vvEPA
             United States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency
              Office of
              Solid Waste &
              Emergency Responsa
EPA/ 530-SW-84-006
May 1984
             Solid Waste
Interim National Criteria
for a Quality Hazardous
Waste Management Program
under RCRA
   Do not weed. This document
   should be retained in the EPA
   Region 5 Library Collection.
                                l Protection Agervy
                             -
                        11 We4?! Jacfcson Boulevard, 12th
                        Chicago, \l 60604 -3b90

-------
                            PREFACE

     Implementation of the RCRA program is without precedent
among environmental programs in technical and management
complexity.  The program cannot succeed without close
cooperation between EPA and the States.  The foundation for
this cooperation must be a common understanding of what is
necessary to build and sustain a quality RCRA program.

     This document provides for the first time the basic goals
and performance expectations to be followed by the States and EPA
in managing the RCRA implementation effort.  It is a critical
first step in developing the management system necessary to
move toward full implementation over the next several years.

     The criteria are interim only.  Their incorporation into our
existing activities will require close interaction among
Headquarters, Region, and State offices during the next several
months.  We plan to use the criteria both to develop our joint
Region/State agreement to build program capability (negotiated
during the final authorization process) and to develop State
grant work programs for the FY 1985 program planning cycle.
The criteria will provide a common point of departure for
Region and State discussions on all aspects of RCRA management.

    Because the criteria are interim, they should be applied
realistically, recognizing that individual situations may
require adjustments to the national benchmarks.  Oversight
will continue to be based on the individual grant work programs
and the memoranda of agreements negotiated between the Regions
and States.  Where not specifically referenced in these documents,
however, the national criteria will be expected to be followed.

     Development of the RCRA program quality criteria involved
active participation by RCRA managers at Headquarters, Regions,
and the States.  It was built around the Task force on RCRA
Program Quality, which held numerous meetings over the last five
months and distributed two earlier drafts tor comment.
It is as close to a consensus document as possible.  The Task
Force Policy Group overseeing the effort included senior RCRA
managers from both EPA and the States.

  John H. Skinner        Office of Solid Waste
  Gene Lucero            Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
  Robert Wayland         Policy & Program Management Staff/OSWER
  Lewis Crampton         Office of Management Systems & Evaluation/OPPE
  Kirk Sniff             Associate Enforcement Counsel for Waste/OECM
  Mel Hohman             Region I, Waste Management Division

-------
  Allyn Davis          Region VI, Air and Waste Management Division
  Bill Constantelos    Region V, Waste Management Division
  Ron Nelson           Maryland Waste Management Administration
  Wladimir Gulevich    Virginia Bureau of Hazardous Waste Management
  Robert Kuykendall    Illinois Division of Land/Noise Pollution Contrc
  Jon Grand            Council on State Governments

The Task Force was directed by Carl Reeverts from the Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response.  Core working group members
supporting the Task Force included Sue Moreland from the
Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials (ASTSWMO), Laura Yoshii from EPA Region IX, and Robert
Knox, Elaine Fitzback, Elizabeth Cotsworth, Susan Absher, Amy
Schaffer, Katherine McMillan, and Cheryl Wasserman from EPA
Headquarters.

     I encourage all RCRA managers to review this document and
discuss it with your colleagues in the Regions and States.  We
plan to revise the criteria to reflect major policy changes and as
we gain experience in program implementation.  Initially, we will
review the criteria annually as part of the program planning process
leading to the issuance of the Agency operating guidance.
Comments on the criteria are welcome at any time.
                                   ^V         I

                                      DfcUlU*-
                                      f^^"^
Lee M. Thomas                         Donald Lazarchik
Assistant Administrator               President
Solid Waste & Emergency Response      Association of State and Terri-
Environmental Protection Agency       torial Solid Waste Management
                                      Officials

Date      ~
                               1 1

-------
      INTERIM NATIONAL CRITERIA FOR A OUALITY RCRA PROGRAM

                       TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
I.
II.
III.


Appendix A

Appendix B

Appendix C
TITLE

Introduction:  Purpose, Scope and
Use of the Criteria	,
                                                              PAGE
Criteria for a Quality RCRA Program:

 Characteristics of a Quality RCRA Program.
 Description of the Performance Criteria...
 Enforcement Program Criteria	
 Permit Program Criteria	
 Management Criteria	
 Response to Performance Against
  the Criteria	
                                                                 3
                                                                 4
                                                                 5
                                                               10
                                                               15
19
 Timeline for Enforcement Actions	  23

 Compliance Formulas	  25

 Timeline for Permit Processing	  28
                              111

-------
                             PART I
     INTRODUCTION:  PURPOSE, SCOPE, AND USE OF THE CRITERIA
Purpose & Scope

     This document establishes interim national criteria for
planning and overseeing a quality hazardous waste management
program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
The same criteria are to be used for evaluating both State
performance under interim and final authorization and Regional
performance in non-authorized States.  The purpose of the
document is:

     0  to clarify program goals and performance expectations
        to ensure that EPA and the States have a common under-
        standing of what must be done to effectively implement
        RCRA; and

     0  to outline general principles to describe how EPA and
        the States should respond when the criteria are either
        not met or are exceeded.

     The development of useful and relevant performance criteria
for RCRA is an evolving process, reflecting our growing experience
in program implementation.  As the program matures, the criteria
will stabilize and shift away from the "process-oriented" measures
contained in this version towards "performance-oriented" measures.
We plan to review the criteria annually as part of the program
planning cycle leading to the Agency operating guidance.  The
criteria will be revised, as appropriate, to incorporate major
policy changes and new program emphases.

     This document and related followup guidance materials  imple-
ment for RCRA the Agency's policy on delegation and oversight.

