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 -
------- |