&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
530-SW-91-023
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9420.00 - 07
TITLE: FY 1992 RCRA Implementation Plan
APPROVAL DATE: uay 6j 1991
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (OSWER)
FINAL
DRAFT
STATUS:
A - Pending OMB Approval
B - Pending AA-OSWER Approval
REFERENCE (Other Documents):
RCRA Implementation Study
FY 91 and FY 92 Agency Operating Guidance
OSWER OSWER OSWE1 OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
OSWER Directive initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9420.00 - 07
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Susan Jones
Mail Code
OS-342
Office
OSW
Telephone Code
475-9857
3. Title
FY 1992 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP)
4. Summary of Directive (include bnef statement of purpose)
The RIP provides an overview of the main objectives of the national RCRA solid and
hazardous waste management program, identifies priority activities That will be
tracked in the Strategic Targeted Activities for Results (STARS) and addresses
resource allocations for the upcoming fiscal year.
5. Keywords
RCRA Implementation
5a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)">
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
No
No
Yes What directive (number, title)
RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP}
Fiscal Year 1989 9420.00 - 5
Yes What directive (number, title)
7 Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA
B - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
D - In Developmen
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
X
Yes
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
Date
I. hi
10 Name and Titles Approving Official
cut.
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous edit&rts are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER C
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
UNITED STltlcS t*virturt*.cHTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
6|991
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:; FY 92 RCRA Iibp/eftentfat ,on |Plan
R. Clay
Assistant A
TO: 1 Regional Waste Management Directors
Attached is the final FY 92 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP).
This RIP sets forth the RCRA priority activities and STARS
measures for next fiscal year for our solid and hazardous waste \
management programs.
This FY 92 RIP presents a new approach for managing the
hazardous waste program. It simultaneously expands our efforts
to set priorities and allocate resources based on risk and
environmental benefit while increasing your flexibility to
address your most pressing needs.
This document does not include the Subtitle C State grant
formula and Regional allocations. While the President's budget
includes an increase for the FY 92 grants, the exact amount is
still uncertain. As soon as we are able to confirm the amount
with the Comptroller's office, we will notify you of your
proposed allocations.
I would like to thank you and the States for your
contributions to developing the concepts in this RIP. Your
participation in meetings before and after the draft document was
written was invaluable as were your review and formal comments on
the draft. • I believe that this collaborative effort has resulted
in a guidance document that meets RCRA's long-term goals of
granting greater management flexibility to the Regions and States
while assuring that we focus our efforts on our highest
environmental priorities.
Attachment
cc: Tom Kennedy, Executive Director
ASTSWMO
Pruatd on Rtcycltd Paptr
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
RCRA IMPLEMEKTATION PLAK
For FY 1992
May 1, 1991
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER ONE: OVERVIEW OF FY 1992 RCRA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
A New Approach to Managing the National
Hazardous Waste Program 1-1
RCRA at the Crossroads 1-1
The 1992 RIP 1-1
CHAPTER TWO: SETTING FACILITY PRIORITIES 2-1
Ranking Facilities According to their
Environmental Priority 2-1
Other Considerations as the Basis for Raising
Facilities' Priority 2-4
Guidelines to Ensure National
Consistency 2-4
Regional and State Roles in Determining
Facilities' Priority 2-5
Ranking Facilities during FY 91-92
Transition 2-5
Identifying Needed Regulatory Actions at
Facilities 2-8
CHAPTER THREE: MAKING AND DOCUMENTING CHOICES AMONG
ACTIVITIES 3-1
Activity Levels Among RCRA Program
Elements 3-1
National Priority Activities 3-6
Defining Accountability and Reporting
Accomplishments (BOY Plan) 3-8
Making the Transition to Match Resource
Commitments to Environmental Priorities:
FY 92 to FY 93 , 3-11
-------
CHAPTER POUR: KEY ACTIVITIES AND STARS MEASURES FOR PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION 4-1
Program Management Activities 4-1
Implementing an Effective Data Management
System (RCRIS) 4-1
Implementing the 1991 Biennial Report to
Support SARA Capacity 4-3
States as Primary Implementers of RCRA
Program 4-4
Program Implementation Activities . . . .4-6
Making and Documenting Choices Based on
Environmental Priority 4-6
Addressing Boilers and Industrial Furnaces4-6
Post-Closure Permitting Progress . . . .4-8
Demonstrating Operating Permit Progress . 4-9
Focusing Corrective Action to Achieve Timely
Risk Reduction 4-9
CHAPTER FIVE: COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT . . 5-1
Beginning of Year Plan and End of Year
Report 5-2
STARS 5-3
Priority Activities 5-3
Inspections 5-3
Enforcement Response 5-7
Strategic Targeting 5-11
Enhanced Capability 5-12
CHAPTER BIX: MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE
MANAGEMENT 6-1
Program Objectives 6-1
Municipal Solid Waste National
Priorities 6-1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Industrial Solid Waste National
Priorities
6-2
Overview of Activities 6-2
Major Activities for Municipal and Industrial
Solid Waste 6-4
APPENDIX I:
APPENDIX II:
APPENDIX III:
STARS
A - LIST OF NEW AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS
B - RELEVANT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
LIST OF FY 92 EVENTS
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Chapter 1
OVERVIEW
THE FY 1992 RCRA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN:
A NEW APPROACH TO MANAGING THE NATIONAL HAZARDOUS WASTE PROGRAM
RCRA at the Crossroads
Over the last ten years, EPA and the States have built and
implemented a comprehensive regulatory framework for hazardous
waste management. At the same time, to fulfill Congressional
mandates we have continued to expand the scope and stringency of
the program and struggled to keep implementation apace with these
changes.
Last summer the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
completed a critical assessment of the RCRA program. The RCRA
Implementation Study (RIS) reviewed our progress and
accomplishments over the last ten years and focused the major
challenges facing us to manage an effective hazardous waste
program over the next decade.
The RIS raised expectations that significant changes will
occur in management of the RCRA program. It calls for EPA to
move the RCRA program to environmental-based priorities and to
take the initiative to communicate our priorities to our many
constituents. Where these conflict with Congressional or court
ordered mandates we must discuss our concerns with interested and
affected parties. The RIS recommends specific new corrective
action strategies to focus resources on those facilities and
activities that produce the greatest environmental benefits. The
RIS also stresses allocating enforcement resources to enhance the
credibility and effectiveness of the enforcement program.
Further, the RIS recommends targeted enforcement initiatives with
additional emphasis on generators and non-notifiers, as well as
higher judicial and administrative penalties and stronger
criminal enforcement.
Thtt 1992 RIP
The 1992 RCRA Implementation Plan takes up the challenge in
the RIS and marks a shift in EPA's approach to -implementing the
RCRA Hazardous Waste Management Program. The RIP defines a
Strategic Management Framework that integrates the
prevention/permitting and cleanup/corrective action elements of
the RCRA program. The Strategic Management Framework consists of
three components: ranking the environmental priority of each
RCRA treatment, storage or disposal facility; choosing
-------
appropriate prevention and/or cleanup activities to address
priority facilities; and defining accountability/reporting
accomplishments against these choices. The environmental goals
driving the Strategic Management Framework are:
o Reduce or prevent risks and maximize environmental
benefits at environmentally significant facilities.
o Balance progress in prevention and cleanup to avoid
costly future risks and cleanup needs while controlling
current risks from past management practices.
The principles governing strategic management of the RCRA
program are:
The States are the Primary Imnlementers of the RCRA Program:
Nearly all States are authorized to run at least part of the
RCRA Subtitle C program. The Agency's goal is to fully
authorize the States as quickly as feasible.
National Consistency; To demonstrate our commitment to
accomplishing national goals, consistency in approaches used
to set priorities is essential in a decentralized program.
The Strategic Management Framework identifies key areas
where national consistency is needed to ensure that we are
achieving progress in meeting national goals.
Flexibility; Flexibility in setting program priorities is
key to EPA Regions and States closest to environmental
needs. The Strategic Management Framework must preserve
Regional and State flexibility while assuring progress
toward national goals.
Accountability and Accomplishment: Expectations for the
RCRA program are high. EPA and the States must define
challenging but achievable goals and recognize the
importance of accountability for our activities.
Trade-offs: We cannot implement the entire RCRA agenda at
once. Strategic management planning recognizes the need for
trade-offs. We all must articulate these trade-offs and
ensure that we make informed and defensible decisions about
the resulting environmental and programmatic impacts.
1-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Full Range of RCRA Requirements: The Strategic Management
Framework emphasizes limited national priorities. However,
we recognize that Regions and States will continue to
actively implement the full range of RCRA regulatory
activities.
The RIP also lays out hazardous waste enforcement priorities
that reflect environmental priorities and establish a strong
deterrent effect. Consistent with the prioritization framework,
the enforcement program will prioritize for environmental results
by ensuring that: (1) inspections are prioritized in a manner
most likely to result in identifying the most environmentally
significant violations, and (2) enforcement follow-up is
prioritized in accordance with the Enforcement Response Policy,
in terms of violations causing the most harm to the environment
or deviating farthest from regulatory requirements. Special
attention is given to prioritizing facilities that have been in
significant non-compliance for extended periods of time. Use of
RIP-Flex in enforcement will be broadened in FY 92 to expand
flexibility in Regional and State priority setting.
Subtitle D activities are not part of the Strategic
Management Framework and are discussed in Chapter 6.
The Strategic Management Framework is complimentary to broad
regional strategic planning. The Strategic Management Framework
emphasizes comparative risk and priority ranking within the RCRA
universe. Current Agency initiatives integrate into the
Strategic Management Framework. For example, use of CIS can
input directly into environmental priority setting, as can
targeted geographic initiatives. Implementing this framework by'
1993 allows Regions and States to define a broad base program
that encompasses specific initiatives as well as providing the
opportunity to identify the additional activities, areas of
geographic focus, etc. to provide the broadest environmental
benefit through other Agency supported initiatives.
This RIP marks a very different approach to annual program
guidance. It lays out the RCRA Strategic Management Framework
for setting RCRA implementation priorities and making program
management decisions. The RIP also sets some near and mid term
goals for making the transition to fully implement the Strategic
Framework. Headquarters expectations for FY '92 are:
o Complete priority ranking of entire existing RCRA
universe of TSD facilities and phase in ranking of new
universe facilities.
o Begin assessing current (through FY 92) resource
commitments to facilities and activities and compare to
needs identified through priority ranking process.
1-3
-------
o Begin implementing the transition to focus resources on
high priority facilities and high priority prevention
and corrective action needs.
o Prepare FY 93 plans and grant agreements that implement
the Strategic Management Framework.
The RIP has shifted from a vehicle for guidance on a broad
range of implementation activities to truly a priority setting
document. It sets a broad policy framework and strategic
approach. Subject-specific RCRA guidance will be provided by
other means such as in detailed guidance documents or memoranda.
The RIP identifies priorities for which the national program is
accountable. Headquarters recognizes that there are many
important RCRA activities and that at least some level of
activity will need to continue in all areas. The Strategic
Management Framework explicitly affirms the Regions' and States'
responsibility to make decisions on the level of effort devoted
to these activities. It also empowers Regions and States to
elevate the priority of certain activities or facilities to
reflect their environmental significance or the environmental
benefits associated with these activities.