Use of The Criteria

     The criteria will influence a wide range of current management
and evaluation activities in Headquarters, the Regions, and the
States.  Use of the criteria as the common framework for a
variety of related activities will provide better coordination
and greater consistency in the overall RCRA management system.
The criteria will be used:

     0  to provide the multiyear criteria and performance expecta-
        tions for defining annual commitments contained  in  the
        Agency Operating Guidance and the RCRA Implementation Plan;

     0  to define consistent planning and evaluation protocols
        (including standard reports) for developing State grant
        work programs and overseeing the program on an on-going
        basis;

-------
                             PART  II
               CRITERIA  FOR A QUALITY  RCRA  PROGRAM
 Characteristics  of  a  Quality  RCRA  Program

      Subtitle  C  of  the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act
 (RCRA)  provides  the statutory authority  for the hazardous waste
 management  program.   Implementation of Subtitle C is  in  its early
 stages,  with full implementation of a quality program still
 several years  away  in most  States.  In general, a fully  imple-
 mented  quality program is one which:

      0   knows  the status of its regulated community, communicates
         program  progress effectively to  the public, and  has taken
         steps  to ensure that  all handlers covered by the regulations
         are identified and brought into  the RCRA  system;

      0   has made final determinations (issued or  denied  pemits,
         approved closures) for all existing treatment, storage,
         and disposal  (TSD) facilities and has procedures to
         promptly address new  facilities  and permit revisions;
         and

      0   demonstrates improving compliance rates for all  handlers,
         with all violators returned to compliance as quickly and
         effectively as possible through  a vigorous enforcement
         program.

     The criteria presented below are designed to bring  the
program closer to achieving each of these characteristics.   The
criteria define  the benchmarks and expectations of the EPA Regions
and States to get the program fully implemented.   Their  focus is
on the  intermediate milestones (i.e.,  compliance with interim
status requirements, initial permit issuance,  getting management
systems  in place).   The following two assumptions underlie the
definition and use  of the RCRA program quality criteria.

     0  The criteria apply to the full authorized State program,
        including the more stringent provisions that are
        authorized.   Individual State  performance expectations
        are those delineated in the State/EPA  Memorandum of
        Agreement and the State grant  work  program.

     0  The performance expectations in  the  criteria are  not
        explicitly  constrained by existing  resources.   They
        reflect the  needs for  a quality  RCRA program.   The  annual
        operating guidance  sets priorities  among  the national
        criteria  within the  resource levels  available to  the
        program in  any given year.

-------
Description of the Performance Criteria

     The performance criteria are organized to address three of
the major performance areas of the RCRA program:   enforcement,
permitting, and management.  The management criteria have been
split into two groups to separately identify (I)  those criteria
related to activities of the authorized State (or Region, in non-
authorized States), and (2) those criteria related to the over-
sight Agency.   In this way, the management criteria capture the
mutual dependence of EPA and the authorized States for ensuring a
quality program.

     The performance criteria do not include national expecta-
tions for certain measures (e.g., the compliance  rate).  This
is for one of  two reasons:  the specific levels are dependent
on annual priorities; or our experience to date provides no
clear, quantifiable preference.  For some of these measures,
annual targets may be included in the annual Agency operating
guidance.  For others, the performance expectation will evolve
over time as the RCRA program matures and more performance
information becomes available.

     The criteria provide three levels of information for each
RCRA goal.

     o  Key Questions.  The questions represent the key areas to
        describe a quality RCRA program for permitting, enforce-
        ment,  and management.

     o  Performance Expectations.  The performance expectations
        (where precisely defined) provide the national benchmarks
        to assess performance of the program for each of the key
        questions.  Note that when the performance expectation is
        in terms of days,  it refers to calendar days, not work
        days.

     o  Oversight Tools.  The oversight tools are the principal
        source of program  information used to track progress
        against the criteria.  The oversight tools available to
        the program include program reviews  (i.e., HQ program
        reviews of Regions, quarterly, mid-  and end-of-year
        reviews of States), monthly monitoring (including use of
        reporting information), file reviews, and review of
        individual State actions (i.e., oversight inspections,
        permit reviews).
                             - 4 -

-------
3OAL:
                 ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM CRITERIA

OPERATE AN ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM WHICH ACHIEVES AN IMPROVING LEVEL OF
     COMPLIANCE TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
  KEY QUESTIONS

 ,  Is the multi-year
   compliance monitoring
   strategy  consistent
   with  the  national
   enforcement strategy?
                   PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS

                  A. Strategy is written and
                     updated annually as nec-
                     essary.

                  B. The strategy includes:

                     1) a plan to inspect all ma-
                        jor handlers each year.

                     2) a four-year timeframe for
                        completing inspections of
                        non-major treatment,
                        storage, and disposal (TSD)
                        facilities and a 10-year
                        timeframe for non-major
                        generators and transporters,
                        with priority given for
                        those which pose the great-
                        est public health or environ-
                        mental threat.

                     3) procedures for completing
                        record reviews for all major
                        handlers not previously
                        reviewed and 33% of the non-
                        major handlers each year
                        until completed.

                     4) procedures to evaluate and
                        verify that facilities to close
                        have closed in accordance with
                        closure/post-closure plans and
                        that requests for withdrawal
                        are valid.

                     5) procedures to inspect all
                        facilities in conjunction
                        with the permit application
                        requests.

