow they plan to carry out the RCRA
enforcement program in their Region/State. This includes a fairly detailed breakdown of Regional
enforcement resource allocation.
• The FY 1994 BYP requirements reflect new guidance and an improved format for the BYP.
The most significant change is the inclusion of data tables to be filled in by the Regions. The purpose
of these tables is to ensure that Headquarters obtains adequate information to understand RCRA
program implementation and enforcement, while at the same time simplifying the BYP process by
clearly defining for the Regions the type of information that Headquarters needs. General instructions
for completing these tables are provided below.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING PRIORITY RANKINGS, PERMnriNG, AND CORRECTIVE
ACTION DATA TABLES
You will find a number of data tables for each program area below. General instructions
applicable to all tables are provided here; instructions applicable only to one table are provided with
the table itself.
• With one exception, the tables in Section II provide for reporting permitting data
broken down according to overall environmental priority.
• Where data are requested for facilities with particular unit types (i.e., land disposal
processes or treatment and storage processes), all facilities with those process types
should be included. We recognize that this will result in double counting of facilities.
• When providing numbers for universes (e.g., number of facilities on permit track,
number of closure plans approved through FY 1993, etc.), please use the RCRIS
select logic used for generating the Baseline Performance Measures (BPM) reports.
Use of this select logic will ensure data consistency across the Regions and will better
enable Headquarters to evaluate the national RCRA program. It will also promote
consistency in reporting of actual program accomplishments and projected program
activity.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Introduction continued) Page 2
•' -«-
[Note: Currently, the BPM select logic references the track information in the Program
Management Module ofRCRIS. Although the system H£, be modified in FY 94 to allow
maintenance of this information in the Permitting Module, we do not anticipate being able to
take advantage of the modification until FY 95. J
• Where data are requested for actual program accomplishments in FY 1993, Regions
should provide the data using FY 1993 STARS logic, with the additional step of
breaking the facility counts out by high, medium/low, and unranked overall
environmental priority.
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE ENFORCEMENT SECTION
• There are a few questions that were asked in the FY 1993 BYP that are being asked
again as follow-up. These include the following:
The Supplemental Environmental Projects questions in Pan IV.C,
Enforcement Action Activities, and
The Permitting questions in Pan IV.F, Other Questions.
• If there is no change in the Region's or State's response from the FY 1993 BYP, you
may respond by indicating "No change from FY 1993" to these questions.
• When completing the Enforcement Section, if the Region or State believes an
explanation is necessary and there is no space provided, please use additional paper.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE f 9420.00-09-a
Page 3
I. PRIORITY RANKING
A. STATUS AND STRATEGY
1. Instructions for Completing Table
Indicate the number of facilities in the RCRA universe that have been ranked and that
remain to be ranked using the table below.
TABLE 1: PRIORITY RANKING
I U«dDbp<"
W^T?' ' *
NCAPS «*ly-
\
Dvrniudr
•.
<
TOTALS
JttittttttBn
BIF»
fttttmmi
*orf Storage
ttoBtitt
Totak
Does not include Burner* and Industrial Furnaces (BIFs).
*NCAPs only" category means that facilities are ranked for NCAPS but are not ranked for overall environmental
priority.
•Unranked" meant not yet ranked for NCAP* QOJ for overall environmental priority. Facilities should only appear in
one of the three categories. .*"-
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE f 9420.00-09-a
(Priority Ranking continued) ; - , Page 4
2. Narrative Discussion
-• If facilities remain to be ranked, either for NCAPS or for overall
environmental priority, please explain your Region's strategy and timetable for
completing the rankings. (Optional update)
• Describe your strategy for reevaluating NCAPS and overall facility priority.
What factors drive your decision to re-rank; what triggers re-ranking?
[Note: For some facilities, new information may become available which could have a
substantial effect on the NCAPS ranting for the facility. It is also possible that a
facility's ranking could change due to stabilization actions or other substantial
cleanup actions being done. Regions and States are encouraged in these cases to re-
rank the facility using NCAPS, and record the change in priority in RCRIS. Updated
NCAPS rankings should be entered as an additional NCAPS ranking event for a given
facility. The date of the new ranking should be entered. New rankings should not
overwrite previous NCAPS rankings. Re-ranting of facilities will serve to ensure that
ranting in the data base reflect the actual environmental conditions at those facilities.}
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
PaeeS
II. PERMITTING
A. PERMITTING STRATEGY
Land Disposal Facilities (LDFs) and Treatment/Storage FaciUies (TSFs):
1. Instructions for Completing Tables
For each facility type (i.e., land disposal, treatment and storage), please
provide the following information, broken out by overall environmental
priority, using the tables below:
• Number of facilities on operating permit track (using Baseline
Performance Measures select logic);
• Number of final permit determinations completed as of the end
of FY 1993 (using FY 1993 STARS logic);'
• Projections for FY 1994; and
• Estimate of remaining permit universe to be addressed beyond
FY 1994.
As noted earlier, Regions should provide these data broken out by overall environmental
priority rankings.
TABLE 2: PERMITTING - LDFs
Opcntiaf fenait
Uafecm : : '
tkrtaniBfltioaft Cwphtetf
through FY *3
TY94Phrf«tiM*<&/OQ*nB'EHmmt^?riiidQ
***#•**&•%.
*faduHa/L«w •&
IterMdtcd x
T-
- -nail' .:•;
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Permittinz continued)
Page 6
TABLE 3: PERMITTING - TSFs
OvtnB EavinaaMtei Priority
Operatfef P«ntit
2. Narrative Discussion
Please provide a narrative discussion of your permitting strategy, addressing
the following issues:
• If medium/low overall environmental priority facilities have been selected for
action in FY 1994, what is your rationale for selecting these facilities (e.g.,
has a state completed action at all of its high priority facilities)?
• If you are planning to commit substantial resources to activities at medium or
low priority facilities, what plans exist for shifting activities back to high
priority facilities?
• What is your time frame for completing permit issuance for the TSDFs that
will not have permits after FY 1994?
• If you wish to discuss other aspects of your permitting program (e.g., permit
renewals), please include such discussions in an additional narrative.
(Optional)
Combustion Facilities (Incinerators and BIFs):
1. Instructions for Completing Tables
Implementing the Agency's hazardous waste combustion strategy is a high
priority for FY 94 and must be considered together with other priority activities. To
assist Regions and States in developing their strategic plans for permitting activities,
we are providing the following guidance for determining the priority of combustion
facilities, which should be used as a factor in assigning overall environmental priority
rankings.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Permitting continued) Page 7
Regions and States should use the existing flexibility in the ranking criterion
for evaluating overall environmental priority of facilities (from either an
environmental significance or an environmental benefit perspective) to elevate the
priority of appropriate combustion facilities. The criterion, as set forth in the RIP,
provides for assignment of a qualitative environmental significance ranking for
facilities that pose potential releases that are not evaluated by NCAPS (e.g.,
combustion units), as well as for evaluation of environmental benefit stemming from
enhanced regulatory controls to improve hazardous waste management. For example,
if a facility is currently ranked as a medium or low overall environmental priority, but
is a high combustion permitting priority, then a Region or State could exercise the
flexibility in the criterion to elevate its overall rank.
In completing Table 4 below, you will need to identify your universe of
combustion facilities (incinerators and BIFs) and determine the overall environmental
priority for each facility after considering their combustion permitting priority. The
combustion permitting priorities should be consistent with those established by the
combustion strategy. The strategy sets the following combustion permitting priorities:
High: Commercial units in interim status
Medium: Non-commercial units in interim status
Low: New units
In addition, units used for chemical demilitarization, mixed waste incinerators,
and new popping furnaces may be assigned a high, medium, or low ranking
depending on their permit status and on the alternative methods of storage/treatment
available for those wastes. For example, if the only treatment alternative to
permitting a new popping furnace is open burning/open detonation (OB/OD), then the
facility may be assigned a medium or high rank instead of low. Also, units being
built for remediation purposes may also be ranked medium or high instead of low.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Permitting continued)
Page 8
TABLE 4: PERMITTING - INCINERATORS AND BIFS
ftarafcitafcrme:
KfaH
Kff
^ trklBvrb Ompfetrf
Conawrekl
[Note: Headquarters recognises that BIF information is not easily identifiable in RCRIS; however, due to the fact that the
combustion strategy is a high priority for the Agency, we are asking Regions to provide these data based on your knowledge
of BIF activity in your Region]
2. Narrative Discussion
Please provide a narrative discussion of your combustion strategy, addressing the
following issues:
• Of your projected Pan B call-ins for FY 1994, how many are for
incinerators? BIFs?
• After determining your combustion permitting priorities, what impacts did you
observe on overall environmental priority rankings, i.e., how often did overall
rankings get elevated as a result of the combustion permitting priority?
• What tradeoffs or changes in levels of permitting activities at non-combustion
facilities (i.e., LDFs or TSFs) do you anticipate in order to support the new
combustion strategy and the initiatives contained therein?
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Permitting continued) ' Page 9
B. CLOSURE STRATEGY
1. Instructions for Completing Tables
For each facility type (i.e., land disposal, incinerator, burners and industrial
furnaces, treatment and storage), please provide the following closure
information, broken out by overall environmental priority, using the tables
below:
• Number of facilities on the closed and closing track (using
Baseline Performance Measures select logic);
• Number of closure plans approved through the end of FY
1993 (using FY 1993 STARS select logic);'
• Projections for FY 1994; and
• Estimate of remaining closed and closing universe to be
addressed beyond FY 1994.
[Note: In accordance with regulatory requirements for closure, when discussing closure
strategy:
• The closed and closing IDF, BIF, and incinerator universes include facilities
where at least one unit at the facility is closed or closing even though other
units at the facility continue to operate. Include in the closed and closing
LDF universe storage and treatment units that are closing with wastes in place
and will need post-closure care.
• The closed and closing universe of TSFs includes only those facilities that have
or will conduct final closure of the facility. That is, no units are planning to
continue to operate at the facility.}
As noted earlier, Regions should provide these data broken out by . crall
environmental priority rankings.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Permitting continued)
-Page 10
TABLES: CLOSURE - LDFs
MednntfLow
dosed uri CbsloK Urimc :
ClMwe W*«s
throogb FY »
Apprarcd ;
' '
At leut one unit hu cloud or will clou.
TABLE 6: CLOSURE - INCINERATORS'
£•
Medbm^ow
Total
CloMd aad Ckksios tUrene
*fctrFY*4
Doe* not include Bumen and Indiutrial Furnaces (BIFt).
At leut one incinerator unit hu cloud or will close.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE t 9420.00-09-a
(Permitting continued)
'Page 11
TABLET: CLOSURE - BIFs
Overt! Eaviraaneatat Priority
-Uvukcd
Clued tad Qocint IMvene :
Owncs)* :
At leut one unit hai ckMed or will clow.
{NOTE: Headquarters recognizes that BIF information is not easily identifiable in RCR1S; however, due to At fact that BIFs
are a high priority for the Agency, separate reporting for BIFs is being requested here. Please provide these data based on
your knowledge of BIF activity ftes) in your Region.]