Appendix III contains a calendar of key activities/events
for the coming fiscal year that Regions and states need to
address in developing their operating plans.
1-4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Chapter 2
SETTING FACILITY PRIORITIES
Ranking Facilities According to their Environmental Priority
The Strategic Management Framework uses two criteria to
evaluate a facility's environmental priority: facility-wide
environmental significance and environmental benefits to be
gained from State or Regional actions.
The process involved in determining the environmental
priority for each treatment, storage and disposal facility (TSDF)
in the RCRA universe requires evaluation, first, for
environmental significance and assignment of a high, medium, or
low priority. The facilities will then be reviewed against the
environmental benefits criterion. At a minimum, this will entail
reviewing facilities for environmental benefits to determine
whether the environmental priority of the facility should be
raised. This process will ensure identification of priority RCRA
facilities from two key risk perspectives. The result of the
process will be a ranking of each Region's or State's TSDFs
according to their environmental priority.
Environmental Significance
This criterion addresses known releases from a TSDF's
regulated units and other solid waste management units as well as
the potential for releases. Facilities are evaluated first and
systematically against this criterion because it represents the
existing or potential human health and environmental risks posed
by a hazardous waste management facility and is, therefore, the
most compelling basis for preventive (permit or closure) actions
or corrective action.
Environmental significance must be determined for the entire
TSDF, including the full scope of its hazardous waste management
operations and units. All RCRA-regulated units, including land
disposal, incinerators and other combustion devices, treatment
units, and storage areas, as well as other solid waste management
units (SWMUs) must be covered in order for the evaluation of
environmental significance to be adequate. This broad approach
to environmental significance ensures that facilities, such as
newly-regulated facilities, without known corrective action needs
but where poor waste handling practices are common, are fully
integrated among our priorities. The factors that support an
evaluation of both regulated units and solid waste management
units for environmental significance are the same: known or
2-1
-------
suspected release, migration potential, exposure potential, and
waste/unit characteristics.
Evaluation of pre-RFA facilities.
For pre-RFA facilities, an evaluation system of the Region
or State's own choice will be relied upon. These individual
Regional and State approaches may be existing or newly-developed
for this purpose and may be quantitative or qualitative in
nature.
Evaluation of Facilities with RFA information.
For facilities where RFA's or equivalents (from the EPI
program) exist, however, a nationally uniform evaluation of
corrective action must be performed. The "National Corrective
Action Prioritization System" (NCAPS) or an approved equivalent
will be used for this purpose. Separate guidance on operating
the "National Corrective Action Prioritization System," is being
provided to the Regions.
In most cases the NCAPS ranking will effectively capture the
overall environmental significance of the facility, including its
regulated hazardous waste management units. However, if the
NCAPS ranking is thought to underestimate (e.g., rank as medium
or low) the environmental significance of the entire TSDF, it is
possible to raise the environmental significance ranking of the
facility. To raise the environmental significance ranking, the
NCAPS ranking must be combined with the Region's or State's own
evaluation of the TSOF's regulated hazardous waste management
units in order to render a more representative facility-wide
ranking.
Environmental Benefits
Evaluating facilities against this criterion acknowledges
the opportunities to avoid future risks and make long-term
environmental improvements. The evaluation of environmental
benefits may be satisfied by applying it to the ranking of
environmental significance. It is sufficient to review the
facilities ranked medium and low for environmental significance
to determine whether any of the environmental benefits described
below can be ascribed to those facilities and, therefore, support
a higher environmental priority for the facility.
Environmental benefits include:
o New capacity: Opportunities to provide; additional and/or
improved waste management capacity in order to ensure
adequate national capacity to safely manage waste, either
at new facilities or existing facility expansions,
2-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
particularly to fulfill milestones or special conditions
in a State's Capacity Assurance Plan.
Innovative technologies: Opportunities to employ
technologies that may not have a large history of
performance and cost data, such as solvent extraction,
chemical or biological treatment, but may present more
effective or less costly solutions to hazardous waste
management problems.1
Waste minimization: Opportunities to undertake waste
minimization initiatives, including any that implement
State pollution prevention laws, or to target specific
facility operations or processes that minimize wastes.
Waste minimization should be integrated into all RCRA
activities.
Cross-media benefits: Opportunities to implement a
geographic or similar Agency initiative, coordinated with
other environmental programs, to optimize risk reduction
and environmental improvement.
Incentives for compliance: Opportunities, as a result
of well-timed actions against a facility, that may
produce incentives for compliance at other, similar
facilities (in the same class, employing the
same waste management practice, or posing a particular
problem).
Enhanced regulatory control: Opportunities to establish
an effective regulatory presence that would lead to
upgraded hazardous waste management, or precipitate
closure at an individual facility that was previously
unregulated, has a poor compliance history (or
enforcement status of concern) and/or is in a
precarious financial situation.
1 Innovative technologies, (1) may be more cost-effective,
holding the promise of extending cleanup funds over a large
universe of sites; (2) may provide treatment solutions that are
not currently available with conventional technologies; and (3) may
offer remedies that are more acceptable to the public than
incineration. Demonstrations of innovative technologies through
treatability studies, stabilization of corrective action sites, and
application of final remedies will define the operating boundaries
of technologies. Rotary-kiln incineration and solidification
processes are not considered innovative by this definition.
2-3
-------
Other considerations as the Basis for Raising Facilities'
Priority
A limited number of additional facilities that are not high
environmental priorities may be accorded high priority for other -
considerations. Valid other considerations that compel elevating
selected additional facilities to high priority would include the
degree of national, State, or local public interest in a
facility; State law provisions; or the extent to which a facility
is involved in an emerging issue or program initiative (e.g.,
suspicion of sham recycling or excessive use of safety mechanisms
at incinerators) during the upcoming year. A specific evaluation
for all facilities, against a set list of other considerations,
is not required. Regions and States may elevate no more than 15%
of TSDFs to high priority solely because of other considerations.
Guidelines to Ensure National Consistency
The RIP does not prescribe a single approach to conducting
the environmental priority ranking process, nor does it define
how evaluations for environmental significance or environmental
benefits, should be performed. With the exception of using
NCAPS, triggered by an RFA, Regions and States are free to use
their own approaches to evaluating and ranking TSDFs. Existing
systems can be used or modified or new systems may be designed
for this purpose. However, Regions and States must comply with
the following:
o For facilities that have an RFA (or the equivalent amount
of information from the EPI) the "National Corrective
Action Prioritization System" or approved equivalent will
be used to support the evaluation of environmental
significance.
o A facility initially evaluated for environmental
significance without an RFA must be re-evaluated once an
RFA or the equivalent is completed since the application
of the "National Corrective Action Prioritization System"
may result in a different ranking.
o Facilities must be individually evaluated for
environmental significance. The final environmental
priority ranking must reflect this evaluation as well as
application of the environmental benefits criterion.
o Regions and States must maintain documentation of
evaluations for environmental significance, including the
NCAPS results and environmental benefits which led to the
environmental priority ranking for each facility.
o Environmental priority must result in (or be translated
into) High, Medium and Low groupings.
2-4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
o The environmental priority of a facility may change due
to new information about the facility or a change in
facility status. Regions/States should consider
establishing milestones in facility activities, other
than completion of an RFA, when a re-assessment would be
appropriate. An example of such a milestone is permit
issuance or stabilization since that may reduce the
facility's environmental significance and allow the
Region to redirect resources to higher priorities
through, for instance, reduced oversight.
o In applying the Strategic Management Framework, no more
than 15% of facilities may be added as high priority
solely on the basis of other considerations. The other
considerations that compel a high priority designation
must be identified and documented.
o All facilities newly brought into the Subtitle C
treatment, storage and disposal universe are subject to
this priority-setting process.
o No new resource-intensive long-term activities can be
initiated at a facility in the existing TSDF universe
unless the facility has gone through the priority-setting
process using available information.
Regional and State Roles in Determining Facilities' Priority
The Regional offices and States are responsible for jointly
determining their appropriate roles in conducting the evaluation
and ranking of their TSDFs, taking into account authorization
status of States, resources, and national consistency
requirements.
Ranking Facilities during FY 91-92 Transition
In FY 91, States and Regions should begin the ranking
process by evaluating the environmental priority of facilities in
the order described below. Completing and refining facility
rankings in FY 92 is a national priority activity as explained in
Chapter 3.
Pre-RFA Facilities fEPI Candidates) ;
The EPI is being revitalized and will yield functional
equivalents of RFAs in the future. Those facilities which have
not previously been examined for corrective action needs should
2-5
-------
be ranked first until the Environmental Priorities Initiative
(EPI) queue for FY 92 is filled. For budget planning purposes,
the Superfund program needs a list of candidate facilities for
the FY 92 EPI well in advance of the fiscal year. Therefore,
Regions and States must initially complete the facility
prioritization effort using their individual evaluation systems
for a sufficient number of facilities to feed the EPI. The
universe of closed or closing land disposal facilities should be
given initial consideration for inclusion for two reasons. Post-
closure permitting progress is a national priority activity
because many of these facilities are likely to be of high
environmental significance (See Chapter 3 and 4). In addition,
issuance of post-closure permits is an issue in the EOF deadline
suit. Therefore, we anticipate that it is likely EPA will need
to report on the environmental priority of such facilities. To
the extent there are other facilities not previously subjected to
RFAs for corrective action, but similarly likely to fall into the
high environmental priority category, they also may be included.
This prioritization effort (identification of facilities for the
FY 92 EPI queue) must be completed by June 1, 1991.
Corrective Action Pipeline Facilities
It is important to next evaluate those facilities that are
in the corrective action "pipeline" (facilities with RFIs imposed
or further) as of April 1, 1991. Corrective action pipeline
facilities require a proportionately larger share of program
resources. Early ranking of pipeline facilities will provide
Regions and States with the information they need to plan during
FY 92 how best to reduce resource commitments at medium and low
priority facilities. Whenever possible, actions should be taken
in FY 92 to make these resource shifts. For facilities in this
category, the "National Corrective Action Prioritization System"
must be applied and the environmental priority determined by
September 1, 1991.
Facilities with Post-Closure Permitting Needs
Regions and States should next complete evaluation of any
remaining facilities with post-closure permitting needs that have
not been included in the above categories. Using their own
evaluation systems, evaluation and ranking of these facilities
must be completed by October 1, 1991. By determining the
environmental priority of all facilities with post-closure permit
needs, Regions and States will be in a position to effectively
plan activities that will support this as a national program
activity in FY 92 and beyond.
Facilities in Midst of Active Permitting Actions
The next category of facilities for evaluation are those for
which a permit action is being processed. Because permit actions
2-6
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
are costly, any facility in the permit pipeline should be
evaluated for environmental priority as a basis for assessing,
during FY 92, the best timeframe for continuing the permit
effort. Therefore, such evaluation should be completed by
November 1, 1991. Depending on whether an RFA has already been
completed, the environmental priority will either result from an
approach of the Region's or State's own design or will reflect
NCAPS.