                     6) procedures to identify non-
                        notifiers, and handlers
                        operating without a permit
                        or use of a manifest.
OVERSIGHT TOOLS

o Program Reviews *
o State grant work
  program reviews
o MOA reviews
  Includes HQ program reviews of Regions and Regional quarterly, mid- and  end-of-year
  reviews of States.
                                       - 5 -

-------
  KEY QUESTIONS
  PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
 OVERSIGHT TOOLS
2. Are inspections and
   record reviews con-
   ducted in accordance
   with the compliance
   rtonitoring strategy?
3. Are inspections and
   record reviews
   thorough and properly
   documented?
   7) procedures to coordinate
      with other Agencies charged
      with responsibility for
      regulating transporters.

A. Inspection of 100% of major
   handlers each year.

B. Inspection of at least 25%
   of nonmajor treatment, storage
   and disposal (TSD) facilities
   and 10% of non-major generators
   and transporters each year.

C. Evaluation and verification
   that all facilities to close
   have followed approved plans
   and that all withdrawals are
   valid.

D. Number and types of
   handlers (i.e., gener-
   a tors, transporters,
   TSDFs) inspected
   meets quarterly
   commitments.

E. Number of record reviews
   by major area (ground-
   water monitoring reports,
   closure/postrclosure plans,
   financial assurances, mani-
   fest exception/discrepancy
   reports) conducted meets
   quarterly commitments.

A. Inspection checklists are
   completed accurately.

B. Files are maintained and
   readily accessible; viola-
   tions are well documented.

C. Sampling quality assurance/
   quality control procedures
   have been followed.

D. Class I violations at
   inspected handlers have
   been identified.
o Monthly Compliance
  and Enforcement Log
  (HWDMS)
o Facility Status
  Sheet (HWDMS)
o Program Reviews
o File reviews
o Oversight inspections
o Program reviews
                                         - 6 -

-------
 KEY QUESTIONS

, Are enforcement
 actions  timely
 and appropriate?
  (See  timeframe
 in Appendix A.) *
 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
A. For high priority violators:
                                **
   1) If the State has administra-
      tive penalty authority, an
      administrative order with
      penalty will be issued with-
      in _90 days after violation
      discovery.***   Steps 4, 5,
      and 6 outlined under Part B
      below will then be followed
      if escalated actions are
      necessary.

   2) If the State lacks administra-
      tive penalty authority, the
      case should be referred to the
      appropriate judicial authority,
      e.g., State Attorney General,
      District Attorney, etc., within
      9Q days from the discovery of
      violation.  Steps 5 and 6
      outlined under Part B below
      will then be followed if escala-
      ted actions are necessary.
OVERSIGHT TOOLS

o Monthly Compliance and
  Enforcement Log (HWDMS)
o Program Reviews
* The timeliness criteria are national performance expectations.  They may be more
  stringent to reflect individual Regional/State requirements or they may be adjusted
  to incorporate unique State processes and authorities.  The specific criteria
  used in each State must be included in the annual State grant work program
  or the MOA.  Note that emergencies (such as imminent and substantial endangerment
  situations) should be acted on immediately and not be limited by these criteria.

* High priority violators are those with Class I violations who create a substantial
  likelihood for potential or actual exposure to hazardous waste, realize a substantial
  economic benefit as a result of non-compliance, are chronic or recalcitrant violators,
  or have intentially committed violations.  The forthcoming Enforcement Response
  Policy will provide an operational definition for Region and State use.

* The violation discovery date is the date when the case development
  staff determines a violation has occurred through review of the inspection
  report and/or other data (e.g., laboratory reports).  For purposes of track-
  ing progress against the criteria, the violation discovery date will be fixed
  at 45 days after the inspection.

                                     - 7 -

-------
  KEY QUESTIONS          PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS                  OVERSIGHT TOOLS
                        B. For Other Violators with Class I
                           Violations: *

                           1) An initial enforcement action
                              (e.g., warning letter, notice of
                              violation, or equivalent action)
                              is taken within 3t() days of
                              violation discovery.

                           2) Decision is made to escalate
                              action (e.g., administrative
                              order, civil referral) within 9Q
                              days of the initial enforcement
                              action for handlers not returned
                              to compliance or on an agreed
                              upon compliance schedule.** (More
                              than one action, such as a warning
                              letter, NOV or equivalent, may
                              be taken within this time period.)

                           3) If a decision is made to issue an
                              administrative order (AO), it should
                              be issued within 60_ days after the
                              decision to escalate. (Note that pre-
                              hearing negotiations should not
                              generally continue beyond _90 days fron
                              issuance of the initial AO.)

                           4) Decision is made to refer case to
                              appropriate judicial authority after
                              the administrative process is exhausted
                              for handlers not in compliance, not on
                              an agreed upon schedule or for
                              which no administrative hearing
                              has been scheduled.**

                           5) Case is referred to judicial
                              authority within JX) days after
                              decision to refer case.

                           6) Judicial authority files the case
                              within 60_ days of referral.
*   At its option an EPA Region or State may choose to bypass less formal enforcement
    actions and go immediately to an AO or civil referral.  The criteria in Part A
    above should be followed in such cases.  (See page 7.)

**  Handlers on a compliance schedule will be monitored to ensure conformance with the
    schedule.  Escalated enforcement actions will be taken if the handler is not in
    compliance within ^30 days of the compliance schedule.

-------
  KEY QUESTIONS
 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
OVERSIGffl? TOOLS
                          C.  Appropriate enforcement
                             actions:

                             1)  An enforcement response is
                                expected for every instance
                                of known non-compliance.

                             2)  Penalties must be issued for
                                all high priority violations
                                and for other Class I viola-
                                tions where necessary.

                             3)  All penalties are commen-
                                surate with the violation,
                                based on a consistent
                                penalty policy.

                             4)  All actions cite authority,
                                list violations, require a
                                date for compliance, and
                                require the handler to
                                certify compliance.