TABLES: CLOSURE-TSFs
Medwm^ow
dosed «ad €kdaf Cnbme
dnmrc Plant Approved thraoiji
'
All units have closed or will close.
2. Narrative Discussion
Please provide a narrative discussion of your closure strategy for LDFs
(including storage or treatment units closing with wastes in place), addressing
the following issues:
What is your Region's timetable for approving closure plans at all LDFs?
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Permitting continued)
. Paee 12
• For those LDF facilities where closure plans have not yet been approved,
what is your schedule and strategy for completing closure plans at those LDFs
without approved closure plans as of FY 1994?
POST-CLOSURE STRATEGY
1. Instructions for Completing Tables
Please provide the following information, broken out by overall environmental
priority, using the tables below:
• Number of facilities in the post-closure universe* (using Baseline
Performance Measures select logic for closure universe less facilities
that have been certified clean-closed);
• Number of post-closure permits issued through the end of FY 1993
(using FY 1993 STARS select logic);" and
• Projections for FY 1994.
Post-closure universe means closed and closing universe less certified clean closures
plus storage and treatment units closing with wastes in place.
~ As noted earlier, Regions should provide these data broken out by overall
environmental priority rankings.
TABLE 9: POST-CLOSURE PERMITS
•*»•-*-'
' 'aTUKB
Total
Post-closure univene U the univene of closed and closing LDFs less certified clean closures plus storage and
treatment units closing with wastes in place.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE t 9420.00-09-a
(Permitting continued) , Page 13
2. Narrative Discussion
Please provide a narrative discussion of your post-closure strategy, addressing the
following issues:
• Regulatory authorities used to address these facilities (including post-closure
permits) and progress anticipated over the next 5 years against this universe.
• If medium/low overall environmental priority facilities have been selected for
action in FY 1994, what is your rationale for selecting these facilities (e.g.,
has a state completed action at all of its high priority facilities)?
• If you are planning to commit substantial resources to activities at medium or
low priority facilities, what plans exist for shifting activities back to high
priority facilities?
• For those facilities that will not be issued post-closure permits by FY 1994,
what is your timetable for initiating actions at these facilities?
• . For those facilities where the decision concerning what authority to use to
address post-closure care has not yet been made, what is your timetable for
making these decisions and what criteria are used to determine the action
needed?
D. FY 94 STARS MEASURES
For each measure, provide numerical projections and identify potential facilities (by name and
EPA identification number) to be addressed. Potential facilities lists may include more
facilities than your Region projects for a given measure.
R/C-la Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive final operating permit
determinations during fiscal year (from Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, row 3).
R/C-2a Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closur" Han approval during
fiscal year (from Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9, row 3).
R/C-3a Number of post-closure Part B applications called in (from Table 10,
row 3).
R/C-3c Number of post-closure final determinations (from Table 10,
row 4).
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE t 9420.00-09-a
Page 14
m. CORRECTIVE ACTION
A. PRIORITIZATION
1. Instructions for Completing Tables
Assessments and NCAPS Rankings: Please provide the following information using
the table below:
• Universe of facilities subject to corrective action;
[Note: The FY1994 RIP clarifies that while certain types of facilities may be subject
to corrective action, they are not to be considered pan of the subuniverse of these
facilities requiring RCRA initial assessments. An example of such a facility is a TSD
that has convened to less than 90-day storage and has no other regulated units. By
policy, the RCRA program has deferred these facilities to the Superfund program for
initial assessments.]
• Number of facilities with assessments and NCAPS prioritizations
completed through the end of FY 1993;
• Number of facilities projected to be assessed and prioritized for
NCAPS during FY 1994;
• Number of facilities remaining to be assessed and prioritized for
NCAPS after FY 1994; and
• Assessment and NCAPS prioritization projections for FY 1995 and
FY 1996. (These projections should equal the number of assessments
and prioritizations that remain after FY 1994.)
[Note: There is a corrective action deadline to assess all TSDs by the end ofFY 96
(see FY 1994 RIP). Headquarters recognizes that new facilities may enter the TSD
universe in FY94.FY 95, or FY 96, and will work with the Regions to discuss
whether meeting the FY 96 deadline will be feasible for these facilities.]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE t 9420.00-09-a
(Corrective Action continued)
TABLE 10: ASSESSMENTS AND NCAPS RANKINGS
| Automats
xUateneStttictt*
Cemcdre Action
Number oTFwdBtks
AucMcdflbnkcd
Throajh FY 93
FY 94 Projection
JUaifclaf altar
K:,..:-.,|T-*«.-
•••fci- . < ^*» _ J«^
•fngOmB* JUNU
FY»
f¥*
NCAPS Rioktogj
, ' "; ••;•;. -c^f/v :.:" .-;
TABLE 10A: ASSESSMENTS AND NCAPS RANKINGS COMPLETED
UNDER STATE NON-RCRA AUTHORITIES (OPTIONAL)
Corwctire Action
Asseued/Kuked
Through FYW
FY 94 Pn^tcdou
NCAPS IlMkifl«j
[Note: "State Non-RCRA Authorities" means (I) for non-HSWA authorized States: any clean-
up actions completed at RCRA facilities, which are considered by the Region to be analogous
to the events in the table above, and which were completed using a State clean-up authority;
(2) for HSWA-authorized States: any clean-up actions completed at RCRA facilities, which
are considered by the State to be analogous to the events in the table above, and which were
completed using a clean-up authority other than that for which the Region was HSWA-
authorized.J
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Corrective Action continued) Page 16
2. Narrative Discussion
• Please provide a discussion of whether your Region is completing assessments or
rankings at "other" facilities (e.g., converters) not currently captured in the select
logic for the "subject to corrective action" universe.
• Provide any additional narrative discussion of the assessments and rankings done
under State non-RCRA authorities, as desired. (Optional)
B. FY 1994 PIPELINE MANAGEMENT PROJECTIONS
1. Instructions for Completing Tables
Please provide the following information using the table below:
• Number of high NCAPS facilities entering Stage I;
• Number of high NCAPS facilities entering Stage II;
,- . • Number of high NCAPS facilities entering Stage III;
• Number of stabilization actions to be initiated at high, medium, and low
NCAPS facilities;
• Number of stabilization evaluations to be initiated arhigh, medium, and low
NCAPS facilities; and
• Number of medium/low NCAPS facilities that are high overall environmental
priority in either Stage I, II, or HI.
[Note: For additional guidance regarding completion of these tables, please refer to Section
7. FY 94 STARS Measures. 1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Corrective Action continued)
'Paeel?
TABLE 11: PIPELINE MANAGEMENT PROJECTIONS
Corrective Action
STARS Measures
Stag* I
(R/J-la)
Stage II
(R/J-lb)
Stage III (R/J-3)
Stabilization Actions
Stabilization Evaluations
(R/J-2)
Stage 1, II, III at High
Overall* (RAM)
High Overall
(Medium/Low NCAPS)
Pteaie indicate which stage.
TABLE 11 A: PIPELINE MANAGEMENT PROJECTIONS FOR ACTIONS
UNDER STATE NON-RCRA AUTHORITIES (OPTIONAL)
Corrective Action
STARS Measures
Stage I
(R/J-la)
Stage II
(R/J-lb)
Stage HI (R/J-3)
Stabilization Actions
Stabilization Evaluations
(R/J-2)
Stage I, II, III at High
Overall* (R/J-4)
High Overall
(Medium/Low NCAPS)
Please indicate which stage.
[Note: "State Non-RCRA Authorities" means (l)for non-HSWA authorized States: any clean-
up actions completed at RCRA facilities, which are considered by the Region to be analogous
to the events in the table above, and which were completed using a State clean-up authority;
(2) for HSWA-authorized States: any clean-up actions completed at RCRA facilities, which
are considered by the State to be analogous to the events in the table above, and which were
completed using a clean-up authority other than that for which the Region was HSWA-
authorized.J
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Corrective Action continued) - Page 18
2. FY 94 STARS Measures
For each measure, identify potential facilities (by name and EPA identification
number) to be addressed from the FY 94 Corrective Action STARS universe.
Potential facility lists may include more facilities than your Region projects for a
given measure.
[Note: The FY 94 Corrective Action STARS universe, as well as the universe for the
Baseline Performance Measures far Corrective Action, consists of the types of
facilities listed in the definition of the "Subject to Corrective Action" universe that we
are currently able to obtain from RCRIS. The "Corrective Action STARS Universe" is
currently comprised of: any facility in one or more of the RCRIS calculated TSD
universes (LDF. TSF, and Incineration); any facility which has Underground Injection
(UlC) as a verified Pan A process; and facilities with appropriate operating or
closing track data in the Program Management (PM) module of RCRIS which are not
captured in the calculated TSD universes. The addition of the data from the PM
. module should enable STARS measures counts to include facilities which are defined
as "Subject to Corrective Action " and which were not captured previously,
particularly those facilities with: Formerly Permitted Units, dean Closed/Closure by
Removal Units, Interim Status Units, Illegal Units, Units at which Interim Status is
Terminated, and UICs not previously identified in the calculated TSD universes. (See
"Corrections" in the FY 94 RIP Addendum for additional information).]
R/J-la Number of RCRA TSD facilities entering Stage I: Information Collection and
Study at high NCAPS priority facilities.
[Note: Only facilities moving into Stage I for the first time should be included.
Activities covered under Stage I include RF1 workplan approved (CA150) and RFI
approved (CA200). In addition, facilities must have received at least one stabilization
measures evaluation (CA225) to count far this measure. Facilities should generally
only move into this stage if they are not feasible candidates for stabilization and are
still of high NCAPS priority.]
R/J-lb Number of RCRA TSD facilities entering Stage II: Remedy Development and
Selection at high NCAPS priority facilities.
[Note: Only facUities moving into Stage II for the first time should be included.
Activities covered under Stage II include CMS workplan approved (CA300), CMS
approved (CA350), remedy selection (CA400), or corrective measures design approved
(CA450). FacUities included must have received at least one stabilization measures
evaluation (CA225) to count for this measure. Facilities should generally only move
into this stage if they are not feasible candidates for stabilization and are still of high
NCAPS priority.]
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE f 9420.00-09-a
(Corrective Action continued) 'Page 19
R/J-2 Number of RCRA TSD facilities evaluated for near term actions to reduce
risk and control contaminant releases (i..., stabilization evaluations).
R/J-3 Number of RCRA TSD facilities with actions initiated to reduce and control
the spread of contaminant releases. (Actions counted under this measure are
first time Stage III actions at high NCAPS priority facilities and any near term
risk reduction measures (i.e., stabilization measures underway) at high,
medium, and low NCAPS priority facilities.)
[Note: This measure includes high, medium, and low. NCAPS priority facilities with
stabilization measures implemented (CA600) at one or more areas, and high NCAPS
priority facilities which have moved into Stage III for the first time. Stage III (remedy
implementation) incorporates CMI workplan approved (CA500) and CMI completed
(CA550). To be counted for this measure a stabilization event under CA600 must
have one or more of the new (i.e., SR, EC, GW. or OT) status codes entered.