Facilities with RFAs
The next group of facilities to be evaluated for
environmental significance should be those facilities which have
undergone either an RFA or equivalent, but have progressed no
further through the corrective action process (i.e., have not yet
been issued permits or corrective action enforcement orders).
Each facility in this category ("RFA facilities") as of April 1,
1991 should be subjected to NCAPS and ranked by December 1, 1991
for environmental priority.
Remaining Facilities
The final group of facilities to be evaluated for priority
are those which do not fall in any of the above categories.
Remaining facilities include any others which have not had an RFA
or equivalent and facilities with EPI-PAs that are not equivalent
to RFAs. These may also include new universe facilities.
Regions and States should evaluate remaining facilities for their
environmental priority by April 1, 1992. The ranking of these
facilities will rely entirely on the evaluation systems of the
individual Regions and States.
New Universe Facilities
As new facilities are brought into the RCRA universe they
must go through the ranking process before other than nominal
activities are scheduled (actions to stem immediate threats to
public health or the environment are not subject to this
restriction). However, initially the Region/State may choose to
rank only a limited number of high profile facilities to address
outstanding issues and to establish a visible RCRA presence at
these facilities.
At this time we will not establish a deadline for using the
"National Corrective Action Prioritization System" to revise the
environmental significance evaluation of facilities heretofore
unassessed for corrective action. This is because the timeframe
for the completion of RFAs (or equivalent assessments) at these
facilities depends (1) on the priority of each of these
facilities and activities within the RCRA Strategic Management
Framework and (2) the success of the revitalized EPI.
2-7
-------
Identifying Needed Regulatory Actions at Facilities
Once facilities have been prioritized, during FY 92
facilities must be individually reviewed, in priority order, for
laying out the menu of regulatory activities that are needed at
each facility. This would be followed by determining the
specific actions or set of actions to be undertaken (ensuring
attention to national priority activities), the schedule to be
followed, and the responsible organizations.
2-8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Chapter 3
MAKING AND DOCUMENTING CHOICES AMONG ACTIVITIES
As Regions and States complete the priority ranking of
facilities, the next components of the Strategic Management
Framework are choosing appropriate prevention and corrective
action activities to address facilities and documenting
accountability and accomplishments. These components are
designed to assure national consistency while accommodating
Regional and State flexibility to address their own environmental
priorities.
Activity Levels Among RCRA Program Elements
Table 1 graphically presents the allocation of RCRA
resources among the major program elements: program
implementation, program management, and compliance monitoring and
enforcement. The Strategic Management Framework integrates the
implementation and program management program elements.
Compliance monitoring and enforcement is addressed separately in
Chapter 5.
The program implementation element encompasses prevention
and corrective action activities. (These activities are covered
by the combination of permitting and corrective action portions
in Tables 1 and 2.) "Prevention" includes the full range of
permitting activities (permit determinations, modifications,
closure plan approvals, five-year reviews, etc.); pollution
prevention activities (pollution prevention in permits,
initiatives implementing state pollution prevention programs,
etc.); and overall environmental significance priority ranking
for facilities. Corrective action includes priority ranking
using the national quantitative ranking system, stabilization,
and corrective action pipeline activities (RFA, EPI, RFI, CMS,
etc.) through either permit or enforcement mechanisms.
The program management element encompasses State
authorization and program oversight (except for enforcement and
inspections), training (except for enforcement) and staff
development, and program/information management (budget, FOIA,
RCRIS, etc.). While these activities do not involve direct
facility interaction, the RIS highlighted their importance to
maintaining an effective RCRA program. In the .press of competing
needs, these non-facility specific activities are often de-
emphasized. However, it is critical to keep these activities in
balance to enhance a high quality RCRA program.
3-1
-------
Compliance monitoring and enforcement includes inspections;
monitoring; oversight of State enforcement activities;
enforcement training; civil, judicial, and criminal enforcement
of program requirements.
Table 1 can be used several ways;
o Balancing level of effort within and between program
elements. In previous years, Regions have used the
RIP-flex process to shift emphasis among activities
within program elements. Because of the Strategic
Management Framework, RIP-flex is no longer necessary
for program management and implementation activities.
Regions and States should plan activities within the
total available budget allocation for these program
elements. They must address their commitment to national
priority activities within each element and to their own
high priority activities. Where the Region proposes
resource shifts between these two program elements, the
Region should explain the proposed budget shift in the
beginning of year plan. In FY 92, flexibility will be
available for resource shifts within the enforcement
program element to refocus priority activities as
discussed in Chapter 5. In FY 92, Headquarters will not
allow shifts among enforcement,
management/implementation, and Subtitle D (discussed in
Chapter 6) program elements.
o Recognizing opportunities and limitations within each
program element. Generally, the RCRA experience has been
that STARS commitments only account for a portion of
resources available in each program element. Either
through STARS, or through Beginning of Year Plans,
Regions/States have the opportunity to identify their own
priority activities and reflect more thoroughly their
range of activities during the year. This is also an
opportunity to recognize more explicitly activity
limitations because requirements exceed the budgeted
levels shown in Table 1.
o Balancing prevention/corrective action resources. As
Table 1 illustrates, corrective action and prevention
make up 26 percent and 19 percent, respectively, of the
total RCRA budget. Regions and States should use this as
a starting point in planning prevention and corrective
action activities. Headquarters recognizes that
addressing high priority activities at high priority
facilities may affect this resource split. However,
balancing prevention program activities with corrective
action program activities is an important program goal.
We need to maintain progress in both program areas and to
address reducing current risk as well as preventing
3-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
future risk. Headquarters will closely monitor this
balance.
Table 2 further refines the overall budget assumptions made
in Table 1. It depicts the activity level assumed by the budget
for Regions and for States in each of the major program elements
Like Table I, Table 2 can assist Regions and States in
determining the proper balance within and among program elements
and in determining the proportional effort of each party within
each program element.
3-3
-------
Table 1
Overall RCRA Budget
Allocated to Program Elements
Permitting
Program
Management
Corrective
Action
Compliance
Monitoring and
Enforcement
3-4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Table 2
Regional and State RCRA
Budget Allocated to Program Elements
Percent Total EPA Budget
Permitting
x x
Corrective
Action
/^^^^ 37% |
/N.
Program
Management
Compliance
Monitoring and
Enforcement
Percent Total State Grant Budget
Permitting
Program
Management
Corrective
Action
Compliance
Monitoring and
Enforcement
3-5
-------
National Priority Activities
Overview
As discussed in Chapter l, accomplishments in certain key
program areas are critical to demonstrate our progress in
achieving national program goals. This section identifies key
areas of activity where the national RCRA program is accountable
to Congress and the public for measuring progress and
environmental results. Chapter 4 discusses national policy
direction for each activity and briefly explains its relationship
to national goals.
Each national priority activity is a targeted or reporting
STARS measure. The following questions guided selection of key
activity areas and national priority activities:
o Do we, as program implementers, and do our constituencies
expect that specific activities have high environmental
significance - why?
o What activities are most likely to prevent near-term
environmental and human exposure to hazardous waste?
o What permitting activities are essential to ensure safe
and effective capacity for managing hazardous wastes in
the future?
o What corrective action program activities are most
important for achieving timely risk reduction at our
highest priority facilities?
o What are the essential permitting activities to ensure
that facilities meet all their regulatory
responsibilities throughout the life of the facility?
o What activities are most important for encouraging and
supporting States in their implementation of the
hazardous waste program?
o What are the key activities for ensuring the availability
of accurate national data on progress and
accomplishments?
o What activities are most important for ensuring resources
are focused on the highest priority facilities and
activities?
3-6
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Kev activity areas in the Strategic Management Framework
are:
I. Program management
(1) Fully implement an effective data management system.
(2) Enhance State capabilities and actively delegate
program to the states.
II. Program implementation
(1) Make and document choices based on environmental
priority.
(2) Address boilers and industrial furnaces.
(3) Demonstrate post-closure permitting progress.
(4) Demonstrate permitting progress.
(5) Achieve timely risk reduction through focused
corrective action.
As Regions and States go through the Strategic Management
planning process, they should first assess the need for national
priority activities at high priority facilities. When other
activities are more appropriate at high priority facilities,
Regions and States should identify them in the Beginning of Year
Plans discussed below and briefly address the rationale for their
priority determinations.
Implications for the RCRA program at the Regional and State
level.
o This approach does not set a goal of meeting the 1992
storage/treatment permitting deadline. Rather the goal
is to permit high priority storage/treatment facilities
in a timely manner relative to other high priority
facilities.
o This approach does not anticipate meeting all
regulatory procedural deadlines for all activities.
For example, after priority ranking is completed for
each facility, the Region/State will undertake permit
modification activities only for high priority
facilities and allow permit modifications to take
effect automatically at others. This will enable
Regions/States to focus resources on facilities for the
greatest environmental result. .,
3-7
-------
o Regions/States can phase activities to respond to
differing levels of environmental significance attached
to units within the facility. For example, high
priority corrective action needs at a storage/treatment
facility can be addressed through section 3008(h)
authority while permitting activity is deferred.
Conversely, an environmentally significant boiler or
industrial furnace (BIF) facility with medium or low
priority corrective action needs can be permitted with
less oversight, a delayed compliance schedule, or a
specified re-opener to address corrective action at a
later time.
o In a Region with a large number of BIFs, completing
priority ranking for some of the more prominent
facilities serves as a basis for targeting limited
resources to highest environmental priority facilities.
o Identifying priority activities provides another
mechanism for Regions and States to target specific
initiatives to priority facilities. For example, waste
minimization remains an Agency priority. Waste
minimization concepts and approaches should become
integral components of appropriate regulatory
activities targeted to priority facilities.
Defining Accountability and Reporting Accomplishments
The Strategic Management Framework offers Regions and States
significant flexibility for RCRA implementation. Within a
consistent national framework for priority ranking they have
flexibility to use their own qualitative environmental
significance ranking systems. They have flexibility to apply
their own environmental benefits ranking to raise the facility's
overall environmental priority.
Regions and States must address national priority
activities. However, if they can demonstrate other high priority
needs outweighing national priorities, they have the flexibility
to increase resource commitments to their own priorities and
reduce activity levels for national priorities.
Concomitant with this flexibility, the RCRA program as a
whole, including Regions and States, must accept accountability
to demonstrate that activity levels are commensurate with
resources; that we know what our environmental priorities are;
and that we are addressing them. This accountability requires us
all to define ambitious but achievable expectations up front and
report accomplishments consistently.
National priority activities in the Strategic Framework
equate to STARS measures, EPA's Strategic Tracking and Reporting
3-8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
System. In addition, we are adding two reporting mechanisms to
the Strategic Framework: the Beginning of Year Plan and the End
of Year Report.