                             (Civil and criminal actions are
                             considered appropriate actions.)
5. Are enforcement
   actions reported
   to the public or
   the regulated
   community to
   promote compliance?
A. Compliance strategy includes
   procedures for publicizing
   precedent-setting or other
   important violations.

B. Violations are publicized
   in accordance with the
   enforcement strategy.
 o Program reviews
6. What is the Class I
   nonconpliance rate at
   inspected handlers?
   (See description and
   examples of the
   compliance formulas
   in Appendix B.)
A. Percent of handlers having
   Class I violations at the
   beginning of the fiscal
   year brought into compliance
   or on a compliance schedule
   each quarter.

B. Percent of handlers with Class ]
   violations at a point in time
   that have been inspected or had
   record reviews (measured on a
   semiannual basis).
 o Monthly Compliance  an
   Enforcement  Log
    (HWEMS)
                                     - 9 -

-------
                               PERMIT PROGRAM CRITERIA
GOAL:     USE THE PERMIT PROCESS TO INCREASE REGULATORY CONTROL OF TSDFS TO PROTECT
          HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
  KEY QUESTIONS

 . Is there a multi-
   year permit strategy
   consistent with the
   national permit
   strategy?
  PERTORMANCE EXPECTATIONS

A. Strategy is written and
   updated annually, as
   necessary.

B. Strategy is based on the
   following timeframes for
   first-time determinations
   (permit issuance, denial
   or closure) for existing
   facilities:
   - land disposal, FY 1983-
     FY 1988;
   - incineration, FY 1982-
     FY 1988;
   - storage and treatment,
     FY 1982-FY 1989.
 OVERSIGHT TOOLS

o Program reviews*
o MOA reviews
o Grant work program reviews
                          C. Strategy reflects the
                             following completion dates
                             for requesting Part B
                             applications from existing
                             facilities, unless an extension
                             is justified for individual
                             State situations:
                             - land disposal, FY 1985;
                             - incineration, FY 1985;
                             - storage and treatment, FY 1987.

                          D. Strategy includes the
                             following criteria for
                             setting priorities for
                             requesting permit applications
                             from existing facilities:
                             - facilities that are current
                               or potential sources of
                               ground or surface water
                               contamination, or air
                               pollution;
                             - facilities that handle
                               the most hazardous types
                               of wastes;
                             - facilities that handle the
                               highest volumes of wastes.

                          E. Strategy addresses processing
                             new facility permit applica-
                             tions and emergency permits.
 Includes HQ review of Regions and Regional quarterly, mid- and end-of-year reviews
 of States.
                                       - 10 -

-------
KEY QUESTIONS
  PERFORMANCE  EXPECTATIONS
OVERS IGHT TOOLS
 Are permit applica-
 tion requests  and
 determinations pro-
 ceeding  in accordance
 with the strategy?
 F.  Strategy estimates
    annual  numbers  of permit
    application  requests and
    determinations  that
    reflect established time-
    frames  and priorities.

 G.  Strategy describes policies
    for:
    -  improving  quality of
      applications
    -  securing adequate
      ground-water monitoring
      data  for timely permit
      processing
    -  coordination with
      enforcement
    -  public and facility
      participation.

A.  Percent of Part B applica-
    tions requested to date is
    consistent with the pace
    set in  the multiyear
    permit  strategy.

B.  Percent of Part B determina-
    tions made to date is con-
    sistent with the pace set in
    the multiyear permit strategy.

C. Number and type of permit
   applications requested
   meets quarterly commitments.

D. Number and type of permit
   determinations meets
   quarterly commitments.
  Monthly Permit Status
  Report (HWDMS)
                                    - 11 -

-------
  KEY QUESTIONS
    PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
                                                            OVERSIGHT TOOLS
3.  Are permit determina
   tions proceeding
   according to process-
   ing schedules?
   (See timeline for
   permit processing in
   in Appendix C.)
t-  A. Length of time from Part B     o
      request to decision to
      issue/deny a permit is         o
      within the following ranges:
      - 15 to 18 months for
        storage and treatment,       o
      - 17 to 24 months for
        incineration (including
        trial burn), and
      - 23 to 30 months for land
        disposal.

   B. Internal decision schedules
      are established and tracked
      for individual permits for:
      - the receipt of the applica-
        tion,
      - completeness check
      - notice of deficiency,
      - completeness determination,
      - public notice of draft
        permit,
      - end of the  public comment
        period, and
      - final decision on permit,
      using national benchmarks as
      the starting  point  (see
      Appendix C).

   C. If permit deficiencies are
      not resolved  within 60 days
      of Notice of  Deficiency  (NOD),
      referral is made for enforce-
      ment action or permit denial
      is initiated, as appropriate
      (unless an alternative
      schedule is agreed upon).

   D. Closure/post-closure plans
      reviewed and  final determina-
      tions made within timeframes
      specified in  Federal or  author-
      ized State program  regulations.
Monthly Permit Status
Report (HWMDS)
Monthly Compliance and
Enforcement Log
(HWDMS)
Program reviews
                                      - 12 -

-------
  KEY QUESTIONS
 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
4.  Are permit determina-
   tions consistent with
   permit regulations?
A. Lead permitting agency makes
   determinations that are con-
   sistent with the authorized
   State or Federal permit
   program.

B. Conditions based upon
   permit writers' technical
   j udgments/i nterpretat ions
   are documented to show how
   they meet the intent of the
   regulations regarding level
   of control, containment,
   clean-up or protection.

C. Comments arising fron per-
   mit reviews by oversight
   agency are resolved before
   the next stage of permit
   processing is completed.

D. Permit determinations are
   upheld on technical, legal
   cal, legal and procedural
   grounds.

E. Permit determinations are
   enforceable.

F. Permit conditions are clear,
   understandable and properly
   documented (through applica-
   tion or administrative
   record).