Facilities should generally only move into Stage III if they are not feasible candidates
for stabilization and are still of high NCAPS priority. Stabilization measures
implemented at an area of a facility while that area is in Stage III should be
considered Stage III remedy implementation activities.]
R/J-4 Number of Stage I, II, or III actions at high overall environmental priority
TSD facilities that are medium or low NCAPS priority.
[Note: Facilities must be entering Stage I, II, or III for the first time. For this
measure, please identify in which stages the activity wUl be taking place, by facility.]
3. Narrative Discussion
Please provide a narrative discussion of your pipeline management strategy,
addressing the following issues:
• Please indicate the number of facilities at which you plan to pursue the
following methods of disinvestment:
- extend schedule of compliance;
— tailored oversight;
— other approach; or
— not able to disinvest.
If other disinvestment approaches are used, please describe them.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Corrective Action continued) " Page 20
-• Please also indicate the number of facilities at which you do not plan to
disinvest, and discuss why you are unable to disinvest at these facilities.
[Note: Regions and States should tailor the level of corrective action
oversight, especially at medium and low NCAPS facilities already in the
corrective action pipeline. This section should show how the Region plans to
disinvest resources going towards medium/low NCAPS facilities (and to invest
more towards high priority facilities).] :
• How will your Region (and the Region's HSWA-authorized States) determine
if non-traditional oversight (e.g., tiered, reduced) is appropriate at a facility
undergoing corrective action? .At what level (e.g., staff, first or second level
supervisor) will this determination be made?
• What types of innovative oversight mechanisms, if any, does your Region
plan to use to oversee corrective action activities?
• When does your Region plan to reevaluate oversight levels for facilities as
they move through the corrective action process (e.g., after the RFI, CMS,
stabilization)?
Optional Questions
• Please provide a discussion of any issues the Region might wish to raise
related to State non-RCRA authority pipeline activities at RCRA facilities.
• Please provide a discussion of any issues or concerns your Region has had in
balancing the many priorities in the corrective action program (e.g., shirting
resources from medium/low NCAPS to high NCAPS priority facilities, or
initiating stabilization activities versus completing RFAs).
STABILIZATION ACTIONS
1. Instructions for Completing Tables
Please provide the following information, broken out by NCAPS priority, using the
tables below:
• Number of stabilization actions to be initiated in FY 1994;
• Instruments used to implement these actions; and
• Types of stabilization actions that are being implemented and average length
of time (in months) to carry out the actions from the initiation of the action
until construction is completed at the facility (CA 600 to CA 650).
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(CaJrective Action continued)
Page 21
TABLE 12: STABILIZATION IMPLEMENTATION
High NC APS
Mcdmn&ow
NCAPS
Total
hutrwwni UMd;
- .
Order
. ..
-:Ch«ler:
Optional
[Note: "State Non-RCRA Authorities" means (I) for non-HSWA authorized States: any clean-up
actions completed at RCRA facilities, which are considered by the Region to be analogous to the
events in the table above, and which were completed using a State clean-up authority; (2) for HSWA-
authorized States: any clean-up actions completed at RCRA facilities, which are considered by the
State to be analogous to the events in the table above, and which were completed using a clean-up
authority other than that for which the Region was HSWA-authorized.J
TABLE 13: STABILIZATION ACTIONS
Action
Implementation Time
(to Months)
Description of Action
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Corrective Action continued) ' Page 22
2. Narrative Discussion
Please provide a narrative discussion of your stabilization activities, addressing the
following issues:
• A description of how your Region is phasing RFIs to collect stabilization-
related data on SWMUs early in the investigation process.
• A description of the types of information a Region/State considers crucial to
determining the need for stabilization.
Optional Questions
• Please provide any discussion of issues associated with non-RCRA State
stabilization actions.
• Please provide a discussion of your Region's plans to input the new status
codes for CA600, Stabilization Implemented/Underway in RCRIS. The codes
are:
SR: Source removal
EC: Exposure control
GW: Ground-water extraction and treatment
OT: Other activity
The CMB approved the addition of these status codes, with the caveat that
Regions would not be required to enter the new status codes for events
currently in the system (historical data). Please include any plans your Region
has to enter historical CA600 status codes in this discussion - noting that this
is encouraged, but not required.
[Note: More than one of these status codes may be entered into RCRIS to show
multiple stabilization actions at the same area or same facility by entering multiple
occurrences ofCA600, each with a different status code, but linked to the same area
or facility.] ^
D. EPA/STATE WORKSHARING (NARRATIVE DISCUSSION)
Please provide a narrative explanation of your Region's strategy for transitioning oversight
responsibilities and workload for facilities in the pipeline, in States that have recently been
HSWA-authorized, or are expected to be authorized in FY 94. For States authorized for
corrective action prior to FY 93, please identify how many facilities (if any) continue to be
EPA-lead for implementing corrective action. For these facilities, please describe your
Region's transition plans and/or reasons why the Region intends to continue its lead
implementation/oversight role.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
23
IV. ENFORCEMENT
A. ENFORCEMENT RESOURCE ALLOCATION
1. Program Budget Elements
OWPE will provide the appropriate pieces of the FY 1994 Regional Enforcement budget and
the FY 1994 §3011 State Grant funds indicating the funds allotted to each Region.
i
In Tables 14 and 15, Headquarters is seeking the projected Regional and State allocation of
resources for the three enforcement program elements identified below. Some of the activities (line
items in the current RCRA Enforcement Budget) included in each major element are identified below;
however, the list of activities is not exclusive. Other activities can fall under these three enforcement
elements that are not presently identified in the RCRA Enforcement budget Include these additional
activities under the appropriate budget element when making your resource determinations.
The three major elements with some of the associated activities are:
• Compliance Monitoring:
- Current Universe Requirements
- Newly Regulated Universes
— Targeted Enforcement Inspections
— Exports/Imports
- Geographic Initiatives
- State Oversight
• Enforcement:
— Current Universe Requirements:
Administrative Actions for Compliance
Technical Assistance for Judicial Cases
Criminal Actions
— i'^ewly Regulated Universe
- Targeted Enforcement (Administrative orders/Civil/Criminal)
— Geographic Initiatives
• Elements Outside the Core Program ("Other") include:
- State Support and Outreach
— Pollution Prevention
— Mexican Border
•••* FOIA-EXEMPT ••**
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE t 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued)
Page 24
REGION
It is anticipated that the national RCRA Enforcement budget will not significantly increase or
decrease in FY 1994. Based on that assumption, we are asking the Region to project its
budget for the three identified enforcement program elements.
TABLE 14: PROJECTED REGIONAL ENFORCEMENT BUDGET
' Cof&piianceMoiritoriog ;
'..•'••«...".-• •••;••;•'"• ;:•'..:•.-% .': '•:.' ' ''
p-ftfOfCffBFMOt "' * "
Elements Outside of the Core
A „.__.-_ -/wf>i.V«ip*\ '''"'''• • •
ttgUffi \ VXMT J . : V
'•'FTEs '••'"'
EMramural $
Narrative Discussion
If the Region projects a significant (greater than 20 percent increase or decrease) funding
change from FY 1993, please describe this change. What program element(s) is projected to
receive the significant increase hi funding and which element(s) had the corresponding
decrease? Describe in terms of the environmental benefit the Region expects to receive
because of this funding shift.
•**• FOIA- EXEMPT •*••
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE * 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued)
25
STATES
It is anticipated the FY 1994 §3011 State Grants will not significantly increase or decrease for
FY 1994. We are asking the Region to project the budget allocation to the three identified
enforcement program elements based only on the federal grant dollars. Do not include
matching State funds or other State monies.
TABLE 15: PROJECTED STATE ENFORCEMENT BUDGET
Compliance Monitoring
EflfbfCOfnent •.
••:-.. ...
Elements Outside of fee Gate
Program COdwr^ ;
'\. /"Stately:
•'::":FTEs' :'":
••::?• §3011 ;"-.A
='. Grant* :::
Narrative Discussion
If the State projects a significant (greater than 20 percent increase or decrease) funding change
from FY '93, please describe this change. What program element(s) is projected to receive
the significant increase in funding and which element(s) had the corresponding decrease?
Describe in terms of the environmental benefit the Region expects to receive because of this
funding shift.
•*•• FOIA-EXEMPT ••••
-------
OSHER DIRECTIVE / 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued)
Page 26
B. REGION AND STATE COMPLIANCE MONITORING Acrr.viiES
1. Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities
REGION
• For the Region, indicate the number of facilities where compliance monitoring
activities are projected to occur in the fiscal year. Compliance monitoring activities
are defined as ALL activities under RCRIS inspection values, not just CEIs, CMEs,
and O&Ms.
• Federal facilities are those identified under the Solid Waste Disposal Act at §3007 (c),
and as defined under the Federal Facility Compliance Act. Facilities projected to be
inspected under the FFCA should be included in the table below.
• State and local facilities are those identified under the Solid Waste Disposal Act at
§3007 (d).
• Commercial facilities are those identified under the Solid Waste Disposal Act at §3007
The Other category is for facilities not listed under federal, state/local or commercial.
This category would include facilities that are new and have never been inspected, not
inspected in FY 1993, etc.
To avoid double counting of facilities, use the following hierarchy to count
compliance monitoring activities once, e.g., an inspection planned for an LDF with an
incinerator, credit one activity to the Incinerator column.
1. Incinerators
2. Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
3. LDFs
4. TSFs
TABLE 16: TSDFs PROJECTED TO UNDERGO
COMPLIANCE MONITORING, BY REGION
Federal
State/Local
Commercial
Other
incinerators :
Boiler and
Industrial
Furnaces
LDF
.. • TSF - '
(Ncm-Combustkm)
•*•• FOIA- EXEMPT ••••
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued)
.Page 27
STATES
For each State, indicate the number of facilities where compliance monitoring
activities are projected to occur in the fiscal year. Compliance monitoring activities
are defined as ALL activities under RCRIS inspection values, not just CEIs, CMEs,
and O&Ms.
Federal facilities are those identified under the Solid Waste Disposal Act at §3007 (c),
and as defined under the Federal Facility Compliance Act. Facilities projected to be
inspected under the FFCA should be included in the table below.
State and local facilities are those identified under the Solid Waste Disposal Act at
§3007 (d).
Commercial facilities are those identified under the Solid Waste Disposal Act at §3007
(e).
The Other category is for facilities not listed under federal, state/local or commercial.
This category would include facilities that are new and have never been inspected, not
inspected in FY 1993, etc.
To avoid double counting of facilities, use the following hierarchy to count
compliance monitoring activities once, e.g., an inspection planned for an LDF with an
incinerator, credit one activity to the Incinerator column.