The Beginning of Year Plan (BOY) is prepared by each Region
to document planned activities and projected accomplishments for
the coming year. The plan should integrate State and Regional
Activities to support/enhance meeting RCRA program goals. The
BOY Plan includes STARS projections but also offers flexibility
to identify Regional and State priorities and to add substantive
discussion of activities and priority needs to existing numbers
tracking. The BOY plan offers an opportunity to identify gaps in
our coverage of environmental priorities which may need to be
addressed through future planning and implementation initiatives.
The End of Year Report is prepared by each Region to
summarize Regional and State accomplishments against projected
accomplishments, to provide substantive discussion of progress in
identifying and addressing priorities, priority shifts during the
year and emerging issues/events that affected projected/final
accomplishments.
FY 92 BOY Plans
FY 92 BOY plans are due to Headquarters August 15, 1991.
More detailed guidance on how to prepare the FY 92 BOY will be
forthcoming. However, the BOY should contain the following
components:
1. Proposed STARS targets - Headquarters will negotiate
specific STARS targets with each Region as in past
years.
2. Regional/State priority activities that are not
reflected in STARS. Any anticipated priorities may be
addressed here, but not every RCRA program activity
needs to be addressed.
3. Percentage of the implementation and program management
budget elements that are committed each to national,
Regional, and State priorities.
4. For the remaining portion of the implementation/program
management budget, define the range of activities and
level of commitment to demonstrate progress across the
RCRA universe. (This is an important component of the
BOY plan because it defines a "base level" of activity
that the RCRA program must maintain to ensure equitable
treatment of the regulated community;,,to maintain a
visible presence in the regulated community, etc.)
3-9
-------
5. Schedule for completing priority ranking for all
facilities in the universe - refer to schedule in
Chapter 2.
6. Documentation of Regional or State environmental
significance priority ranking system.
7. Activity/resource level committed to corrective action
and prevention (number of facilities actively
addressed, categories of facilities,
prevention/corrective action split of resources). It
is important to maintain an appropriate balance between
corrective action and prevention.
8. Pollution prevention activities.
9. For activities at post-closure facilities, identify
whether the facility is on the permit track or being
addressed through corrective action orders.
10. State Enhancement and Authorization plan - discussed in
Chapter 4.
11. Enforcement BOY Plan - discussed in Chapter 5.
FY 93 BOY Plans
Headquarters will develop more specific guidance on FY 93
BOY Plans in the FY 93 RIP. The flexibility in that guidance
will be influenced by our experience with the FY 92 BOY Plans.
However, a general outline of the current thoughts for the FY 93
BOY Plan may help to give Regions and States a clearer
understanding of Headquarters expectations for accomplishments in
FY 92. By the time FY 93 grant negotiations and workplan
development are underway, Regions and States should have
completed priority ranking for TSD facilities in their universe.
The FY 93 BOY Plan should address:
1. Overall priority ranking of all facilities in the
universe with discussion of findings, conclusions. (Do
we want to ask for separate ranking of facilities with
the national system?)
2. Assessment of current (FY 92) resource commitments to
activities/facilities compared to priority needs
identified through the ranking process.
3. Plan to complete transition to focus resources on high
priority facilities and high priority activities.
3-10
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
4. Number of medium and low priority facilities that are
raised to high priority due to "other considerations"
involved (15 percent limit on these facilities).
5. Prevention/corrective action resources split. Number of
high priority facilities addressed through range of
permitting of activities. Number of high priority
facilities addressed through range of corrective action
activities. This enables us to ensure the maintenance of
an appropriate resource split between permitting and
corrective action activities.
6. Regional/State priority activities.
7. Status of post-closure universe - priority ranking of
facilities and whether they are on the permit/corrective
action track.
8. For remaining program management/implementation
activities, range of activities to demonstrate progress
across RCRA universe.
9. State Enhancement and Authorization plan.
10. Enforcement BOY plan.
End of Year Report
The FY 92 End of Year Report is due to Headquarters
October 30, 1992. The End of Year Report provides Regions and
States the opportunity to report accomplishments against their
BOY projections as well as substantive discussion of progress,
and intervening events or new priorities that affected their
accomplishments against BOY projections. The End of Year Report
should include:
1. STARS and appropriate narrative discussion.
2. Accomplishments in priority ranking of universe.
3. Actions taken to restructure resources to high
priority facilities/activities.
Making th« Transition to Match Resource Commitments to
Environmental Priorities: FY 92 to FY 93
EPA Headquarters expects that all Regions and States will
have to make a transition to shift from at least some current
activity/facility commitments to address other higher priority
facilities/activities. Planning and transition should begin in
FY 92 and most transition needs should be accomplished by the end
of FY 93. Regions and States should carefully consider decision
3-11
-------
guides for making this transition. General principles to follow
include:
o No new significant national priority activities (i.e.,
resource intensive, longterm) such as permit processing
or RFI imposed should be initiated at a facility until
the facility has an environmental priority ranking
(either qualitative or using the national system).
Generally such activities should not be initiated at
medium or low priority facilities, except for the 15
percent that may be raised to high priority to
accommodate "other considerations". This guideline
would not preclude necessary interaction with a
facility maintaining some level of progress across the
RCRA universe. It will however provide an orderly
process to direct major new resource commitments to
environmental priorities.
o For medium and low priority facilities already in the
permit pipeline, Regions and States should consider
approaches to reduce resource commitments to those
facilities such as extended schedules for permit
issuance, deferring development of the permit or
allowing permit modifications to take effect
automatically.
o For facilities with an RFI under way, as the RFI is
completed, evaluate first for stabilization and then,
initiate stabilization as appropriate.
o At low and medium priority facilities with an RFI
imposed, take measures to reduce resource commitment,
for example reduce oversight, extend schedules, or stop
EPA/State activity.
o For high priority facilities with an RFA, impose RFI
with requirements for early collection and evaluation
of stabilization data.
3-12
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Chapter 4
KEY ACTIVITIES AND STARS MEASURES FOR PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
Chapter 3 provided guidance on selecting national and
Regional/State priority activities for FY 92 and for documenting
the choices. This chapter describes in greater detail the
rationale for the national priority activities and presents broad
policy guidance and implementation expectations in some areas
(notably in RCRIS and corrective action). Key activities and
STARS measures for enforcement and municipal and industrial solid
waste management are discussed separately in Chapters 5 and 6.
PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES
Implementing an Effective Data Management System (RCRIS)
After years of development and piloting, we are now on the
threshold of national implementation of the RCRIS data management
system. The Administrator's tracking system has always reflected
January 1992 as the point when RCRIS becomes the official EPA
system for RCRA information.
Under the Framework for National Implementation issued on
August 4, 1989, all Regions and 39 States were scheduled to use
RCRIS to report RCRA program activities by October 1, 1990. As
of October 1, 1990 only one Region and one State were using
RCRIS. In early FY 1991, the Regions and Headquarters worked
together to develop a revised national strategy to ensure the
January 1, 1992 date for final implementation would be met.
RCRIS Implementation Strategy
The revised national strategy has the following three
objectives:
1. Regions and States enter all data into RCRIS by
January 1, 1992.
o A minimum of one State per Region must be
operating according to the full two-domain process
by January 1, 1992. Two-domain refers to a division
of responsibility for data ownership between EPA
Regions and the States.
i
4-1
-------
o Implementation of the two-domain process will be
completed for all authorized States by January,
1994. The January 1994 requirement specifically
addresses those states which choose to assume
responsibility for direct data management as
automated co-implementers and have committed the
resources to support these operations. States may
elect to continue as manual co-implementers under
this plan.
o HWDMS data entry capabilities will be discontinued
on December 31, 1991.
o HWDMS will be completely archived on March 31, 1992
(Reporting capabilities from archived data will be
discontinued).
o FY 1992 STARS reports will only be developed in
RCRIS (not HWDMS).
o The first quarter FY 1992 STARS pull (January 1992)
will be from RCRIS only.
2. Obtain strong National/Regional senior management
support.
3. Strengthen technical capabilities of Regions and States.
RCRIS Implementation Activities
In order to achieve the January 1992 deadline, many
implementation activities will need to be accomplished by the
Region and the State in FY 1991 and the first quarter of FY 1992.
Headquarters will be working with the Regions and evaluating
their progress in the following areas:
1. MOU Preparation. Has a Memorandum of Understanding
between the Region and State been prepared and signed?
2. Test Conversions. Have the Region and State run test
conversions of HWDMS/CARS data into RCRIS?
3. Final Conversions. Have the Region and State run a final
conversion of HWDMS/CARS data into RCRIS?
4. Parallel Operations. Has parallel entry of data into
HWDMS/CARS and RCRIS begun?
4-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
5. RCRIS Data Reconciliation. Has the RCRIS data been
reconciled between the Region and State files and
with HWDMS/CARS data?
6. RCRIS Validation. Have the Region and State validated
the universe data, STARS data and merge edits? If these
are validated, HWDMS can be turned off.
7. HWDMS/CARS Termination. Has HWDMS/CARS been turned off?
Is all reporting now coming from RCRIS?
Priority Activity —
STARS Targeted Measure;
(R/PM-l) Number of States in each Region whose data is being
pulled directly from RCRIS.
Implementing the 1991 Biennial Report to Support SARA Capacity
In FY 92, Headquarters, Regions and authorized States will
continue implementing activities for the Biennial Report System
(BRS). Information crucial to SARA Capacity Assurance Planning
is drawn from BRS, including the quantities and characterizations
of hazardous waste generated and the capacities and descriptions
of management processes. The data requested by the 1991 Biennial
Report is the facility census data required to complete the 1993
Capacity Assurance Plan (CAP). In order for EPA to develop the
national data base for states* use in 1993 CAP preparation, all
states must process the 1991 data submitted in the 1991 Biennial
Report Forms. Provided states process the 1991 data in a timely
manner, the availability of the national data base will coincide
with the issuance of the 1993 CAP guidance.
In FY 92 the following activities are planned:'
1. Regions will distribute the Biennial Report Forms to the
proper handler universe or ensure States do by
December 31, 1991. Headquarters will supply training on
the use of Forms by December 1991.
2. Regions or States will collect all handler Biennial
Report data by March 1992 and State-collected data is due
to the Regions by June 1992. Headquarters will provide
software and software support necessary by March 1992.
4-3
-------
3. The Regions will review the 1991 Biennial Report data for
errors and submit quality data to Headquarters by August
1992. Headquarters will establish a national database
with the data.
No STARS Measure
States as Primary Implementers of the RCRA Program
RIS Recommendations for Federal/State Relationship
The RIS recommended changes to the current Federal/State
relationship to enhance the implementation of the RCRA program.
Headquarters, Regions and States have already begun developing
and implementing these recommendations especially in the areas of
streamlining the current State authorization process and raising
the priority of authorization. Discussed below are changes to
the RCRA authorization activities that EPA will implement in
FY 92.
Delegation of Authorization Decisions
A two-year pilot delegation of revision application reviews
and authorization decisions to the Regions is an authorization
streamlining change that is already being implemented. Since the
pilot will continue through FY 92, its successful implementation
will be a focus of FY 92 authorization activity. The delegation
should facilitate the authorization of States that are willing
and able to assume responsibility for new RCRA activities by
eliminating unnecessary duplication in the application review
process.