G. Requirements and frequen-
   cies for facilities'
   monitoring, reporting,
   inspection and analyses
   after permit issuance
   are defined and described.
o  Reviews of designated
   draft and final permits
   (either through the MOA
   or other documents)
o  File reviews
                                       - 13 -

-------
  KEY QUESTIONS
 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
5. Are provisions
   made for adequate
   public participation
   in accordance with
   the State (or Fede-
   ral) program and
   the national
   permit strategy?
A. Facilities are encouraged to   o
   communicate information        o
   and plans about how they
   intend to comply with
   permit standards and operate
   under a permit directly to
   local governments, public
   interest groups and the
   community at large.

B. Final permits reflect all
   significant public
   comments on the draft
   permit.

C. Informational public notices
   and meetings are provided dur-
   ing processing of permit
   applications for environmentally
   or publicly significant facili-
   ties.
   Program reviews
   File reviews
                                        - 14 -

-------
                                 MANAGEMENT CRITERIA

GOAL #1:  PROVIDE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT WHICH FACILITATES ACHIEVEMENT OF PROGRAM GOALS
          AND SUSTAINS A HIGH QUALITY PROGRAM OVER TIME.
  KEY QUESTIONS

 . Are resources used
   in accordance with
   the annual State
   grant and Regional
   resource allocation?
2. Has staft training
   been provided and
   maintained?
 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS

A. Wbrkyears used for RCRA
   match workyears allocated.

B. Wbrkyears used for each key
   program element (e.g., en-
   forcement, program manage-
   ment, permitting) match
   workyears allocated.

A. Staff are trained in
   accordance with an annual
   training plan that
   identifies permit and
   enforcement training needs
   and specifies how these
   needs will be met.
  OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews.'
o Program reviews.
   Is an information
   system in place
   that effectively
   supports  program
   management?
A. Information system has the
   following features:

   1) Data system (automated or
      manual) tracks key
      program elements and
      provides data to meet
      EPA and State reporting
      requirements.

   2) Data base accurately
      identifies regulated
      community covered by the
      authorized program.
                             3) Management tracking system
                                provides up-to-date and
                                accurate permit and enforce-
                                ment status  information.

                          B. Management at various levels
                             within the Agency uses the
                             information system.
o  Program reviews.
  Includes HQ review ot Regions and Regional quarterly, mid- and end-of-year
  reviews of States.

-------
  KEY QUESTIONS
4. Is the State contin-
   uing to operate an
   equivalent Federal
   program?
 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS

C. Information on facility
   status changes (e.g.,
   notification, Part A)
   is provided within 10
   days of receipt
   of new information.

D. State/Region provides data
   to meet EPA reporting require-
   ments .

A. State informs EPA in
   advance of action of
   potential waivers, variances,
   delistings and changes to
   State statutes and
   regulations.

B. After final authorization
   State adopts changes made
   in Federal requirements
   within the specified
   time period.

C. State adequately addresses
   EPA comments on waivers,
   delistings, variances
   and regulation changes.
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o MOA reviews
                                       - 16 -

-------
GOAL #2:  PROVIDE EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE ACHIEVEMENT OF PROGRAM GOALS
  KEY QUESTIONS

 . Are the Regions admin-
   istering State hazar-
   dous waste grants in
   accordance with grant
   regulations (Part 35
   Subpart A)?
   Are HQ and Regional
   oversight activities
   resulting in an
   improved RCRA
   program?
 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS

A. Regional program guidance to
   each State contains EPA's
   national objectives and
   priorities, the State's
   funding allocations, the
   program elements EPA uses
   for budget justification and
   management outputs and spe-
   cial conditions or limitations
   relevant to the State.

B. Regional program guidance to
   States is provided at least
   60 days prior to application
   deadline.

C. All complete applications
   are approved, conditionally
   approved, or disapproved
   within 30 days of receipt.

A. Regions conduct State file
   and program reviews according
   to schedules specified in
   grant assistance agreements.

B. Reviews address the key ques-
   tions and performance measures
   specified in this policy.

C. Review findings are provided
   to the State within 45 days
   of completing the review.
   If the evaluation reveals
   problem areas, negotiations
   are conducted to reach an
   agreement for resolving them.

D. EPA and State take corrective
   actions in accordance
   with negotiated agreements.

E. EPA performs oversight
   inspections at key
   handlers (e.g., majors,
   chron i c v iola tors).

F. Number of oversight inspections
   per quarter matches plan.
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o Program reviews
                                     -  17  -

-------
KEY QUESTIONS
 Does EPA HQ provide
 guidance and assist-
 ance which strengthens
 program implementation
 capabilities?
 PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS

G. EPA oversight inspection
   reports completed and
   transmitted to the State
   within 30 days of
   inspection.

H. EPA reviews and comments
   on permits agreed upon by
   the Region and State.
   Comments include a state-
   ment of the reason for the
   comment and the actions
   that should be taken by the
   State.

A. Training and technical assis-
   tance needs identified.
B. National technical and policy
   guidance provided to all
   Regions in accordance with
   schedules outlined in
   annual agency operating
   guidance.
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
 o Program reviews
                                     - 18 -

-------
                             PART  III
              RESPONSE  TO  PERFORMANCE  AGAINST  THE  CRITERIA


      Part  II  establishes  the criteria for  a quality  RCRA  program
 and lists  the oversight tools most  appropriate  for tracking
 progress against  each  of  the criteria.   This  Part outlines  the
 general principles  to  use when determining how  EPA and  the  States
 should respond to performance against the  criteria.