1. Incinerators
2. Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
3. LDFs
4. TSFs
TABLE 17: TSDFs PROJECTED TO UNDERGO COMPLIANCE
MONITORING, BY STATE
Federal •••^•'•;v
State/Local : :
Commercial
Other
1 . StiSer *ad •:
Industrial "•
Furnaces
•:•'.. :.:II)F ^
<-W
**** FOIA-EXEMPT ••••
-------
OSW£R DIRECTIVE t 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued)
Page 28
2. Generators and Transporters
REGION AND STATES
• For the Region and States (in aggregate), indicate the number of
generators/transporters where compliance monitoring activities are projected to occur
in the fiscal year. Compliance monitoring activities are defined as ALL activities
under RCRIS inspection values, not just CEIs, CMEs, and O&Ms.
• Since this is the first year Headquarters is asking for a breakout of LQGs, SQGs and
Transponers, the Region and States may not be able to provide this level of detail for
FY 1994. Therefore, when completing this section, if the Region or State is only
providing a combined total of LQGs, SQGs and Transporters, please indicate this by
placing an asterisk (*) next to the number in the "LQGs never inspected" box.
However, in future BYPs Headquarters will expect this level of detailed information.
• LOGs never inspected are those that have been classified as LQGs in RCRIS but no
CEI has ever been conducted at that location.
• Qther LOGs are those that have received a CEI but the Region or State has
determined an additional CEI is warranted.
• SOGs are identified in RCRIS and the Region or State has determined a CEI is
warranted.
• Non-Notifiers are those owners/operators whose operations might be required to be
regulated under the RCRA program but who have never notified.
TABLE 18: GENERATORS AND TRANSPORTERS PROJECTED TO
UNDERGO COMPLIANCE MONITORING
•••••••BBBBM
Regions v^--.:.v^
'Stalest?^ •>.
(Aggregate) •
LQGs never
inspected -<
-Oft* \
LQGs
SQGs
Dttistiiig
' -4
'•CT^raosyportecs
t^*r%^ - >•
, Non-
Notifiers
•*** FOIA-EXEMPT ••••
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) , Page 29
2. Generators and Transporters, continued
Narrative Discussion
The Generator universe tends to shift between LQG and SQG depending upon economic
conditions. Explain if this universe shift is commonplace to your Region and State.
•••• FOIA-EXEMPT ••••
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) Page 30
w»
3. State Oversight Activities
REGION
• For each State in your Region, describe your plan for State oversight, including the
number of inspections. Please use the format as shown. Copy this page as many
times as necessary.
State and Number of Oversight Inspections:
Plan Description:
•••• POIA-EXEMPT •***
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) "Page 31
C. ENFORCEMENT ACTION ACTIVITIES
Describe the Region's Case Screening Process. What criteria determine if a case is
handled as an administrative action, civil judicial action, or criminal aaion?
•••• FOIA-EXEMPT *•**
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) - Page 32
C. ENFORCEMENT ACTION ACTIVITIES, continued
• Describe the Region's and each State's participation in multimedia, RCRA program,
Region* and State-specific initiatives, indicating the name and, where applicable, the
objective of the initiative.
•••• FOIA-EXEMPT ••••
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE * 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) , Page 33
ENFORCEMENT ACTION ACTIVITIES, continued
• For RCRA enforcement actions, do the Region and State(s) plan on utilizing pollution
prevention projects as a supplemental environmental project in settlements? YES or
NO. Region States
• If State(s) are not using SEPs in RCRA enforcement settlements, please explain.
Does the State(s) have alternative means of obtaining pollution prevention projects?
**•* FOIA-EXEMPT •***
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE f 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) , Page 34
C. ENFORCEMENT ACTION AcnvrnES, continued
--• For multi-media enforcement actions, do the Region and States plan on utilizing
pollution prevention projects as a supplemental environmental project in settlements?
YES or NO. Region States
• If State(s) are not using SEPs in multi-media settlements, please explain. Does the
State(s) have alternative means of obtaining multi-media pollution prevention projects
by other means?
•••• FOIA-EXEMPT •*••
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE t 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued)
Paee 35
D. RETURNING FACILITIES To COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES
OWPE will provide the Region with a RCRIS pull of Significant Non-Compliers (SNCs),
identified as LDFs with Class I violations (ground water monitoring, financial responsibility,
closure/post-closure care) and that have been out of compliance for three years or more. Please
indicate your response on the RCRIS pull by placing the appropriate response next to each facility.
TABLE 19: SNC CLASSIFICATION
1. Classify SNCs in the following categories:
'•' •' •"•';' -'• SNCType • -•••• ' -':
Recently returned to full physical compliance
(within the past fiscal year)
In compliance with a Final Enforcement
Order
Not in compliance with a Final Enforcement
Order
Currently in litigation
Transferred to Superfund or State Superfund
program
Unaddressed (no litigation, no CAFO or
FFCA in place)
Other (describe)
Number
*•** FOIA- EXEMPT ****
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE f 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) Page 36
D. RETURNING FACILITIES To COMPLIANCE ACTIVITIES, continued
2. Describe what activities the Region and States will conduct in FY 1994 to bring Significant
Non-Compliers (other than LDFs) back into compliance. Significant Non-Compliers are
currently defined as any High Priority Violator (HPV) identified in FY 1991 and later that
was a Generator, Transponer, or TSDF plus SNCs remaining under previous 1989 and 1990
definitions. Up to FY 1989, a SNC was any LDF with Class I violations in Groundwater,
Financial Responsibility, or Closure/Post-Closure. In FY 1990, a SNC was defined as any
TSDF that was identified as an HPV plus remaining SNCs from previous years.
•••• FOIA-EXEMPT •*•*
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) '* Page 37
E. RIP-FLEr
REG1ON
• Describe disinvestments from statutorilv mandated activities, describe specifically
where those resources are to be reinvested, and explain why this reinvestment
provides greater environmental benefit. Make as many copies of this page as
necessary.
— Activity disinvested:
Divestment (number of inspections and FTEs):
Use of reinvested resources:
Environmental benefit gained:
**** FOIA - EXEMPT **•*
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) - Page 38
E. RIP-FLEX*, continued
•• Describe investments in activities outside of the core compliance monitoring and
enforcement program.
— Activity invested:
Investment (in FTEs and resources):
Describe die activity:
•••• FOIA- EXEMPT »***
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) * Page 39
E. REP-FLEX, continued
STATES (by individual State)
• Describe disinvestments from statutorilv mandated activities, describe specifically
where those resources are to be reinvested, and explain why this reinvestment
provides greater environmental benefit. Make as many copies of this page as
necessary.
STATE:
— Activity disinvested:
Divestment (number of inspections and FTEs):
Use of reinvested resources:
Env>"'mental benefit gained:
•••• FOIA-EXEMPT ••••
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) . Page 40
E. RIP-FLEX*, continued
• Describe investments in activities outside of the core compliance monitoring and
enforcement program.
- Activity invested:
Investment (in FTEs and resources):
Description of activity:
•••• FOIA-EXEMPT ••••
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
(Enforcement continued) '" Page 41
F. OTHER QUESTIONS
Please complete each question on a separate sheet of paper. Use as many sheets as you need.
1. Referring to the FY 1993 BYP, Permit Enforcement Section, Headquarters is seeking an
update to two questions.
• Has there been any improvement in coordination between enforcement and permitting
staff for permit inspections and permit development? Please describe.
Have any efforts been made to address the barriers/issues that adversely affect
enforcement of permits? Please describe.
2. Environmental equity is an issue that will affect RCRA compliance monitoring and
enforcement in the coming years. Please provide a narrative discussion of the environmental
equity projects the Region is undertaking currently, if any. Will any of these projects be
completed by FY 1994?
3. Beginning in FY 1994, Headquaners will be reviewing and updating the current Enforcement
Response Policy (ERP). Please identify for us the areas of concern in the present policy and
areas where we have no policy to assist the Region in applying the ERP. Suggestions on how
we should apply the ERP, definition changes (e.g., HPV), or other suggestions, are
welcomed: (Optional)
•••• FOIA - EXEMPT ••••
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
DEFINITIONS FOR
MAJOR RCRA UNIVERSES
AND
SELECTED KEY RCRA TERMS
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
DEFINITIONS FOR RCRA PROGRAM UNIVER8S8 AND KEY RCRA TERMS
The definitions for key universe and status terms provided
on the following pages reflect the results of the Data Quality
Focus Team's efforts to develop definitions for terms widely used
to report on/ and support, the RCRA program. They are intended
to promote a common understanding of key RCRA terms in order to
facilitate consistent tracking in the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Information System (RCRIS).
UNIVERSES:
The following definitions reflect a change in the way
universes have been understood and applied. They are based on
the needs of the different RCRA program areas. For example,
instead of defining a single TSD universe that is used in all
program areas, we are defining separate universes tailored to the
requirements of permitting, corrective action, and enforcement.
It is important to emphasize that the following definitions
are intended to facilitate tracking of data. They are not
intended to be legally enforceable or to override any definitions
that may be set forth in the regulations. They may also change -
over time as the RCRA program expands and evolves.
List of universe terns
Permit Universe
Inspectable Universe
Universe of Facilities Subject to Corrective Action
Universe of Facilities Undergoing Corrective Action
Definitions of universe terms
Permit universe - Facilities with treatment, storage, and
disposal units that are or were formerly subject to permit,
closure, or post-closure requirements.
The permit universe includes facilities with:
permitted units
formerly permitted units
- clean closed units
interim status units
illegal units
units at which interim status is terminated (including
LOIS units).
units undergoing post-closure care
units granted authority to operate under interim status
compliance letters
units formerly subject to permit requirements
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
and:
proposed new facilities
converters
facilities that have been referred to CERCLA
RD&D facilities
facilities with emergency permits.
The permit universe does not include:
permit-by-rule facilities
protective filers.
Xnspectable Universe - All RCRA regulated facilities except
clean closed facilities and conditionally exempt generators.
Note: Although the RIP does not mandate inspections of SQGs,
Regions and States can do them. SQG inspections are specified in
some Region/State grant agreements. Conditionally exempt
generators are occasionally inspected, but normally outside the
scope of grant agreements.
Universe of Facilities Subject to Corrective Action - consists of
facilities with:
permitted units
formerly permitted units
clean closed units
interim status units
illegal units
units at which interim status is terminated (including
LOIS units)
permit-by-rule facilities (including publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs) that receive hazardous waste by
truck, rail, or dedicated pipe, and Class I underground
injection control (UIC) facilities that inject
hazardous waste)
units formerly subject to permit requirements
units undergoing post-closure care,
units ^ranted authority to operate under interim status
compliance letters
and:
converters
facilities that have been referred to CERCLA.
It is important to note that facilities are subject to
corrective action primarily due to their regulatory status as
hazardous waste management facilities. Corrective action can be
imposed at facilities through a RCRA permit, through a § 3008(h)
enforcement order at interim status facilities, and through a
S 7003 enforcement order at any facility handling solid or
hazardous waste that may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to human health and the environment.