EPA Headquarters and the Regions will assume certain new
roles during the delegation that will be clearly laid out in
forthcoming Agency guidance. Two tools that will assist EPA in
actively delegating the RCRA program to the States and in raising
the priority of authorization during the pilot are the State
Enhancement and Authorization Plans and the new State
Authorization STARS measure.
State Enhancement and Authorization Plan
For FY 92 and FY 93, Regions will prepare "State Enhancement
and Authorization Plans" that will contain information about what
the Region is doing to build State capability and encourage
authorization. These plans should reflect any work load that is
4-4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
currently shared between the State and Region and should present
a schedule of milestones for improving a State's capability.
Regions should use these plans as a tool to encourage
unauthorized States to become authorized and authorized States to
pick up program revisions as quickly as possible.
The plans should especially highlight those revisions such
as corrective action and the land disposal restrictions that are
fundamental to a comprehensive hazardous waste management
program. They should further emphasize State adoption of those
optional rules which would improve the operation of State
programs. Two rules in particular which fit this category are
the permit modification rule (53 IE 37912, 9/28/88) and the
interim status changes rule (54 FR 9696, 3/7/89). These rules
provide an improved process for assimilating the expanding
hazardous waste universe (e.g., new waste listings, new
processes) and will also expedite changes at facilities to
provide new capacity and accommodate corrective action. In
addition, adoption of the permit modification rule would make
implementation of the new Toxicity Characteristic rule (55 FR
11798) easier by shortening the period of dual EPA/State
regulation of characteristic wastes.
The State Enhancement and Authorization Plan is due with the
Beginning of Year Plan and may be incorporated into the BOY. It
will be used to evaluate Regional progress in authorization. In
addition, the Plan and the Region's implementation progress will
be highlighted in briefings and Regional updates for senior
Agency management.
The format, length and content of the State Plan will vary
from Region to Region. However, it should specifically include
the following:
1. Each individual State's progress in achieving
authorization to date.
2. The problems (e.g., statutory/regulatory change issues,
capability concerns) the State is having achieving
authorization.
3. A solution for getting each State authorized for all past
due clusters as soon as possible.
4. A description of any work sharing/capability enhancement
activities that may be required.
We encourage the Regions to be creative in working on the States'
problems and developing solutions. Possibilities include:
working to change a State's unwieldy permit approval process,
4-5
-------
developing capability or resolving problems blocking
authorization (such as high staff turnover rates), using IPAs or
SWAT teams, and providing additional training. Ranking of
activities may be necessary where there are numerous
authorization issues and problems.
New Authorization STARS Measure
In FY 1992, a new STARS measure will track authorization (at
a Regional level) for all non-optional Federal rules. The
measure will reflect the success of the Region's authorization
program.
Priority Activity —
STARS Reporting Measure?
(R/PM-l) Progress in getting States authorized for RCRA
Subtitle C program
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ACTIVITIES
Making and Documenting Choices Based on Environmental Priority
As discussed in Chapter 2, a reliable nationally consistent
approach to ranking environmental priorities at facilities is the
key to a defensible facility-based approach to RCRA
implementation and the foundation for the Strategic Management
Framework.
Priority Activity —
STARS Targeted Measure;
(R/c-4) Number of TSDFs ranked for environmental priority
Addressing Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
Boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) are important sources
of hazardous waste incineration capacity. However, these
facilities are unregulated by RCRA until August 1991. The BIF
rule is unlike regulations for other waste treatment units in
that it includes substantive interim status standards and
associated compliance deadlines. It is important to establish a
regulatory presence at high priority BIF facilities. BIFs should
go through the same priority ranking process as other RCRA
facilities, although the Region/State may choose initially to
rank only a limited number of high-profile facilities. Priority
ranking may be based on factors such as waste volume and burning
4-6
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
practices, quality of initial submissions, past facility
practices, compliance options chosen by the facility, and public
concern.
The rule requires facilities to submit certifications of
pre-compliance with the interim status emissions standards (based
on estimates or engineering judgment) six months after
promulgation (August 1991). Unless operating under a facility-
specific extension, they must submit compliance certifications
(based on actual testing) eighteen months after promulgation
(August 1992). Before submitting the compliance certification,
each facility must conduct a compliance test. At least 30 days
prior to the test, the facility must submit a notice of
compliance testing, along with a test plan. A facility which
cannot meet the compliance deadlines can either take an automatic
12-month extension during which hazardous waste burning is
limited to 720 hours, or request a case-by-case extension from
the Director. The pre-compliance and compliance certifications
specify operating conditions that the facility must comply with
during interim status. Facilities which do not meet the
compliance deadlines or receive extensions must cease waste
burning and begin closure.
It is unlikely that there will be a significant level of
permitting activities in FY 92 for BIFs. However, there are
several activities which Regions may initiate. Regions will need
administrative tracking to identify BIF facilities and track
their submissions and compliance deadlines. In particular,
review of pre-compliance certifications and compliance
certifications is an important activity to establish a regulatory
presence at selected high priority facilities.
Review of other pre-compliance and compliance certifications
can serve several important functions. If the certification is
not adequate, the Region may negotiate to change interim status
operating conditions. If the certification is seriously
deficient, the Region may choose to call in the Part B as a means
to either compel safe operation or closure of the facility.
Alternatively, the Region could consider the facility to be out
of compliance with the certification requirements, and thus
subject to ceasing waste burning activities and commencing
closure. Review of the certification can also help to target
facilities for interim status inspections, as well as for closer
oversight during scheduled compliance tests.
Priority Activity —
STARS Reporting Measure:
(R/C-5) Number of completed technical reviews of BIF pre-
compliance and compliance certifications
4-7
-------
Post-Closure Permitting Progress
The post-closure permitting universe is generally perceived
to include many high priority facilities because they are land
based facilities, many do not meet Part 265 standards, and the
financial status of the owner/operator is uncertain. Because of
these concerns, the post-closure universe has been the subject of
a great deal of attention from Congress, GAO and environmental
groups. Issuance of post closure permits is an issue in the EOF
deadlines lawsuit. The schedule in Chapter 2 for priority
ranking of facilities places special emphasis on ranking post-
closure permits for the EPI queue (June 1, 1991). This is
critical to gain enough information to make a reasonable
assessment of the environmental significance of these facilities.
The schedule also calls for completion of priority ranking for
all post-closure facilities by November 1, 1991. Until they are
prioritized, we will not know exactly where they fall in priority
ranking.
During FY 92 within the category of high priority
facilities, Regions and States should consider elevating post-
closure facilities when determining whether to take action.
For post-closure facilities that do not have closure plans in
place, regardless of priority ranking, the Regions should proceed
to issue closure plans as quickly as possible and take
enforcement actions against facilities that have not submitted
closure plans. We recognize that these facilities are probably
complicated, but it is essential that we continue progress in
this area. We also recognize that it might be appropriate to
delay closure plan approval where closure is subsumed in a
broader corrective action.
Priority Activities —
STARS Reporting Measures:
(R/C-3a) Number of post closure Part B applications
called in
(R/C-3b) Number of public notices of intent to
approve/deny post-closure Part B applications
STARS Targeted Measure;
(R/C-3c) Number of post-closure final determinations
4-8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Demonstrating Operating Permit Progress
Final permits determinations, closure plan approvals, and
certification of closure are benchmarks in the life of a facility
for demonstrating environmental compliance. For EPA and States,
these activities are key measures for bringing facilities fully
into the RCRA system and ensuring that they fulfill their
obligations throughout the facility life. These four measures
also address facilities and units newly brought into the Subtitle
C system through new listings or newly regulated management
practices.
Priority Activities —
STARS Reporting Measures:
(R/C-la) Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive operating permit
final determinations during fiscal year.
(R/C-lb) Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive permit modification
approval or denial during fiscal year.
(R/C-2a) Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closure plan
approval during fiscal year.
(R/C-2b) Number of RCRA TSDFs to certify closure during
fiscal year.
Focusing Corrective Action To Achieve Timely Risk Reduction
There are over 4,000 facilities in the current corrective
action program universe. Maximizing the environmental benefits
of this program over the next decade means focusing corrective
action program resources on those facilities, areas of
facilities, and program activities that produce the greatest
environmental benefit. In FY 92 and beyond we will focus
resources at high priority facilities and on those activities at
these facilities that will: (1) result in the greatest
reductions in existing exposures and (2) have the greatest impact
on preventing future releases and exposures.
This section of the RIP lays out an approach to begin to
implement the corrective action strategy established in the RCRA
Implementation Study (RIS) of July 1990. The RIS encourages
management of the corrective action program to produce the
greatest near-term environmental benefits, through implementation
of the following initiatives.
4-9
-------
1. Adoption of a more consistent national system for setting
priorities and directing program resources for the near-
term to high priority facilities (see
Chapter 2).
2. Accelerate efforts to assess all remaining RCRA
facilities through a re-invigorated Environmental
Priorities Initiative (EPI).
3. Increase emphasis on implementing stabilization measures
to address imminent threats to human health and the
environment and to prevent the further spread of
contamination.
4. Better match the level of government oversight of
owner/operator activities to facility conditions and
owner/operator capabilities and characteristics.
5. Develop performance standards that define cleanup
objectives and levels for different categories of sites
to expedite the selection of final remedies. [This is a
post FY 92 initiative and is not addressed in this RIP.]
The application of this strategic approach to a given
facility will vary based on the environmental priority of the
facility, the status of the facility in the corrective action
process, the extent to which interim measures are needed and are
expected to be effective, and the level of oversight necessary at
a particular facility. For example, at some high priority
facilities with RFIs completed, owner/operators will be required
to take immediate measures, under full Agency oversight, to
prevent the further spread of contamination. At other high
priority facilities with RFIs completed, we will find that
interim measures are either not needed or cannot be implemented
because of site-specific circumstances. At many lower priority
facilities, we will consider reducing the level of oversight of
owner/operator activities or consider placing owner/operators of
these facilities on extended schedules of compliance in order to
conserve resources, so that we can focus on higher priority
facilities.
I. Beginning to Implement the RIS Strategy in FY 92
Our overall goal for the Corrective Action Program in FY 92
is to begin to implement the RIS Corrective Action Program
Strategy. We will begin focusing our resources on the highest
priority facilities and taking actions to implement stabilization
measures or final remedies at as many high priority facilities as
possible. Our objectives in FY 92 are to:
4-10
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
action in FY 91 and FY 92 further accentuates the need to
complete initial assessments at the remaining universe of RCRA
facilities.
We expect that over the next several years the EPI will be
the primary vehicle for completing initial assessments in the
RCRA program. Limited RCRA resources, in large part, dictate
this need.
To emphasize the continued importance of EPI, Regions and
Headquarters will negotiate firm commitments for the completion
of PAs for the remainder of FY 91 and for FY 92. These
commitments will be based on available Superfund resources,
Regional needs and competing priorities.
The STARS measure will be a joint OSW/OERR measure, with
each office responsible for the data quality.of the information.
However, the numbers will actually be housed in the CERCLIS
database, and the CERCLIS staff will be responsible for the data
entry.