      The RCRA program  quality criteria  provide  explicit national
 expectations  of program performance.  The  ability to meet the
 national criteria is dependent on the individual  State  authorized
 program and  the resources available in  a given  year.  Evaluation,
 therefore, must be  directly  linked  to the  commitments and expecta-
 tions contained  in  the Memorandum of  Agreement  (MOA) and  the annual
 grant work program.  Where not specifically referenced  in these
 documents, the national criteria  are  expected to  be  followed.

 General Principles  for Response Actions

      The appropriate response to  performance  against the  criteria
 will  depend on a  number of conditions,  including:

      o  the relative importance of  the  criteria to program
        objectives,

      o  the seriousness of the failure  to meet  the criteria,

      o  the frequency  of  failure,

      o  the number  of  criteria failed,  and

      o  the past  response  to corrective  actions.

      The response action  will  be  tailored to  the  needs of the situa-
 tion, recognizing that the principal  goal is  to strengthen  the
 credibility,  capability,  and performance of the implementing
 agency.  Certain  situations  demand  a  nationally consistent response
 (e.g., revocation of authorization  or withdrawal  of  the program
 grant).  Most  situations,  however,  require a  response based on what
 will  work for  the individual Region and  State,  reflecting the
 general principles outlined  here.

      The level and severity  of the  response action should be con-
 sistent for similar performance problems, whether the lead Agency
 is the EPA Region or the  State.  However, the available range of
 EPA response actions differs depending on whether the Region or
 the State is the  lead  agency.  Response  actions in an authorized
 State must  be based on the oversight  authorities  explicitly
 agreed to in the MOA and  the annual grant work  program.   Response
 actions  where the Region  is  the lead  agency are based on  internal
performance tracking and personnel performance  standards.


                                 - 19 -

-------
Oversight in Authorized States

     Where the authorized State is the lead agency,  the Region is
responsible for developing a consistent oversight approach that
provides a rational mix of incentives and sanctions  for perform-
ance against the criteria.  This approach must be delineated
clearly in the Memorandum of Agreement or other Regional/State
agreements so that response actions are both predictable and
effective.

     Where the State consistently meets the performance criteria, the
Regional Office will reduce the degree of oversight  to levels appro-
priate to the need for that State.  For example, if  the State's
inspections follow the established procedures and are always thor-
ough and well documented, the Region may reduce the  number of over-
sight inspections.  Alternatively, where performance has been demon-
strated to be of consistently high quality, the Region may reduce the
frequency and scope of performance reviews.

     Where the State fails to meet the performance criteria, the
Regional Office will take corrective action.  The primary emphasis
of corrective action will be on meeting the enforcement and permits
criteria and maintaining an equivalent program.  Where a State has
problems meeting those criteria, the Region will take a more rigorous
look at how the State is handling certain of the management
criteria, such as effective use of resources and training of staff.

     In some cases, failure to meet the criteria will trigger a
direct EPA action.  This  is particularly true in the enforcement
area, where EPA has the authority under S3008(a)(2)  to bring
Federal enforcement action if the State action  is not timely
or appropriate.  The criteria in Part II define "timely and appro-
priate" and establish a system of escalating enforcement actions
based on the seriousness of the violation  (e.g., Class I viola-
tions) and the available authorities (e.g., administrative penalty
authority).  Lack of conformance to these criteria will trigger
EPA involvement.

     EPA may also take direct action in response to State-prepared
permits that are inconsistent with the authorized State
permit regulations.  EPA will prepare comments  in writing to the
State for all permits designated for EPA review through the specific
Regional/State Memorandum of Agreement.  Based  on 40 CFR §271.19,
comments reflecting requirements of the authorized State program
are enforceable by EPA, even if not included  in the final State-
issued permit.

     For the remainder of the criteria, the response will depend
on the pattern of the performance evaluated through program moni-
toring and the mid- and end-of-year reviews.  Where failure to
meet a criterion has a minor impact on the overall quality of
the State's program, the Regional Office may  slightly  increase
                             - 20 -

-------
oversight or urge the State to modify a procedure.  Where a State
consistently fails selected criteria and shows little intent to
correct the situation, stronger actions are called for.   This
should include award of conditional grants and quarterly or semi-
annual release of the funds, directly linked to performance.  Listed
below in roughly ascending order are examples of responses to
failure to meet the criteria.  These responses are not mutually
exclus ive.

     o  Suggest a minor change to State or Regional procedures
        (e.g., a change to filing procedures to improve avail-
        ability of enforcement information).

     o  Provide technical assistance (e.g., provide training on
        drafting groundwater corrective action provisions to
        State permit writers).

     o  Slightly increase oversight (e.g., where file reviews
        indicate inspection checklists are not being properly
        completed, increased number of oversight inspections or
        file reviews may be appropriate).

     o  Raise performance issues to higher level of management
        both at the Region and State (e.g., include as agenda
        item on routine RA/State Director meetings).

     o  Revise future work program (e.g., add additional grant
        conditions requiring program management changes designed
        to correct problems with meeting performance criteria).

     o  Greatly increase oversight (e.g., overview more permits
        where State consistently drafts permits not in accord with
        State regulations).

     o  Award conditional grants or revoke a State's letter of
        credit (e.g., where States consistently fail to take
        timely enforcement actions, future grant awards should
        be tied to improved performance).

     EPA will award conditional grants and release them on a
quarterly or semiannual basis, where a consistent pattern of
problems has developed for an individual State.  Release of
subsequent increments should be conditioned on correcting per-
formance deficiencies.

     Where a State consistently fails to follow through on the
corrective actions agreed upon, or the State's legal authorities
are no longer equivalent, EPA may initiate withdrawal of the State's
authorization.  The criteria for withdrawal of the program are
outlined in 40 CFR §271.22.