-------
OSWER.DIRECTIVE f 9420.00-09-a
The universe presented here, however, contains only the
first two categories: permitted and interim status facilities
(as described above). Including facilities which can be reached
only through a S 7003 enforcement order would mean including the
entire universe of handlers (including transporters and
generator-only facilities). While knowing that these facilities
are potentially subject to corrective action is important,
including them in the "subject to corrective action universe"
would overstate the universe of facilities the Regions and States
can expect will need short-term evaluations for corrective
action. If any contamination problems at these facilities are
addressed through S 7003 orders, they will be incorporated in the
"Universe of Facilities Undergoing RCRA Corrective Action."
Note: This universe will provide the broad base for
answering questions about what is the universe of facilities
potentially subject to corrective action. Not all facilities
within this universe may justify or require corrective action.
Case-specific conditions will be considered in determining the
appropriate action. Therefore, different subcategories within
this universe may be identified to answer questions pertaining to
the progress made at a portion of this universe. In addition,
much' of this universe is not currently identifiable within RCRIS,
even though the facilities themselves may be in the database.
Discussions with Regional and State personnel will need to occur
to find out how to identify and code these facilities for future
access.
A subset of the "Subject to Corrective Action Universe" is
currently being used for the FY 94 Corrective Action STARS and
the Baseline Performance Measures for Corrective Action,
consisting of the types of facilities that we are currently able
to obtain from RCRIS. The "Corrective Action STARS Universe" is
currently comprised of: any facility in one or more of the RCRIS
calculated TSD universes (Land Disposal, Incineration, and
Storage/Treatment); any facility which has Underground Injection
(UIC) as a verified Part A process; and facilities with certain
codes in the RCRIS Program Management (PM) Module which are not
captured in the calculated universes (codes are PM021, PM022,
PM031, PM032). The addition of codes from the PM module should
enable STARS measures counts to include facilities which are
defined as "Subject to Corrective Action" and which we were not
able to capture previously, particularly those facilities with:
Formerly Permitted Units, Clean Closed/Closure by Removal Units,
Interim Status Units, Illegal Units, Units at which Interim
Status is Terminated, and UICs not previously identified in the
calculated TSD universes.
-------
OSWER. DIRECTIVE * 9420.00-09-a
Universe of Facilities Undergoing RCRA Corrective Action -
consists of facilities where a Federal authorized State or EPA
Region has determined a need for corrective action, including
investigations, and which have begun the corrective action
process. To be included in this universe, the facility must have
an RFI imposed or some subsequent corrective action activity, not
to include facilities that have had "Corrective Action Process
Terminated (CA999)" or for which "Referred to a non-RCRA
Authority (CA210)" events have been entered for the entire
facility. This universe includes only those RCRA facilities
which are undergoing corrective action under a Federal RCRA
permit or enforcement authority, or under a State authority in a
HSWA authorized State.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
LIST OF SELECTED KEY RCRA TERMS:
We are providing current definitions for the following terms
that describe types and status of handlers (many of these terms
are referenced in the universe definitions).
Again, it is important to emphasize that the following
definitions are intended to facilitate tracking of data. They
are not intended to be legally enforceable or to override any
definitions that may be set forth in the regulations. They may
also change over time as the RCRA program expands and evolves.
List of terms
Class I violation
Class II violation
Clean closed facility
Clean closed unit
Converter facility
Converter unit
Facilities with emergency permits
Formerly permitted unit (group) or facility
High Priority Violator
Illegal unit (group) or facility
Interim status unit (group)
Interim status facility
Interim status terminated unit (group) or facility
LOIS unit (group) or facility
Medium Priority Violator
Non-notifier unit (group) or facility
Permitted unit (group) or facility
Permitted/Not constructed
Permit-by-rule facility
Permit-by-rule unit
Proposed new facility
RD&D facilities
Should have had interim status unit (group) or facility
Significant Non-compliant
Unit formerly subject to permit requirements
Definitions of terns
Class I Violation - Deviations from regulations, or provisions
of compliance orders, consent agreements, or permit conditions
which could result in a failure to:
assure that a hazardous waste is destined for and
delivered to authorized TSDs, or
prevent releases of hazardous wastes or constituents,
both during active and any applicable post-closure
periods, or
-------
OSWER. DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
assure early detection of such releases, or
perform emergency clean-up operation or other
corrective action for such releases.
Class II Violation - Any violation of a RCRA requirement that
does not meet the criteria of a Class I violation.
clean closed facility - a facility for which the owner or
operator has certified closure by removal for all regulated
treatment, storage, and disposal units, and that certification
has been verified by the regulating Agency as acceptable. A
facility with clean closed regulated units may still have
corrective action obligations.
clean closed unit - a unit (group) for which the owner or
operator has certified closure by removal and that certification
has been verified by the regulating Agency as acceptable.
converter unit - a unit that has converted to less than 90 day
storage.
converter facility - a facility at which all units have converted
to less than 90 day storage.
facilities with emergency permits - facilities issued a permit
under the authority of section 270.61.
formerly permitted unit (group) or facility - a unit (group) or
facility that formerly had a permit, which is no longer in
effect.
High Priority violator (HPV) - A facility which meets one or
more of the following criteria:
the facility has caused actual exposure or substantial
likelihood of exposure to hazardous waste or hazardous
waste constituents;
the facility is a chronic or recalcitrant violator
(this may include some handlers who are regularly found
to have many Class I or Class II violations);
the facility deviates from terms of a permit, order, or
decree by not meeting the requirements in a timely
manner and/or by failing to perform work as required by
terms of permits, orders, or decrees;
the facility substantially deviates from RCRA statutory
or regulatory requirements.
-------
OSWER'DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
illegal unit (group) or facility - a treatment, storage, or
disposal unit (group) or facility that operated but did not
obtain interim status or an operating permit. Includes a
unit(group) or facility that did not qualify for interim status
either because it was not in existence during the period of
eligibility, or because it failed to comply with the requirements
of section 270.70.
interim status unit (group) - a unit (group) that either was in
existence at a facility at the time the facility gained interim
status or was later added under the procedures of section
270.72(a) and for which interim status is not terminated.
interim status facility - a facility that meets the requirements
of section 270.70 to qualify for interim status, (that is, a
facility in existence on the effective date of statutory or
regulatory amendments under the Act that render the facility
subject to the requirement to have a RCRA permit and complies
with the notification requirements of section 3010 of RCRA) and
for which interim status is not terminated.
interim status terminated unit (group) or facility - a unit
(group) or facility that obtained interim status but no longer
has interim status due to:
final administrative disposition of a permit
application (270.73(a));
failure to furnish a Part B application on time or to
furnish in full the information on the Part B
(270.10(e)); or
failure to furnish a timely Part B or certification of
compliance with groundwater or financial responsibility
requirements as required by the LOIS provisions of
sections 270.73(c), (d), (e), (f) or (g).
LOZ8 unit (group) or facility - a unit (group) or facility that
obtained interim status but no longer has interim status due to
failure to furnish a timely Part B or certification of compliance
with groundwater or financial responsibility requirements as
required by the provisions of sections 270.73(c), (d) , (e), (f)
or (g).
Medium Priority Violator (MPV) - A handler which meets one or
more of the following criteria:
the facility has Class I violations but is not
classifiable as a High Priority Violator (criteria
listed above), or
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
the facility may have only class II violations, but
those violations warrant an administrative order.
non-notifier unit (group) or facility - a unit (group) or
facility in existence on the effective date of statutory or
regulatory changes that first subjected the unit (group) or
facility to RCRA requirements but failed to file the necessary
notification to obtain interim status (in compliance with
requirements of section 3010(a) of RCRA and Part A submission
requirements of 270.10).
permitted unit (group) or facility - a unit (group) or facility
for which a permit (including base program and any necessary HSWA
provisions) is issued and has not been terminated.
permitted/not constructed - a unit (group) or facility for which
an operating permit is issued at which construction is not
complete.
permit-by-rule unit - a treatment, storage, or disposal unit that
is deemed to have a RCRA permit because it meets the requirements
of section 270.60.
permit-by-rule facility - a treatment, storage, or disposal
facility that is deemed to have a RCRA permit because all of its
regulated units meet the requirements of section 270.60.
proposed new facility - an unconstructed, unpermitted facility
that is currently not regulated for which a Part B permit
application has been submitted.
RO&D facilities - facilities issued a permit under the authority
of section 270.65.
sbould have had interim status unit (group) or facility - a unit
(group) or facility that was eligible to qualify for interim
status but did not meet the necessary requirements (the
notification requirements' of section 3010 (a) of RCRA and Part A
submissxw:* requirements of section 270.10), yet continued to
treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste illegally.
Significant Non-compliance (8NC) - This term has been defined in
many RIPs and has changed several times. Definitions for
previous periods, since changed, are still correct for those
previous periods. That is, if a generator-only handler had a
violation in FY 1987 which would be an HPV by the current
definition, the handler is not considered to have been a
Significant Non-complier for FY 1987.
The RIP definitions of SNC follow:
8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
FY 1987: LDFs with Class 1 GW, Closure/Post-Closure Plan
or Financial
Responsibility violations.
FY 1988: Sane as in FY 1987 plus any TSD with CA compliance
schedule violation.
FY 1989 - FY 1990: Any TSDs with high priority violations.
FY 1991 - FY 1993: Any type of facility or handler with
HPVs.
unit formerly subject to permit requirements - a unit that
formerly conducted treatment, storage, or disposal activities
subject to permit requirements but no longer conducts those
activities.
-------
OSWEK. UlKfiCTiVt; f 9420.00-09-a
PROPOSALS
The Data Quality Focus Team had developed several proposals
to clarify information and/or tracking processes already in
RCRIS, and included these in the October 1992 package of proposed
definitions. Some of these have subsequently been forwarded to
the Permit Module Redesign Workgroup, others were submitted to
the RCRIS Configuration Management Process and are being
addressed in the Fall 1993 release of the RCRIS software.
Forwarded to the Permit Module Redesign Workgroup;
Operating activity track
Closure activity track
Post-closure activity track
Status values for "Part A Submitted" and "Part A
Revised"
Guidance on tracking "Facility Intent"
Addressed via RCRIS Configuration Management;
Status values for "Final Permit Determination" (for
both operating and post-closure permits)
No further corrective action at this time
Corrective action process is terminated
Proposals to rename "RFI Approved" to "RFI Completed"
and to make "RFI Report Received" an implementer-only
level event
Stabilization measures evaluation and associated status
values
10
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
CORRECTIONS
TO
FY 1994 RCRA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
APPENDIX A: STARS MEASURES
(Corrective Action Section)
[Note: Please substitute these pages for those
currently in the RIP.]
-------
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; Track progress of facilities through two of the three corrective action pipeline
stages.
MEASURE; STAGE I: Information Collection and Study at
High NCAPS Priority Facilities.
MEASURE: STAGE II: Remedy Development and Selection at
High NCAPS Priority Facilities.
STARS CODE: R/J-la
TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/94
STARS CODE: R/J-lb
TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/94
ACTIVITY; Track progress toward completing key activities in the corrective action
program.
MEASURE: Number of TSDFs evaluated for near term actions
to reduce risk and control containment releases
(i.e., stabilization evaluations).
STARS CODE: R/J-2
TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/94
O
3
9
n
S
M
O
O
U>
01
13
-------
MEASURE: Number of TSDFs with actions initiated to reduce
and control the spread of containment releases.