III. Tailored Oversight for Corrective Action
The RIS suggests that levels of oversight for corrective
action activities be tailored to site specific needs. As
environmental priority ranking of facilities is completed
(according to the schedule in Chapter 2) they should be evaluated
to determine the appropriate level of oversight. Some facilities
now in the "pipeline" are there because of statutory permitting
deadlines. The risks to human health and the environment at some
of these facilities may be minimal, and a reduced level of
oversight appropriate.
Regions and States should determine the appropriate level of
oversight by evaluating the types of activities that will be
performed and factors such as severity of risk, facility
compliance history, public concern, scope of the corrective
action activities, and site complexity. To help make these
determinations, OSWER is drafting guidance on corrective action
oversight which will be issued by May 1991.
IV. Stabilization of Significant Releases
A. Strategy
The overall goal of the stabilization initiative is to
control or abate imminent threats to human health and the
environment, and to prevent or minimize the further spread of
contamination while long term remedies are being pursued. While
this stabilization initiative builds on interim,measure work that
4-13
-------
has been ongoing in Regions and States, the significant change is
that the RCRA program is adopting the philosophy that nationally
there are increased environmental benefits associated with taking
stabilization actions at more facilities compared to pursuing
final, comprehensive remedies at fewer facilities. Focusing
resources in the near term on stabilizing environmental problems
should enable the program to control the most serious
environmental problems at more facilities and to do so more
quickly.
For some facilities, the measures to stabilize releases or
sources of release could be quite extensive, including (for
example) installation of a large scale pump and treat system
combined with treatment- and/or containment-based source control
actions. Exposure controls (fences or other access controls) or
provision of alternate drinking water supplies may be required
where actual or imminent exposure is of concern. Stabilization
will be implemented consistent with our overall objective of
addressing "worst sites first." Generally, program resources and
stabilization actions will be directed at specific facilities
according to their priority.
The amount of information needed to support technical
decisions for stabilization will also vary greatly. Obvious
removal-type situations might often be done more or less
immediately, without extensive studies. On the other hand,
ground water contamination in a complex hydrogeologic setting
could require extensive investigations before an effective
stabilization remedy could be chosen.
OSWER is working closely with ORD-CERI through the Spring
and Summer of 1991 to produce guidance on stabilization
technologies and case studies of successful implementation of
stabilization measures. A technical guidance document will be
prepared by the beginning of FY 92 that will address data needs,
performance criteria, and environmental conditions. It will
include: technical logic for selecting and evaluating
stabilization technologies, extent of data needed to implement
decisions, critical data needs for treatability studies, key
decision points in selecting the stabilization activity, and
recommendations from Regional personnel to enhance technical
performance.
OSWER is also funding a pilot program that will provide the
Regions with access to ORD technical experts in the ORD Labs.
These experts will be available to provide site-specific
technical support to the Regions as they evaluate facilities for
stabilization opportunities and begin to select and implement
stabilization technologies.
>
4-14
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
(1) Make substantial progress in completing PA-pluses
(functional equivalents of RFAs coming out of the
reinvigorated EPI) at all remaining RCRA TSDFs that
were part of the original EPI universe of 01/31/89 and
apply the NCAPS to these facilities as the PA-pluses
are completed (see Section II below);
(2) Complete facility prioritization efforts (which
includes applying the NCAPS to facilities that have
RFAs or the equivalent (see Chapter 2)) and evaluate
oversight needs of each facility (see Section III
below);
(3) Begin, wherever possible, to take actions such as
extending the schedule of compliance or reducing the
level of oversight at Corrective Action pipeline
facilities that are a medium or low priority under the
NCAPS;
(4) Manage the entry of additional facilities into the
Corrective Action pipeline, so that, in general RFIs
are imposed only at those facilities that are a high
priority for Corrective Action (based on the NCAPS
evaluation). To the extent that RFIs need to be
imposed (because of permitting needs) at facilities
that are a medium or low priority for Corrective Action
(based on the NCAPS evaluation), consider extending the
schedule of compliance or reducing the level of
oversight;
(5) Include, wherever possible, in newly imposed RFIs, a
module requiring the early/up-front collection of data
and submission of data to support stabilization
decisions (see Section IV below for a discussion of the
stabilization initiative);
(6) Address imminent threats to human health and the
environment as identified in RFAs and RFIs and review
facilities with RFIs completed (in order of
environmental priority) to identify and implement
measures which would be effective in preventing or
minimizing the spread of contamination;
(7) Continue to work toward making and implementing final
remediation decisions at high priority pipeline
facilities that are not candidates for stabilization
actions and at high priority pipeline facilities where
significant releases are being stabilized. For high
priority facilities with significant Releases being
4-11
-------
stabilized, reassess their environmental priority after
stabilization actions are completed and, if the
environmental priority is reduced, consider extending
the schedule of compliance or reducing the level of
oversight for final remediation decisions.
STARS Targeted Measurest
(R/J-2a) Number of TSDFs prioritized under the NCAPS
(R/J-2b) Number of EPI Preliminary Assessments (PAs)
completed at RCRA TSDFs
(R/J-la) stage I: Information collection and study at high
priority pipeline facilities
(R/J-lb) stage II: Remedy development and selection at high
priority pipeline facilities
(R/J-lc) stage III: Remedy implementation at high priority
pipeline facilities
II. Completion of Initial Assessments
In the corrective action program to date, two types of
initial assessments have been conducted at RCRA facilities: RCRA
Facility Assessments (RFAs) and Preliminary Assessments (PAs)
conducted under the Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI).
Although the EPI has been an ongoing program for several years,
in FY 91 - 92 it will be given renewed focus and emphasis in both
the Regions and Headquarters.
The Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (OERR) has
taken the lead in managing and improving the EPI. Regional and
Headquarters RCRA/CERCLA staffs are encouraged to work more
closely to plan for and complete preliminary assessments under
this program. A goal of the revitalized EPI is to ensure that
the PAs provided by Superfund will meet the needs of both
programs. That is, the new PA-pluses will provide sufficient
information to allow the evaluation of facilities under Superfund
and the NCAPS and will provide enough information to support
permit and order issuance.
The RIS emphasized the importance of completing initial
assessments at the remaining 3,000 or more unassessed facilities
(post-closure permit facilities in particular are receiving
intense scrutiny from EDF and 6AO). In addition, the NCAPS (See
Chapter 2) requires an RFA or an equivalent assessment. Thus,
the prioritization initiative that is beginning for corrective
i1
4-12
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Although the RIS suggests that our goal should be to
complete stabilization determinations and the implementation of
stabilization measures at all RCRA facilities in 8-10 years, the
program cannot at this time establish a deadline for completing
this stabilization initiative. This is because the timeframe for
completing stabilization measures at all appropriate RCRA
facilities is dependent, among other things, on the overall
priority of each "candidate" facility relative to other
facilities under the RCRA Strategic Management Framework.
As we complete the facility prioritization process and begin
to implement the stabilization initiative, we will be in a better
position to define the resource requirements, the relative
urgency of corrective action activities, and the time needed to
fully implement the RIS Corrective Action strategy.
B. Making Stabilization Determinations
The determination of whether a facility is an appropriate
candidate for stabilization should respond to the following
questions:
o Are there releases or other hazards at the facility which
pose actual or imminent exposure threats to humans or
ecosystems at levels of concern?
o Are there releases or other hazards that, if not
addressed expeditiously, will result in further
significant contamination of environmental media?
o Do the site characteristics suggest that the site may be
amenable to measures designed to control or abate
imminent threats or prevent or minimize the further
spread of contamination? That is, what technologies
could be used at the site to abate imminent threats or to
prevent the spread of contamination?
Such a determination will depend on factors such as:
o Site hydrogeology or other media-specific
characteristics.
o The types of contaminants and the volumes of release.
o The technical complexity of remediation.
o The immediacy of exposure threats.
Regions and States may not have sufficient data for
facilities at the RFA stage of the corrective action process to
4-15
-------
make this determination with a reasonable degree of certainty.
Where this is true, Regions and States should take necessary
actions to obtain these data as expeditiously as possible. This
initial determination should be able to be made at the time of or
just after ranking using NCAPS. The determination should be
followed by focused information gathering to support technical
decisions about an appropriate stabilization approach and,
ultimately, the implementation of the technical "fix" as an
"interim measure".
Some high priority facilities may not be good candidates for
stabilization. Such facilities should therefore continue through
the pipeline process. The Stage I, II and III measures
(R/J-la-c) continue to track these efforts.
In summary, to facilitate stabilization of appropriate
sites, Regions and States should:
(1) Evaluate facilities with completed RFAs or RFIs for
stabilization opportunities.
(2) Impose new RFIs that require early collection of
information for stabilization decisionmaking.
(3) Make stabilization decisions as soon as possible for
facilities with RFIs in progress.
(4) Reevaluate the priority of and proper oversight level
for stabilized facilities.
Priority Activities —
STARS Reporting Measures:
(R/j-2c) Number of RFIs imposed requiring early data
collection for stabilization decisions (at high
priority facilities)
(R/J-2e) Number of facilities with stabilization measures
implemented (underway)
Priority Activitiea —
STARS Targeted Measure:
(R/J-2d) RCRA facilities evaluated for stabilization measures
4-16
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
CHAPTER 5
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
The goal of the RCRA Enforcement Program is to maintain a
credible compliance monitoring program, maintain strong
enforcement and create deterrence against non-compliance. As a
result of the expanding RCRA universe, increasingly stringent
regulatory requirements, and overall program development,
management of the enforcement program will continue to present
tremendous challenges and demand a broadening of our approach to
achieving the goals and objectives of the program in FY 1992 and
beyond.
In FY 91, the Agency introduced a new approach (outlined in
the Enforcement Four Year Strategic Plan (Strategic Plan)) to
better promote compliance with and effective deterrence against
violations of environmental laws. The underlying philosophy of
that approach is that to gain maximum leverage from enforcement
actions, more sophisticated approaches are needed to address the
expanding universe of regulated facilities. In its FY 92
Operating Year Guidance, the Office of Enforcement (OE) addressed
enforcement activities that supported the goals and objectives
identified in the Strategic Plan. By focusing on implementing
measures that enhance the RCRA enforcement program's ability to
identify facilities that are currently not in compliance, take
more aggressive enforcement actions to bring them into compliance
and maximize deterrence against future non-compliance, the FY 92
enforcement program priorities discussed in this chapter are
consistent with the philosophy and enforcement objectives
identified in the strategic Plan as well as the OE Operating Year
guidance.
The focus of the FY 92 RIP is on implementing
recommendations in the Compliance and Enforcement Chapter of the
RIS. The RIS evaluated many enforcement program components and
made several recommendations that have significant implications
with respect to the future direction of the enforcement program.