Oversight of Regional Office

     Where the EPA Region has responsibility for a portion or all
of the hazardous waste program because the State is not authorized,


                            - 21 -

-------
the Region both must meet the performance criteria listed in Part II
and follow the general principles on regional actions outlined in
this Part.  The Regional performance standards against which Regional
job performance is measured should reflect the Part II criteria.
                  •»
     The annual program reviews conducted by Headquarters in each
Region will address the criteria, and Headquarters may increase
or decrease Regional oversight based on Regional performance.
For example, if a Region consistently does a poor job of developing
technically sound and enforceable permits, the Headquarters
Permit Assistance Teams (PATs) may be directed to participate in
more reviews of draft permits in that Region until performance
improves.  Or, if a Region is doing an outstanding job meeting
the criteria, the frequency and intensity of Headquarters reviews
may be reduced.  If the Region consistently fails to meet the
enforcement criteria, Headquarters may take direct enforcement
actions and/or require concurrence on Regional enforcement actions.
                            - 22 -

-------
APPENDICES

-------
        TIMELINE   FOR   ENFORCEMENT   ACTIONS
                   HIGH   PRIORITY   VIOLATIONS
                                                     APPENDIX A
                       days
                   states with

                 penalty authority
  Issue
Admlnlstratlvt
  Order
                                          Admin. Process
CO
I
           High
          Priority
          VioUtloo
          Discovered
  In*
ompllanca
 or on
Schedule
  7
                                                                   Yes
                            Decision
                              to
                           Refer C«»«
                  state* without
                 penalty authority
                            90
                            days
                                90 days
                           Case Referred
                           to Judicial
                            Authority
        60 days
                                                                           Case
                                                                           Piled
             Handlers on a compliance schedule will be monitored to ensure confornance with the schedule. Escalated
             enforcenent actions will be taken If a handler Is not In compliance within 30 day* of the compliance
             schedule date.

             Tine required for administrative procetalng Is In addition to the days Indicated on the tlsiellne.
             Pre-hear Ing negotiations should not generally continue beyond 90 days frost Issuance of an Initial
             Administrative Order.

-------
                                                                      APPENDIX A (cont'd)
TIMELINE   FOR    ENFORCEMENT   ACTIONS

                  CLASS   I     VIOLATIONS
Class I
Violation
Discovered
30 »
days^
Initial*
Enforcement
Action
Taken
         * Warning. Letter
         • Notice of
          Violation
         * or Equivalent
                             In **
                           Compliance
                            or on
                           Schedule
  If the Region or State chaoses to Issue an Adminls tia tlve Order (AO) or refer the case immediately Instead
  of taking leas fornal action, then the timeline for High Priority Violation should be followed.

  Handlers on a compliance schedule will be monitored to ensure conformanca with the schedule. Eacalated
  enforcement actions will be taken if a handler is not In compliance within 30 day* of the compliance
  •chedu 1« da te .

  Tine required for adninli tra t Ive processing is in addition to the days Indicated on the timeline.
  Pre-hearlng negotiations should not generally continue beyond 90 days from Issuance of an initial
  Administrative Order.
 Refers to a* optional action.

-------
                           COMPLIANCE  FORMULAS
                                                                       APPENDIX B
 INTRODUCTION

      EPA will  use two types  of formulas to track compliance.  The first
 compliance formula tracks  the progress of a fixed universe  of handlers
 returniny to  compliance  over time.  The purpose  of this  formula is to  track
 the  Reyions'  and States'  success  in brinyiny  handlers with  Class  I  violations
 into compliance.

      The second  compliance formula  tracks the percentaye  of handlers  with
 Class I violations at the  beyinniny and middle  of the fiscal year.  The
 purpose of this  formula  is to take  a snapshot of the compliance rate  at a
 point in time.

      These formulas will  be  applied to handlers  with all  types of Class I
 violations, as well as to  handlers  with particular types  of Class I violations,
 e.y., yround-water monitoriny or closure/post-closure violations.

 COMPLIANCE FORMULA A - PROGRESS OF  HANDLERS RETURNING TO  COMPLIANCE

      At any point  in time, handlers found to have Class I
 violations fall  into one of  three categories:

      1.   returned to compliance;
      2.   on  a compliance schedule  and meeting  scheduled  milestones;  or
      3.   behind the compliance schedule or not  yet on a  schedule.

      Compliance  Formula A  is  designed  to show the movement  of a fixed
universe of handlers with Class I violations from Categories 2 and 3  into
Category 1.  EPA will  use the compliance formulas to compute the percentage
of handlers in each of these  categories each quarter.  (Handlers with new
violations discovered  each quarter  will  represent a new universe and  will
be tracked separately.)  Table I  illustrates these formulas.
                                  TABLE  I - COMPLIANCE FORMULA A
 COMPLIANCE FORMULA Al — HANDLERS RETURNED TO COMPLIANCE
 Handlers in Compliance
 on December 31	
 Handlers with Class  I
 Violations on October 1
Handlers in Compliance
 on March 31
Handlers with Class I
 Violations on October  1
Handlers in Compliance
 on June 30	
Handlers with Class I
 Violations on October  1
Handlers in Compliance
 on September 30
Handlers with Class I
 Violations on October  1
  of Previous Year
 COMPLIANCE FORMULA A2 —  HANDLERS ON COMPLIANCE SCHEDULES
Handlers on Schedule
 on December 31
Handlers with Class I
Handlers on Schedule
 on March 31	
Handlers with Class I
Handlers on Schedule
 on June 30	
Handlers with Class I
 Violations on October 1   Violations on October 1   Violations on October 1
Handlers  on Schedule
 on September 30	
Handlers  with Class I
 Violations on October 1
 of Previous Year
COMPLIANCE FORMULA A3 — HANDLERS BEHIND SCHEDULE/ON NO SCHEDULE
Handlers Behind Schedule
 /No Schedule on Dec.31
Handlers with Class I
 Violations on October 1
Handlers Behind Schedule
 /No Schedule o'n Mar 31
Handlers with Class I
 Violations on October 1
Handlers  Behind Schedule
 /No Schedule on Jun 30
Handlers  with Class I
 Violations on October 1
Handlers  Behind  Schedule
 /No Schedule on Jun 30
Handlers  with Class I
 Violations on October 1
  Of Previous Year