(Actions are Stage III at High NCAPS priority
facilities and ne-r term risk reduction (i.e.,
stabilization me? jures underway) at H/M/L
NCAPS facilities).
STARS CODE: R/J-3
TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/94
MEASURE; Number of Stage I, II, or III actions at
High Overall Environmental Priority TSDs that
are a Medium or Low NCAPS priority.
STARS CODE: R/J-4
TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/94
O
to
O
H
M
Ik
vo
(O
o
o
o
I
o
\o
I
0>
-------
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 generally only move into this stage if they are not feasible
candidates for stabilization and are still of high corrective action (NCAPS) priority.
R/J-lb
Stage II: Remedy Development and Selection at NCAPS high priority facilities. Consider
the following activities to be part of this Stage of the corrective action process: CMS
Workplan Approved (CA300) , CMS Approved (CA350) , Remedy Selected (CA400) , Corrective o
Measures Design Approved (CA450) . Count facilities which have moved into this stage of 3
process for the first time. The facility must also have received at least one H
stabilization measures evaluation (CA225) to count for this measure. Facilities should
generally only move into this stage if they are not feasible candidates for stabilization S
and are still of high corrective action (NCAPS) priority. g
R/J-2 3
-------
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 generally only move into Stage III if they are not feasible candidates for
stabilization and are still of high corrective action (NCAPS) priority. Stabilization
measures implemented at an area (as defined in RCRIS) of a facility while that area is in
Stage III, should be considered Stage III remedy implementation activities.
R/J-4
This measure will count the completion of Stage I, II, and III activities at medium
and low corrective action (NCAPS) priority facilities which are also a high overall
environmental priority. The Stage I, II, and III activities will be counted as specified
in R/J-la, R/J-lb and R/J-3. A facility with activities in more than one Stage in a
single quarter will be counted as completing activity in the furthest along Stage. These
facilities will then be checked against facilities listed as high overall environmental
priority according to the EPR event in the Program Management module of RCRIS to identify
the subset of facilities to be counted for this measure.
Ik
<0
KJ
O
O
O
15
-------
OSWER'DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
FY 1994 Corr«ctiv« Action STARS:
Clarification of Changes from FY 1993 Logic
Change in dates
Change hard-coded FY 1993 dates to FY 1994 dates.
Chance in nomenclature
FY 1993 All measures looked at "the universe of facilities
subject to Corrective Action."
FY 3994 All measures should be referred to as looking at
"facilities in the Corrective Action STARS universe."
Note:
The FY'94 Corrective Action STARS universe, as well as the
•universe for the Baseline Performance Measures for
Corrective Action, consists of the types of facilities
listed in the definition of the "Subject to Corrective
Action" universe that we are currently able to obtain from
RCRIS. The "Corrective Action STARS Universe" is currently
comprised of: any facility in one or more of the RCRIS
calculated TSD universes (Land Disposal, Incineration, and
Storage/Treatment); any facility which has Underground
Injection (UIC) as a verified Part A process; and facilities
with appropriate operating or closing track data in the
Program Management (PM) Module of RCRIS which are not
captured in the calculated TSD universes (appropriate values
in the PM module are: PM021, PM022, PM031, and PM032). The
addition of the data from the PM Module should enable STARS
measures counts to include facilities which are defined as
"Subject to Corrective Action" and which we were not able tr
capture previously, particularly those facilities with:
Formerly Permitted Units, Clean Closed/Closure by. Removal
Units, Interim Status Units, Illegal Units, Units at which
Interim Status is Terminated, and UICs not previously
identified in the calculated TSD universes.
Change in logic used to identify the CA STARS universe
FY 1993 The universe of facilities subject to CA comprised the
following facilities:
Any facility in one or more of the calculated TSD
universes:
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
HULANDDISP « X OR HUINCIN * X OR HUSTORTRT - X
or any facility that has underground injection as a
verified Part A process:
HWA_SRC - E OR S AND
HPROC - D79 AND HPROC_STATUS « B OR R
FY 1994 The Corrective Action STARS universe comprises the
following facilities:
Any facility in one or more of the calculated TSD
universes:
HULANDDISP - X OR HUINCIN - X OR HUSTORTRT - X
or any facility with one or more land disposal unit
groups that is permitted or for which the facility is
seeking a permit:
COM_TYPE - MYO AND COM_MOD_TRK - PM021
or any facility with one or more land disposal unit
groups that is closed or closing:
COMJTYPE « MYO AND COM_MOD_TRK « PM022
or any facility with one or more incineration unit
groups that is permitted or for which the facility is
seeking a permit:
COM_TYPE « MYO AND COM_MOD__TRK * PM031
or any facility with one or more incineration unit
groups that is closed or closing:
COM_TYPE « MYO AND COM_MOD_TRK - PM032
or any facility that has underground injection as a
verified Part A process:
HWA_SRC « E OR S AND
HPROC - D79 AND HPROC STATUS - B OR R
Chancre in logic used to determine facility-level NCAPS ranking
FY 1993 Multiple rankings were looked at hierarchically
FY 1994 Given that multiple NCAPS rankings may be recorded for
a facility over time, and given that some Regions and
States have chosen to perform separate NCAPS rankings
for separate areas at some facilities, it is necessary
to determine a facility-level NCAPS ranking. In cases
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
where data on multiple rankings exist, the facility-
level ranking is determined by applying whichever of
the following rules is appropriate to the way in which
NCAPS rankings have been recorded in RCRIS.
(1) When records of multiple rankings exist at the
facility level as "legitimate orphans" (i.e., not
linked to areas), the NCAPS ranking is:
EV_STATUS value accompanying
EV_CODE - CA075 with the latest EV_ACTUAL
(2) When records of multiple rankings exist and have
been linked to areas, the NCAPS ranking is determined
by first identifying the status code (EV_STATUS) with
the latest date (EV__ACTUAL) for each area (CA_AREA) .
The NCAPS ranking for the facility is:
HI, if one or more areas have EV_STATUS « HI as
the latest ranking; or "~
ME, if no areas have EV_STATUS «= HI as the latest
ranking, but one or more areas have EV_STATUS
* ME as the latest ranking; or
LO, if no areas have EV_STATUS = HI or ME as the
latest ranking, but one or more areas have
EV_STATUS = LO as the latest ranking.
(3) When records of multiple rankings exist and one or
more have been linked to areas and one or more have not
been linked to areas, the NCAPS ranking is determined
by treating the unlinked records as being for another
"area," and then following the logic under (2).
Change in logic used when looking at instruments
FY 1993 CI_INST * " "
FY 1994 CI_INST - A, C, D, J, M, N, O, P, OR U
Change in logic used in evaluating CA600 status codes for R/J-3
FY 1993 The portion of the logic that evaluates stabilization
measures implemented uses current status codes:
EV_CODE - CA600 AND
EV STATUS = FA OR FI OR " "
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
FY 1994 The portion of the logic that evaluates stabilization
measures implemented should be modified to use the new
status codes:
EV_CODE - CA600 AND
EV_STATUS - SR, EC, GW, OR OT
• • •
Note: Multiple stabilization measures implemented
during FY 1994 (i.e., multiple CASOOs on the same day
but with different status codes, or with the same
status code but with different dates) will be counted
separately.
Change in logic used in selecting facilities for potential
counting for R/J-4
FY 1993 Because specific overall environmental priority
rankings did not pass to Oversight (that is, specific
. rankings were compressed into a flag that indicated
only that ranking had been done), FY 93 STARS software
could not include the screen that required looking only
at facilities ranked "High" overall.
FY 1994 An additional check should be added to the logic to do
the following before checking for facilities ranked
"Medium" or "Low" for NCAPS:
the facility has been designated as high overall
environmental priority (EPR):
COMJTYPE - EPR AND
COM_MOD_TRK - PM101
if a facility has multiple records on EPR
rankings, ranking dates (COM_EFF_DT) must be
checked to ensure that the latest ranking
(COM MOD TRK) is PM101.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
FY 1994
RIP RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY
-------
OSWER' DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
ffl
g
CD <
£J T m
c
c
o
0,
CD
re
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
COMMENT
RESPONSE
GENERAL
There was concern expressed about limiting the flexibility for States to address
priorities that may be different from national priorities.
The high number of priorities prompted a request for setting priorities among the
activities or offering tools for making decisions about which high priority activities to
pursue.
The Strategic Management Framework allows
flexibility for Regions and States to set I
environmental priorities and focus activities
to meet their high priority needs. The FY 94
RIP provides increased Regional and State
flexibility over previous years.
In most chapters, language was added to better
identify what I leadquarters considers the highest
priority activities.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Clarify the role of the Strategic Management Framework as a management tool for
focusing program resources.
Addressed in the Introduction.
o
(a
O
H
R
H
INTRODUCTION
Explain how the program fits within the O5WER Strategic Flan.
Outreach is mentioned as important for pollution prevention; other areas of the RCRA
program can benefit from more outreach activities, including the regulated community.
Addressed in the Introduction.
Education and outreach are listed as one of the
areas in which the RIP supports Agency themes.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE t 9420.00-09-a
fig
C/5
C/5
U
2
u
•^
rr
2
O
rs
eg
PONSE
s/
H
2
s
S
0
u
z
3
•H
z
ci
H
5
O
5
c.
"* ."S C H
feS 0 -* =
O «^ f
12 a 2 2
o S 3 *
•- •& *•* W ^* «n ffl
. * 32 S to *§ ?|
H 5o>2 H £ K E
1 g>
I 1 1
| « 1
)»9 *9 <••
K • w °
— ft. «
«» <. 5;
•S u e
o z £
^ 60 -°
& g fl>
E -R £
E = «
tT <»i 3
- ° 8
^ « •=
• aj « re
e 4» ».
E c c
1 IS-
re a. &
5 -P 60
u o. 55
'g5 • re" ^
if 1 1
t/5 .2 — —
flj fe 3 C
j= Q. O &>
- jc * E
"™" (K ^*
3-^ 2 %
£ ~ « 60
re c w "
C flj fs .;
1» <*• x Qj **
«£ «»^ ™
^ J « SP * .2
S S c C ^ "u
H re Q 2 H«2
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
[COMMENT
RESPONSE
PERMITTING
A need was expressed for a mechanism to track clean-closed facilities within RCRIS.
Emphasis should be on high priority facilities, but States must act on all permit actions
regardless of priority ranking.
There was agreement about focusing STARS on high priority facilities, but concern
about also tracking permitting activities at medium and low priority facilities. Some
States are required to respond to permit applications in a timely manner, regardless of
facility priority.
Headquarters agrees. The fact that a number of
RCRIS implementers have excluded clean closed
facilities from RCRIS has been a major problem
for Headquarters as we report to Congress, GAt),)
and others with a particular interest in the status
of these facilities. Clean closure event codes
already exist in the RCRIS Permit Module. These
facilities should not be coded as non-regulated in
order to be counted in Permitting/Closure and
Corrective Action universes. This is one of the
many reasons that it is important to implement
facility intent indicators in RCRIS. By assigning
clean-closed facilities an intent indicator, we can
identify them as part of the permit universe. This
is the only method available at this time.