The RIS also acknowledged that the RCRA enforcement program will
obtain voluntary compliance only if the regulated community
perceives a greater risk and cost in violating statutory and
regulatory requirements than complying with them. To achieve
these objectives, the RIS stresses allocating enforcement
resources in a manner that enhances the overall credibility and
effectiveness of the program. The RIS directs the enforcement
program to: become more actively involved in promoting pollution
prevention activities; seek higher penalties and make greater use
of economic sanctions other than monetary penalties, and increase
the enforcement presence for generators and non-notifiers. Other
5-1
-------
major recommendations urge the program to strategically target
enforcement efforts at specific groups and communicate the
results of these efforts more effectively, pursue judicial
enforcement actions more aggressively, achieve a more consistent
interpretation of the definition of high priority violator (HPV),
and increase the use of innovative enforcement tools and
techniques. Implementation of many of these initiatives began in
FY 91 and, in conjunction with statutorily mandated enforcement
activities, will form the basis of the FY 92 enforcement program.
Beginning of Year Plan and End of Year Report
An important finding of the RIS is that the RCRA Enforcement
Program has been spread too thinly. The increased inspection and
enforcement workload associated with new regulatory requirements
and newly regulated universes will further tax resources.
Balancing existing and new requirements should be approached from
the perspective of setting priorities for the use of available
resources. As is the case with other RCRA program components, a
major enforcement program objective is to manage resources more
efficiently and effectively. In addition, the RIS recommends
that the RCRA program build more flexibility into the hazardous
waste management program for Regions and States, focusing on
those activities that are key to achieving RCRA program goals.
To accomplish these objectives, in FY 92 the enforcement program
will adopt a new management approach consistent with the program
management approach discussed in Chapter 1. The proposed
approach provides Regions and States the opportunity to give
great attention to Region and State-specific environmental
priorities by trading-off some national priorities established in
the RIP.
In past years, the RIP-flex process has allowed trade-offs
of between 10 and 15% of the total Regional and State resource
allocation in a given fiscal year. To allow greater flexibility
and more efficient use of financial and program management
resources in FY 92, the RIP-Flex concept is being broadened to
allow Regions and States to plan enforcement priorities around
the ability to disinvest up to 25% of the resources for mandatory
enforcement program activities identified in the RIP. Regions
are encouraged to provide sufficient documentation supporting the
environmental significance/environmental benefit of identified
trade-offs. All well documented trade-offs, with the exception
of disinvesting in Federal facility inspections, are eligible for
consideration. Regions are encouraged to allow States the
opportunity to participate in determining appropriate trade-offs
since they share significant responsibility for implementing
programs established under OSWER statutes. An example of an
appropriate RIP-Flex trade-off could be where States cooperate
with EPA on enforcement initiatives.
5-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Trade-off decisions should take several important
considerations into account, including but not limited to: 1)
investing in innovative RIS activities, e.g. multi-State
initiatives, pollution prevention, and increased focus on
generator inspections and identification of non-notifiers, 2)
strengthening areas of weakness identified in grant evaluations,
Regional reviews, etc., and 3) the Administrator's goal of 25%
multi-media/multi-statute enforcement, including Federal
facilities which have been targeted for multi-media inspections
and enforcement activity. To foster adequate accountability,
Regions will be required to submit a brief beginning of year
(BOY) management plan that identifies the regional and state
priority activities selected and how they will be carried out.
Regions will also submit end-of-year (EOY) reports summarizing
accomplishments for the fiscal year. The plans and reports will
replace those previously requested under RIP-Flex. Regions
should coordinate with the Office of Regional Counsel (ORC) to
ensure that enforcement activities proposed in yearly management
plans are. consistent with existing Office of Enforcement (OE)
guidance. This approach will facilitate greater uniformity in
RCRA program planning and accountability. The enforcement BOY
plan may be submitted to Headquarters as part of the overall BOY
plan described on page 3-9.
STARS
In FY 92, STARS will continue to be used to assess program
progress. The enforcement measures in STARS are designed to
reflect progress toward achieving the high priority enforcement
goals and objectives. We believe that the most feasible approach
to the assessment of Regional and State accomplishments in FY 92
will include the following steps: 1) identification of STARS
measures; 2) target negotiation; and 3) clear articulation of the
relationship between resource levels and activity levels. The
enforcement program will work closely with other RCRA program
areas to coordinate a nationally consistent approach to
evaluating overall RCRA program progress toward achieving
environmental results.
Priority Activities
I. Inspections
* We consider the 25% enforcement flexibility provided in the FY
92 RIP to include the 10-15% enforcement flexibility provided per
the October 22, 1990 memo from Jim Strock to the Deputy Regional
Administrators. Since the 25% flexibility from,the RIP includes
the 10-15% enforcement flexibility, it is critical that both
plans are closely coordinated.
5-3
-------
A. Priority Inspections
The goal of the compliance monitoring and enforcement
program is to take appropriate actions against handlers,
activities, or releases that present the greatest threat to the
public or the environment. As the first link in the enforcement
process, inspections serve several essential purposes. First,
they are the primary means of detecting violations, as well as
monitoring facility compliance with enforcement actions and
various regulatory requirements. Second, the enforcement
presence provided by inspections is a deterrent to future non-
compliance, particularly when inspections are unannounced. And
finally, periodic inspections are the only direct contact many
small facilities ever have with a regulatory agency, and as such
play an outreach role critical to preventing small, correctable
problems from becoming immense, intractable problems.
Statutorily mandated inspections of treatment, storage and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) continue to be among the highest
priority inspections. However, the RIS recommends that the
enforcement program intensify efforts to bring non-notifiers into
the regulatory program and to identify and address generator and
transporter non-compliance. A few Regions have begun to identify
resources to address identification of non-notifiers through
participation in the RIP-Flex process. In FY 1992, Regions
should continue that approach by addressing increased generator
and transporter inspections and non-notifier identifications in
their FY 1992 enforcement program yearly management plans.
Although these resources will probably come at the expense of
TSDF inspections, Regions should consult with States on the
determination that a facility has a sufficiently long history of
compliance to warrant a relaxed inspection schedule. A suggested
guideline is no Class I violations discovered in at least three
years with a minimum of two inspections conducted. Additional FY
92 inspection priorities are as follows:
1. Handlers presenting immediate threat to health or the
environment
Inspections should be conducted to provide necessary
documentation for enforcement actions where EPA or the
State has information that handlers may present an
immediate threat to human health or the environment.
2. Treatment. Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)
Headquarters encourages Regions and States to maintain
the highest sustainable level of inspection presence,
taking into consideration other Regional and State
enforcement priorities. In addition to assuring
compliance with the facility operating requirements,
inspections of permitted facilities should focus on
5-4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
documenting compliance with corrective action
compliance schedule(s).
To improve the ability to assess the health and safety
conditions for workers involved in hazardous waste
operations, Regions and States are required to
incorporate the special health and safety checklist
developed by the Incinerator Task Force into all TSDF
inspections. These safety measures can be found in 40
CFR 264.15. In FY 92, the following is the minimum
national standard for TSDF inspections:
a. All government TSDFs (land or non-land), as
required by statute.
b. Any facility not inspected in FY 91, including any
new TSDFs.
c. Land disposal facilities (LDFs) that had
outstanding Class I violations on 7/1/91 and had
not been reinspected and certified in physical
compliance on 10/1/91.
d. Commercial TSDFs must be inspected every 6 months
unless they have publicly declined to accept
CERCLA waste.
e. All incinerators, industrial furnaces and boilers
and operating (not certified closed) land disposal
facilities. Specific follow-up activities that
may result from the Incinerator Task Force
Initiative will be addressed in future guidance.
3. Generators. Transporters and Non-Notifiers
The RIS recommends that the enforcement program
intensify efforts to bring non-notifiers into the
regulatory program and to identify and address
generator and transporter non-compliance. Regions and
States should target at least eight percent of large
quantity generators (i.e. >1000 kg./month), other
environmentally significant generators, and
transporters.
4. Hazardous Waste Export
The transport of waste across international borders
continues to be a highly publicized environmental
problem. Regions should work with the U.S. Customs
Service to establish an effective program to monitor
and spotcheck international shipments of hazardous
waste to assure compliance with the requirements of
5-5
-------
this section. Where appropriate, State participation
is encouraged. All documentation related to hazardous
waste export and import must be checked, where
appropriate, in accordance with the National
Enforcement Investigation Center's (NEIC) "Enforcement
Strategy, Hazardous Waste Exports" (March 24, 1988).
NEIC works in conjunction with U.S. Customs to detect
violations involving the export of hazardous wastes and
to refer cases to EPA Regions for appropriate
enforcement. In FY 92, Regions and States are
encouraged to increase inspections to detect violations
and to establish outreach programs to educate the
regulated community on import/export requirements.
5. Toxicity Characteristic (TO
The TC rule became effective for treatment storage and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) on September 25, 1990. The
new rule brought approximately 7,000 new large quantity
generators and about 110 new TSDFs into the RCRA
system. In FY 92, facility inspections should focus on
assessing compliance with the TC rule, particularly the
Loss of Interim Status (LOIS) requirements which
mandate that facilities newly regulated by the TC
certify (to EPA or the State, if authorized) compliance
with groundwater monitoring and financial
responsibility provisions and submit a Part B
application by September 25, 1991. An enforcement
strategy is available to assist Regions and States in
enforcing the TC rule.
6. Air Emissions Rule
New requirements regulating air emissions from
equipment leaks and certain process vents at TSD
facilities became effective in FY 91, as a result of
promulgation of the Air Emissions from TSDs -
Accelerated Rule. The new rule is expected to affect
approximately 1400 TSD facilities. An enforcement
strategy for the new Air Emissions rule is in progress.
The strategy is expected to be completed by FY 91. To
insure that all TSDs affected by this new rule are
complying with the requirements, inspectors should
monitor compliance during Compliance Evaluation
Inspections (CEI). In the second half of FY 92, the
control devices required under the Process Vent Rule
must be in place. More extensive inspections may be
necessary at that time.
5-6
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
B. Other Inspections
The FY 91 AOG required each Region to inspect two of its
facilities with delisted wastes to determine if they remain in
compliance with the terms of their exclusions. Based on the FY
91 inspection results, Regions should continue inspections or
issue 3007 letters to obtain the information needed to assess the
nature of any problems occurring at such facilities and determine
if additional enforcement action is required. OWPE is developing
guidance on conducting delisting inspections which should be
available in FY 91. Inspectors should also review appropriate FR
notices and other relevant information to become familiar with
manufacturing processes prior to conducting an inspection.
Oversight continues to be a critical component of the
inspection program. Therefore, it is extremely important for
Regions to maintain a strong oversight presence at regulated
facilities. In FY 92, oversight inspections should be continued
at the current level or adjusted, based upon the Region/State
inspection priorities. Oversight inspections should be conducted
in accordance with the RCRA State Oversight Inspection Guide
(December, 1987).
II. Enforcement Response
An important component of the RCRA Enforcement Program is
the detection of violations and taking appropriate enforcement
actions in a timely manner. The program's approach to
establishing enforcement priorities is set forth in the
Enforcement Response Policy (ERP). The ERP establishes
priorities in terms of violation classification, appropriate
actions and timeframes for those actions. The priority
enforcement concerns and activities for FY 92 are discussed
below.