-------
                                                                      APPENDIX B (cont'd)
     Table II below is an example of the application of Compliance Formula A.
This example illustrates tracking for only one universe of handlers,  a group
of 150 handlers out of compliance on October 1, 19XX.
                            TABLE II - EXAMPLE OF FORMULA A

Category                   Dec.31     Mar.31    Jun 30    Sep 30

Returned to compliance
(Compliance Formula Al)     20%        30%       40%       50%

On schedule
(Compliance Formula A2)     50%        30%       20%       40%

No schedule or behind
schedule
(Compliance Formula A3)     30%        40%       50%
TOTAL                      100%       100%      100%
     In this example, by the end of the first quarter, 30 of the 150 handlers  (20%)
have returned to compliance, 75 (50%) are on schedules to achieve compliance, and
45 (30%) either do not have a schedule yet or are behind schedule.

     By the end of the second quarter, 15 nore of the 150 handlers have
reached compliance for a total of 45  (or 30%) handlers in compliance.  Forty-five
handlers (30%) are on schedule to reach compliance and 60 (40%) are either
behind schedule or do not have a schedule.

     The value of this type of tracking system is that one can follow  the
progress of a fixed universe of handlers over time until all come into
compliance.


COMPLIANCE FORMULA B - COMPLIANCE RATE AT A POINT IN TIME

     The second formula will take a "snapshot" of handlers with Class  I
violations at the middle (March 31) and at the end  (September 30) of each
fiscal year.  The formula locks at all handlers  out of compliance on those  dates
as a factor of the number of handlers that have  been evaluated.  To compute
the total number of handlers out of compliance,  sum the  number of handlers
on a compliance schedule, behind schedule, or on no schedule for all violators.
The number of handlers evaluated includes all handlers that have received
inspections and/or record reviews.  Table III below illustrates Compliance
Formula B.

                                      -  26  -

-------
                                                                     APPENDIX  B  (cori₯'d)
                 TABLE III — COMPLIANCE FORMULA B AND EXAMPLE
 Handlers with Class I
 Violations on March 31
 Total Number of Handlers
 Evaluated
Handlers with Class I
Viol ations on Sept. 30
Total  Number of Handlers
Evaluated
                                                   Mar 31
    Handlers with Class I Violations:
       On compliance schedule (Formula A2)          1000
       Behind schedule/no schedule (Formula A3)       500

                                                    1500

     Total Number of Handlers Evaluated to Date      3000

     Percent Out of Compliance                       50%
                         Sep 30
                          1370
                          1150
                          2520

                          4500

                           56%
     In this example, of the 3,000 handlers evaluated as of March 31, 1,500  have
Class I violations.  The noncompliance rate is 50%.  As the State inspects
more handlers, completes more record reviews and conducts more in-depth
inspections, they find more Class I violations.  As of September 30, of the
4,500 handlers evaluated, 2,520 have Class I violations.  The noncompliance rate
increases to 56%.

     The chanye in the compliance rate from one period to another must be
analyzed on a case-by-case basis to properly interpret the situation.  An
increase in the rate of non-compliance does not necessarily mean that the
State's performance is decreasing.  In fact, it may mean that a State's
performance is improviny.  The State may be finding more Class I violations
because they are lookiny at handlers more closely.  On the other hand, a high
rate of continued non-compliance may mean that the State is finding violations,
but not taking timely and appropriate enforcement actions to bring handlers
into compliance.  Because of this, EPA will not use this compliance rate
alone to judge a state program, but will base its judgment of the quality of
the program on the overall state program.
                                   -  27 -

-------
                                           APPENDIX C
     TIMELINE  FOR  PERMIT  PROCESSING
STORAGE & TREATMENT PERMITS
Application Application
Requested Received
1 1
Draft
Completeness Application Permit
Check Complete Issued
1 i 1
0 6 mos. 8 mos. 9 BOS.
Application Review Deficiency
Preparation Resolution
11 BOS.
Drafting
Permit
Public
Consent
Period Ends
|
13 DOS.
Public
Participation
Permit
Decision •
Hade
15 DOS. 18 DOS.
Preparing
Final
Permit
INCINERATOR PERMITS
Application
Requested
Application
Received
1
0 6 BOS.
Application Revi
Preparation
Completeness Application
Check Complete
1 1
8 BOS. 10 BOS.
tw Deficiency Drafting
Resolution Permit
Draft Public
Permit Comment
Issued Period Ends
13 mos. 15 mos.
Public
Participation
Permit
Decision
Made *
1 	 ^|
ITmos. 24 mos.
Preparing
Final
Paralt

Application Application Completeness
Requested Received Check
I ' '
0 6 BOS. 8 BOS.
Application Review
Preparation
LAND

Deficiency
Resolution
DISPOSAL PERMITS
Application
Complete
|
13 BOS.
Drafting
Permit
Draft
Permit
Issued
|
Public
Comment
Period Ends
|
17 mos. 19 BOS.
Public
Participation
Permit
Decision
Hade
1 • •
23 BOS.
Preparii
Final
Penal
Note: The permit proving tl^frames are the best achievable achedule based on existing reflations
   policies and technical guidance.
  • The
                       - 28 -

-------