Currently, facility intent is captured in the
Program Management Module. Guidance is being
developed to move this intent data to the Permit
Module to implement a decision reached in the
RCRIS change management process.
Headquarters recognizes that there is a certain
amount of maintenance work that must be done
to run the permit program, and this is implied in
the Permitting Chapter.
Headquarters recognizes that there is a certain
amount of maintenance work that must be done
to run the permit program, and this is implied in
the Permitting Chapter.
O
to
to
Jt*
N>
O
*
O
o
I
o
vo
I
D»
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
3 3
tin
e,
i
'3
o>
1
75
.£
"a.
IS
^
fc*
CD
W
U
2
u
2
O
c.
en
U)
O
u
O
PERM
n
o
L
re
o>
•o
£
I
"u
OI
•a
§
•S
in
re
01
fci
II
£ S
> *
.-
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
[ COMMENT
RESPONSE
CORRECTIVE ACTION
Most respondents agreed with the RIP's emphasis on moving away from medium and
low priority facilities. However, there seemed to be a desire to examine this issue
further due to its questioned applicability to corrective action through permits (versus
orders) and to the need for flexibility to ensure that overall high priority sites are also
addressed.
Most respondents disagreed with the proposal to delete STARS Measure R/J-4 since
STARS measures do not necessarily drive priorities, yet they provide an accurate
picture of progress.
Although there was general agreement with the proposal to favor cleanup actions over
studies, there were concerns over the need for flexibility.
OSW was i-ncou raged to rely on existing Superfund guidance for oversight of fieldwork
rather than create new guidance.
Some respondents cautioned against using the term "interim goals" to describe criteria
used when technical impracticability in achieving full cleanup may be an issue.
Most respondents concurred with Headquarters' plans to discuss the FY'94 BYP and
KYR with Regions before making any changes; there were many recommendations made
to improve the HYP/EYR process, especially by Region <-.
The flexibility to address overall priority facilities
remains in the RIP. Regions and States should
address high priority NCAPS facilities firs) -
whether through permits or enforcement orders.
For high priority permits which are medium or
low NCAPS priority, the Region should extend
the schedules of compliance and implement tiered
oversight.
R/J-4 remains a STARS Measure for FY'94.
The flexibility remains, but with a bias toward
cleanup actions, when possible.
Although Headquarters is not exactly sure to
what the commenter is referring, the RCRA
program is generally different from Superfund,
due to the presence of an owner/operator at
many facilities. This fact may make active field
oversight different for the RCRA corrective action
program. Thus, the RCRA program developed a
Tiered Oversight Guidance document. However,
in general, the RCRA program reviews relevant
Superfund guidance and works with the
Superfund program prior to issuing field
guidance.
No response necessary.
The Regions' recommendations will be taken into
consideration before making changes to the BYPs.
A workgroup (with Regional participation) has
already been formed to address these issues.
O
H
R
3
M
O
•
O
O
I
01
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
in
O
IP
£
- >
°
u:
A
P
tn
o c ~
a; ra £>
— ^ re
D.^ 2
O 5 w
^Q in o
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
I COMMENT
I RESPONSE
OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
The RIP should promote simplified and accelerated authorization as a key goal for
FY'94.
Do not devote further resources to encouraging Tribal full authorization or developing
Tribal programs identical to State programs. Implement less resource intensive,
creative approaches (e.g., circuit riders).
Focus activities on new ways to enhance Tribal solid and hazardous waste
management capabilities.
The measure of success for authorizatic. should include adopted rules.
Clarify th.it Regions may authorize approval applications for incomplete clusters.
Stales may not f.ivor interim authorization.
Establish a separate grant system for waste minimization within the Section 3011
system.
Adopt waste minimization as a FY'94 initiative; use funding levels that accrue as
funding levels for other initiatives decrease.
Headquarters agrees. The new Cluster Rule
guidance promotes accelerated authorization of
material from incomplete or overdue Clusters and
is promoted in the RIP.
The circuit rider program is now underway in
Regions 4, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
We are encouraging Tribes to apply for multi-
media grants which are designed to enhance
Tribal capabilities.
Yes. This issue has also been incorporated into
the RIP.
See response above on Cluster Rule guidance.
Interim authorization (I.A.) is not mandatory;
some States have indicated a need for I.A. Also,
States have indicated that an approach to I A.
that did not use it as a second option would be
desirable. The RIP identifies a streamlined I.A.
approach as an emphasis.
Regions are encouraged to use the §3011 grants to
support all areas of the RCRA program;
individual States and Regions have the flexibility
to negotiate activities.
There is no specific funding available for waste
minimization in FY'94.
O
tn
o
H
•HI
vo
O
o
I
o
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
COMMENT
RESPONSE
OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
Integrate waste minimization themes into all sections of the FY'94 RIP, not just the
waste minimization section.
Establish policy and guidance for waste minimization plans at facilities.
Two respondents said that permit and enforcement programs should suggest a range
of resources to be devoted to pollution prevention (e.g., 5%). One respondent said
that it is too costly to design permit and enforcement programs that incorporate waste
minimization; motivate pollution prevention through education (e.g., inspectors
provide information during inspections).
Track waste minimization progress t' rough BRS and specialized surveys to measure
generation and minimization across a range of a facilities.
Add time to Slate and Regional timetables for completing the BRS process (e.g., 60
days).
RCRA staff involvement in the evaluation and negotiation of State ground water
protection programs raised concerns.
As an Agency-wide priority, waste minimization
is a strong component of all aspects of the RCRA
program. Changes were made to the Permitting
Chapter.
The Facility Pollution Prevention Guide is
referenced. Future policy will be sent under
separate cover.
The RIP offers suggestions for encouraging
pollution prevention but does not set specific
resource goals. Instead, the Region or State
should use discretion in setting specific resource
goals.
A discussion of how to use the BRS has been
incorporated.
See revised Exhibit 5-1.
Language was modified to encourage involvement
instead of making it mandatory.
O
H
vo
t*
O
O
I
O
VO
I
01
8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
0
I
0*
CD
CD
to
u
Z
CD
Z
o
a,
CD
u
fig
O
u
•
H
uu
u
u
2
U)
O
Z
Z
0
H
Z
o
u
U
2
<
••
•j
s.
0
U
-o "2
Headquarters has reduced the number of
inspection categories and provided Regions an
States with "significance" levels for program
activities. Also, inspections have been idenlifi
as only one means of monitoring compliance.
Ol
• N
',2
*c
JO
cL
32
c
E
Si
~
re
•o
re
=
8
c
60
&
73
s
a
re
E
2
0
"c ' ~
"S
2 8
> 'C
15 &
2. £
re re
c c
0 0
it
(A (A
£ .£
&«
Though outreach has not been identified as a
major core component, it is another means of
seeking compliance. In FY'94, Regions and Sta
will have the ability to "invest" in such activitit
Outreach activities must be identified as an
investment and described in the FY'94 BYP.
a
re
"c
Hi
I
o
6
re
•^
1
W
Ol
Ml
5
re
1
^m
0
2
°> jjj
O L.
CLȣ
c "a!
5*
II
^ 5
5 —
TT C
ON O
£1
Oi 3
^fc ^Q
^"* w
0)
Appropriate follow-up will be determined by 1
Region or State based upon the three criteria
discussed in the FY'94 RIP.
o
It cP
•to* C
re E
•n re
15 5
30
"D 52
c ^
«£ 1
Q^
|£|
»!
^ i«
:il
rt
1 jj
"o °
- c
— re
T3 —
Oi Ol
E E
E^
•-j
§£
£ =
1 =
f re
^•8
so 5
41 li.
Jl
^ ^
^'5 g
C 5"_G
c^ "5
t||
5 b ^
W = ~
• •* bC
"* "~ C
i, C —
6C.£ U
re «r, 3
CL -a
= E 5
0^ S
1 ^
Headquarters no longer specifies 8% of LQGs,
rather gives Regions and States the responsibilj
to determine the appropriate mix of inspectior
activities.
1
!
^
3
o
Z
H
en
§
'o .i
«.2
s c
If
Ol c
N -S
11
"0..2
£|
C fc«
^ Ol
3 ^
.5*5
c fc
s-S
c_ §
C£ C
^ 3^
II
H-O
1
C
Q
C W
^S [^
Q
.£ |£5
^L^
J^
u. n
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
I RESPONSE
I COMMENT
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
The RIP should recognize that Region? ind States are having major problems
complying with the ERP. The ERP neeJs to be reexamined.
Certain permit violations should not be considered Class I violations if they do not
cause or have the potential to cause damage to human health or the environment.
Extend T&A response for combustion compliance monitoring at BIFs and incinerators.
Concerning RIP Flex, Regions/States should be allowed to disinvest more than the
current 25% from national priority activities.
Concerning STARS measures, R/E-4 facilities should be counted as "in compliance" if
they are complying with the terms of a legally enforceable compliance schedule. To the
extent facilities are tracked for "full physical compliance," such compliance should
consider only Class I violations.
Effectiveness of enforcement. The RIP should include a more detailed discussion of
how the Agency is determining the effectiveness of its enforcement actions. Monitoring
SNC compliance rates is inadequate.
Benefits derived from SEPs. The RIP should include a measure of the benefits derived
from SEPs, in addition to tracking th/e number of cases filed and penalties collected.
The current guidance inhibits the use of SEPs.
Headquarters recognizes the many problems
associated with the ERP and will begin to revise
the ERP in FY'94.
This is established in the ERP. We will consider
this when revising the ERP.
See above comment.
Because of the new flexibility provided in
allocating enforcement resources, Headquarters
believes there will not be a great need for investing
or disinvesting enforcement resources from the
basic core enforcement program.
Headquarters will continue to use the FY'93
STARS measure which tracks facility compliance
with compliance schedule.
Headquarters agrees. Some of the newer STARS
measures attempt to capture this information.
However, in FY'94 we have had to return to some
of the traditional measures per Habicht's January
14, 1993 memo.
There is a STARS measure which tracks the
number of pollution prevention activities
incorporated into enforcement settlements. While
this measure tracks only numbers, Regions can v
discuss in their EYRs the environmental benefits
achieved through the use of SEPs.
10
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
COMMHNT
RESPONSE
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Is there any way to capture the amount of waste recycled by government/industry and
reused? I low about enforcement settlements which include waste minimization? Or
inspections which include waste minimization education?
In addition, some explicit statement is needed to address the recent memo on core
enforcement measures.
The RCRA facilities in SNC is an important universe for subsequent enforcement
actions. These should be captured in some BOY measure to which are directed
subsequent enforcement actions for bringing facilities into compliance.
Additional Iraining money is necessary tp attend the RCRA Inspector Institute in
Denver, CO. Advance notification of training dates is necessary. It was suggested
that authorized States be afforded the opportunity to use existing EPA contracts for
training.
State requests additional RCRA grant funding for new enforcement initiatives initiated
to identify manifest violations and illegal transfer activities.
RCRA Enforcement currently has a STARS
measure which captures the number of pollution
prevention activities included in settlements. In
the future, Headquarters will consider a measure
which examines the number of inspections that
included some waste minimization activity.
Headquarters has placed an asterisk beside each
STARS activity that addresses the Deputy
Administrator's requirement for a core
enforcement program.
The FY'94 RIP identifies this as a third core
program component. Rather than develop
another STARS measure. Headquarters will
request the Regions to highlight in their BOY plans
the enforcement activities aimed at returning
facilities to compliance.
- At this time, additional training money is not
available.
- The RCRA Inspector Institute's four training
dates for any fiscal year are usually: the last
week in January, the first week in April, the last
week of July, and the third week of October.
- Headquarters examined this issue several years
ago, and it could not be done. It is
recommended that States use ASTSWMO to
discuss this issue with the airlines.
Although additional federal funding is not
currently available, States are encouraged to use
RIP-Flex for special enforcement initiatives.
O
en
n
R
3
M
O
•
O
O
I
O
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
a
1
C/i
CD
CD
CD
CD
2
O
c*
CD
J
,
u
5
jj
J
5
ti
Q
Z
Z
5
z
o
2
u
U
z
<
12
fc
i
j
o
c. "*>
re re 3
^ & i_ C
The RCPP is a valuable tool for developing
penalty which can be supported in court 01
administrative hearing. Regions shall conti
encourage the States to use the RCPP.
..
*™ r^*
^» i
e w!
C ra
re ^
u re
JC §
1c "2
||
*?• ^
wn &
.£
.0 -" Jj
TA •— —
§ I|
"o ~ U
C- "ro re
ill
2 ||
~|J
•»- g «»*
2 § §
- te £
re J3 o
.! 5 c
re •£ "c
c .- u:
re 5 .
60 (A V>
_C < «A
jls
•5
re
1 leadquarters understands these problems
will address the problems when the ERP is
revised
(A
jg
•O
.0
"n
"3
"re
u
"re
1.
e
o
"3
ac
re .
o>
i
•O
oT
"n
!a
"re £
^ re
- 0.
u E
E o
s u
m fi ,
IA g
M
il
11
c _ b
j-| a* re "M
"* i so IE
Headquarters can only encourage States to
improve their enforcement capabilities once
base program is established. We will contii
encourage States to permit enforcement pro
offices to issue administrative penalties.
strengthen criminal regulations, provide for
penalties, etc.
2%
c s
re —
5 g
re" IA
E —
1 «
to »
"n £
•C tC
.£ =
I'M
Ill
•re >s^
III
|||
E 5 ?
E E |
o n c
2. c ^
re MI ^
Of }j -5
> o 5
J g"5
c_ fc c
£ii
l;
^
Recent and new rules are now contained in
General Compliance Monitoring Section.
60
_C
'E
'So
4=
D.
&rf
E c
S..2
^j C
^M ^S
*~ §P
tfj *"
^ w
•^ TO
1|
l»
0 c
•" a>
= ji
re —•
S!^
|e
E «
l«i
EH
60^3-
re Ji .
J: 3 •
S.|
A new system for establishing priorities is
outlined in the FY'94 RIP.
x Of
1 -
I ^
4*^1/5
t gJS
£=•=
c .5 o
it!
C fcO O
i.sr
"i-S-Ss
1 J-
*E « '=•
£ ft) &
H £ o
(A -f «U f
1 2-5.2
I 2?S
E «?
n -C E ^
§ « X C
c 3 re re
^ -2 E 2
aj a* : r
fe £ r • ;
1 s 1 Ski*
"T;^? ^5l
_£ /JJ 1* 4* rT E
ra 0 •- E
a» 2 ^ a* Js "2
t£ r «-, ac CLt;
re .- .2 re •- Jg
C?"
1 oil
2 Js
a, — •
-— >_
Rather than revising the heading, Headquar
has designated "Returning Facilities to
Compliance" as the third core component o
RCRA Enforcement program.
5 w
o^
rS^
Pi
*u
60^.
c o
6s
8
Discussion has been deleted. In this area,
Headquarters has identified three complian
monitoring sub-activities and attached a
"significance" level to each sub-activity.
v*
> ON
" >•
"^ U. •
S i_
i «£
re c
i_ ~
o J2
CJ ^
•C ^jJJ
— '>
u JZ
IS.
Is! 2
«- c
ei!Vt
OO
||
S^"%
- re
||
i~
J2 ^
e c
•il
5 =
^ -
11
^ 1
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
[ RESPONSE
I COMMENT
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Dicholoromethane is not a bioaccumulative substance, but is an example of a
pollutant-specific initiative under consideration by the EMC.
Expand the discussions on the Used Oil Rule and Federal Facilities Compliance Act.
Update issue date information on page 6-12 regarding the §3008(h) model order.
Headquarters agrees with the comment. The
Agency has identified Dichloromethane and
Bioaccumulative substances as multi-media
initiatives for FY'94 and FY'95. Additional
information concerning these and other Agency
multi-media initiatives are located in the
Addendum to the Enforcement Chapter.
Headquarters has expanded the discussions.
(See the Compliance Monitoring section.)
Headquarters deleted previous reference to the
issue date. Headquarters expects to release the
model by the end of 1993.
ACCOUNTABILITY
Authorized Stales, not the Regions, should be held accountable for the accuracy of
their data.
One respondent asked for a clear definition of success in corrective action; another
asked for more direct environmental indicators in RCRIS of progress made in corrective
action; two others asked that a system for judging the effectiveness of regulatory
programs relative to their protection of human health and the environment be
established.
Provide more defined guidance for the BYP and EYR.
Headquarters agrees.
See discussion about environmental indicators in
the revised RIP. We are making progress toward
these goals; however, it will be a long-term effort.
The Corrective Action Measures of Success
workgroup is also continuing to develop
approaches that could be implemented in the near
term.
The RIP addendum due out in May will address
BYP and EYR issues.
13
-------
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
~~~~ | RESPONSE"
I COMMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY
Standardize information in the BYP ,nd EYR and distribute fact sheets or QA/QC
documents to ensure all States and Kegions are taking a standard approach to
providing this information; initiate a process for electronic reporting through RCRIS;
develop software so BYP can be produced directly from RCRIS.
One respondent indicated that November 30,1993 should be the due date for the BYP
so the work plan can be negotiated with the stales; while another said that January
rather than November should be the month in which the BYP is due.
Continue to reduce the number of STARS measures in the RIP and describe only
highlights of program progress.
Two respondents asked that the RIP provide definitions of the major programmatic
universes in the FY'94 RIP, while one said that .universes should not be defined in the
RIP.
Expand RCRIS lo include new types of inspections (e.g., lead, wood preserving).
The addendum to the RIP to be issued in May will
address specific issues related to the BYP and
EYR.
The addendum to the RIP to be issued in May will
address specific issues related to the BYP and
EYR.
The STARS measures have changed little from the
last RIP.
The Data Quality Focus Team is addressing these
issues. See discussion under Data Management.
OSW has initiated a new change management
process for Headquarters, Regions, and State
evaluation and decision making for major
system/programmatic enhancements to RCRIS.
MUNICIPAL AND SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Continue to direct EPA's role in improving compliance with the 40 CFR Section 258
criteria in unapproved and disapproved Tribes (e.g., through education and outreach
and development of strategies for disapproval of Tribal programs and EPA
enforcement, as necessary).
Add other initiatives for promoting recycling to the first paragraph (e.g., outreach).
One of the top priorities of the OSW Indian
Program is to facilitate effective implementation
of MSW programs, including the criteria on Indian
lands. This will continue to be a priority in FY'94.
The first paragraph under the recycling/market
development goal includes outreach and
education. Outreach and education are tools for
accomplishing the program objectives.
14
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE / 9420.00-09-a
= •-06
"? — •-
^ Ol
•— o >>
0*5-'
tu
C/3
O
c-
ir.
i 2 -
C i/)
^ & .S
^ C ^
1*0 «
— u re
D
tn
tf>
C/5
U
Z
u
o
2
O
u
fig
H
Z
uu
UJ
H
z
O
U
03
\r>
O
(D
O
z
y
z
c-
5
O)
Ol
re
•a
J
u
re
E
01
.c
_N
"E
O
a*
o
U
o>
Ol
h
II
•52
II
•s re
M Jj
II
si
c
re
£• 4i § Oi
55 £.£
t- .i
01
c
re
C£ 5 tr •£
— -° -. re
i_ Ol
O _
CQ
»•• ftl
o c C
bT O C
c5^ ?
(A
s
o» o .S ^S
•
u
E
6C
01
C
re
Ol
Ol
o
bC
c
'5
c
'?°
Ol
01
re
re
01
"c
2
"o
"o
1
re
(A
<~& «
tes ^
u
01
c
CD
re b.
Ol Ol
2
s
Q.
Q.
2
££L
2 j/i
> JS
§1
£u
o>
Ol
•a
c
IT)
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE # 9420.00-09-a
3
I
H
&r
3
I
eT
I
QJ * &j .
x >» .e >»
— re — re
°2 °2
•• *• •< ^
£12 £!2
2
sr
i
tt
•O 3
2 £
< re
Ol Ol
X W
"* S
ft) W
•O 3
< £
< re
Q) ftj
— re
Ol
Ol i) Ol
1 $£
— re
£2
^ C
•D 3
5 £
<• m
— re
Ol
en
05
C/i
c/
z
O
fi.
C/5
UJ
u
z
5
5
2
u
2
S
J
UJ
>.
b
O
2
?
Z
3
CD
X
5
z
CD
Oi
,0
£
re
i
Ol
is
ardized fo
IS
ts
re
60
£
Ol
3
I
re
2
o
u.
0»
i
r
£
o
!
CL.
C
TO
•c
I
re
.52 U
-J G£
oe
Oi O
"S *" «£
5 3 E
e e
ed
tab
,0
3
I
Oi •
££>
£2
£2
C "O
Qj C
•a 3
•a o
< re
O) Oj
f (A
— re
u
1
i
Ol •
— re
£2
Ol C
^3 3
2 £
< re
— re
o»
Ci
u
Oj
re
I
Ol
I
re
•c
J!
"8
N
re
t?
re
(A
c
*Sb
Oi
i
c.
P"
u.
i
81
a.
re
UJ
U
Z
I
D
3
I
il
ES
3 £
C TJ
^ C
•a 3
•D O
< re
— s
flj W
u O) r\ SS
C.C.&-3
be
i-a
£ re^.S
3 "2 - «*
5 c -5 jc
.£ re •£ —
- S — c
o S2^
<-"U re -
en C IA k
lcl£
s2 =5
^S *s 2 ~£
"O J2 ~ §
en « S j;
61s*
.Srf TJ
60 C
o re
£ c e oi
a, t re J=
— re
IA > c —
^"* ^^ ^*
^ re £ a>
i«ss|j
^ (Q 2 cD c^
O "^ fC
^3 re *
HX»-U£
------- |