A. Maximizing Deterrence
The RIS emphasized that to maintain strong enforcement, the
RCRA enforcement program should increase efforts to maximize
deterrence. One way to accomplish this objective is by improving
the timeliness of enforcement response. Headquarters analysis of
T&A enforcement data shows a trend towards a decrease in the
timeliness of Regional enforcement actions and an overall
decrease in the number of SNCs and HPVs identified. In addition,
the current definition of HPV appears to be inconsistently
interpreted and applied by Regions and States, which may
contribute to undermining deterrence. Headquarters will continue
to monitor the identification of HPVs and develop appropriate
guidance, if necessary. Timely enforcement response at Federal
facilities is also an important component of the RCRA Enforcement
Program. A multi-media enforcement strategy document is
currently being developed by the Office of Federal Facilities
5-7
-------
Enforcement (OFFE) staff to incorporate a more efficient response
to enforcement actions by integrating different media programs
(where appropriate) into one enforcement document (e.g.,
RCRA/Water joint agreement).
Another approach to maximizing deterrence is to take more
aggressive enforcement actions against violators. In FY 92,
Regions are encouraged to make use of all three available
enforcement tools, i.e., administrative, judicial and criminal
enforcement authorities. Judicial action should be considered in
cases involving egregious or repeat violators or violators of
administrative agreements, cases where court supervised
injunctive relief is needed, cases that may establish useful
legal precedents, cases supporting the multi-media enforcement
approach or cases that seek particularly large penalties. While
most RCRA cases will continue to be brought administratively, in
appropriate cases, judicial enforcement (civil and criminal) can
send a stronger deterrent message.
Because of the publicity and stigma attached to a criminal
conviction, criminal enforcement is a very effective tool. In
its FY 92 guidance, OE emphasizes that where appropriate,
criminal enforcement should become more fully integrated with the
compliance enforcement programs. Therefore, Regions and States
should carefully screen RCRA cases to identify those that may
warrant the filing of criminal charges. To further enhance the
Agency's success in bringing criminal cases, OE anticipates
increasing efforts to recruit law enforcement professionals from
the ranks of experienced EPA civil inspectors and other qualified
program personnel. The enormous deterrent effect of well-
targeted criminal cases will enhance program compliance goals and
bolster the credibility of the Agency's enforcement effort.
The RIS places significant emphasis on seeking higher
penalties when bringing both administrative and judicial
enforcement actions. The revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy
(RCPP), issued in October 1990, or appropriate State penalty
policy should be used to determine appropriate dollar value of
the penalty. The RCPP will enable the Agency to impose and
enforce higher penalties, which will further strengthen the
deterrent impact of enforcement actions. Headquarters will
review Regional penalty calculations, and, if necessary, develop
guidance to ensure that higher penalties are being assessed.
B. Corrective Action Requirements
Regions, with appropriate assistance from States, must act
aggressively to achieve corrective action at TSD facilities.
Compliance with ground water monitoring requirements should be
emphasized to assure that releases from regulated units are
detected and properly addressed. An O&M or CME inspection may be
necessary to evaluate the adequacy of a facility's groundwater
5-8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
monitoring system in detecting releases and/or defining the rate
and extent of contaminant migration from a regulated unit.
Appropriate enforcement authorities, including 7003, 3008(h),
3008(a) and 3013, can be used to compel corrective action when
necessary and consistent with the Region's corrective action
priorities. Section 4 addresses corrective action priorities and
corrective action as part of the Strategic Management Framework.
C. Toxicity Characteristic (TO Rule
The TC rule became effective for treatment, storage and
disposal facilities (TSDFs) on September 25, 1990. Facilities
and units that receive interim status as a result of the TC rule
will lose interim status one year from that date, unless they are
in compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The
Agency will aggressively enforce all provisions of the TC rule.
The requirements include submittal of Part B of the permit
application and compliance with all applicable groundwater
monitoring and financial responsibility requirements. After the
Loss of interim status (LOIS) deadline, generators and facilities
brought into the program by the TC rule will be integrated into
the overall enforcement program. As was the case in FY 85, the
Agency will vigorously pursue all facilities in violation of the
LOIS deadline. An enforcement strategy and appropriate training
is available to assist Regions and States in enforcing the TC
rule.
D. Pollution Prevention
The RIS determined that the enforcement program should be
more actively involved in promoting and requiring pollution
prevention activities, emphasizing that stringent regulatory
standards coupled with a strong enforcement program may be the
greatest incentives available to promote waste reduction. The
RCRA enforcement program is undertaking efforts to create
specific incentives for the regulated sector to establish
programs to promote recycling and reuse methods and to foster
research on waste reduction technologies and alternative
industrial processes. Several areas have been identified that
could accomplish these objectives. Below are some areas targeted
for implementation in FY 92:
1) enforcing the Biennial Report Requirement of
certification of waste Reduction and the waste
reduction requirements in permits;
2) incorporating pollution prevention strategies into the
terms of enforcement case settlements;
- The RCRA enforcement program encourages Regions
to seek opportunities to incorporate such
conditions into enforcement settlements, when
5-9
-------
appropriate. Several Regions have been successful
in negotiating these types of settlement
conditions.
3) continuing to explore the appropriate role of
inspectors in pollution prevention;
- OWPE undertook a pollution prevention project in
FY 91 to determine the appropriate role of RCRA
inspectors in assessing pollution prevention
opportunities. The results of this project will
be included in the enforcement program's Pollution
Prevention Action Plan, which is expected to be
available in FY 91, and;
4) increasing the enforcement program's focus on
undiscovered generators of hazardous waste.
The Agency fully supports State efforts addressing pollution
prevention, such as implementing mandatory facility waste
reduction planning requirements. In addition, the RCRA
enforcement program will continue examining the feasibility of
promoting pollution prevention through enforcement activities.
Regions and States are encouraged to seek opportunities to
integrate these and other waste minimization/pollution prevention
initiatives into their compliance monitoring and enforcement
priorities. Pollution prevention activities proposed for FY 92
should be identified in BOY plans and accomplishments discussed
in EOY reports. This will ensure that information on
successfully implemented activities is made available to all
Regions. Additional guidance is provided in the Pollution
Prevention Action Plan.
E. Permit Enforcement
By the start of FY 92 many of the final RCRA permits will be
effective. EPA has made a strong case to the public both at
permit hearings and in the press that the public will be better
protected once final permits are issued. In order to insure the
integrity of the RCRA program and to build public confidence, it
is imperative that RCRA permits be vigorously monitored and
enforced when violations are found. Field inspectors should
spend the necessary preparation time prior to conducting an
inspection to become familiar with all requirements of the RCRA
permit and thoroughly monitor these conditions during the
inspection. Development of site specific checklists will be
useful in many cases. Regions and States should develop methods
to track any schedules contained in an issued permit. When
violations are discovered, the appropriate enforcement response,
as required by the ERP, should be pursued in a timely manner.
It is expected that many facilities found to be in violation of
permit conditions will be considered HIGH PRIORITY VIOLATORS.
5-10
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
F. Returning Regulated Facilities to Compliance
Returning regulated facilities to compliance continues to be
an enforcement priority. In recent years, EPA and the States
have taken numerous enforcement actions in an effort to bring the
regulated community into full compliance with RCRA interim status
standards. Land disposal facilities, in particular, have been
the subject of the greatest scrutiny by both EPA and Congress due
to the belief that, among RCRA-regulated facilities, groundwater
contamination from LDFs poses the greatest threat to human health
and the environment. It is important to emphasize that initial
enforcement actions must be accompanied by a continued commitment
to an appropriate level of follow-up to return such facilities to
compliance as expeditiously as possible. In establishing FY 92
enforcement priorities, Regions and States should place added
emphasis on identifying sufficient resources to address those
facilities that have been in significant non-compliance for
extended periods of time, taking into account the environmental
benefits associated with correcting identified violations.
Regions should specify how they plan to address such facilities
in their beginning of year (BOY) management plans. Measures
introduced in FY 91 STARS to track progress in returning
facilities to compliance are continued in FY 92.
Ill. strategic Targeting
The RIS emphasized the need to increase the effectiveness of
the enforcement program by targeting specific segments of the
regulated community or specific types of violations. These
targeted initiatives will be coordinated nationally by an
Enforcement Targeting Committee composed of EPA Headquarters and
Regional representatives, the States, and the Department of
Justice. The objective of this effort is to send a strong
message to the regulated community that the Agency will not
tolerate regulatory noncompliance, using high-profile civil
referrals and administrative actions. The first such enforcement
initiative was implemented in FY 91. The Committee will continue
to recommend appropriate regulatory areas for future national
targeting initiatives. A subcommittee of State representatives
is exploring the possibility of multi-State initiatives focusing
on State priorities. Regions and States should continue to seek
opportunities to incorporate strategic targeting initiatives into
enforcement activities. Once underway, EPA will effectively
publicize these enforcement actions to ensure that the broadest
audiences are made aware of the nature and environmental
significance of the action.
5-11
-------
IV. Enhanced Capability
A. Training
While the FY 92 RCRA budget does not support establishing an
EPA training academy as discussed in the RIS, OWPE remains
committed to providing the opportunity and resources to ensure
that adequate training is available. To address this need,
Headquarters is continuing efforts to develop new courses and
enhance existing ones to orient staff to the goals and objectives
of the RCRA program in general, and to provide specific training
in all aspects of program implementation.
The training regime is designed to provide a comprehensive
overview of knowledge and skill necessary to implement, manage
and oversee all RCRA program statutory, regulatory and policy
requirements. Regions should encourage States to augment State
sponsored training programs by participating in EPA training
programs.
RED will continue to provide training to the Regions and
States in FY 92, in a number of different formats. RED will
conduct traditional, live classroom style training, produce video
training workshops, compose interactive video products, and
conduct satellite teleconferences. We anticipate that the
following specific training workshops will take place in FY 92:
o RCRA Inspector Institute
o Hazardous Waste Tank Interactive Video
o Wood Preserving Satellite Teleconference
o Live or Video training on the Air Emission
Comprehensive Rule
o Live or satellite teleconference on oil and Gas
Exploration Wastes
o Groundwater Monitoring Training (jointly with OSW)
B. Guidance
EPA will issue guidance on all new regulations prior to
implementation. Enforcement guidance will be available, as
appropriate, to enhance Regional and State ability to take timely
and appropriate enforcement actions. RCRA enforcement guidance
documents that are expected to be available in FY 92 are included
in the updated list of RCRA guidance documents provided in the
appendices.
5-12
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
CHAPTER 6
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
Program objectives
The objectives of EPA's municipal and industrial solid waste
(MISW) program are to: (1) ensure protection of health and the
environment; (2) comply with the mandates of Subtitle D of RCRA;
(3) support a team approach to promote and implement integrated
waste management and Challenges for the 1990's; (4) foster source
reduction and work toward achieving the national goal of at least
25% recycling by 1992; and (5) renew a national leadership presence
through technical assistance and information development and
dissemination.
Municipal Solid Waste National Priorities
State/Tribal program development and implementation of the
revised criteria for MSW landfills (Part 258) remain the first
priorities for Headquarters, the Regions, and the States/Tribes in
FY 1992. The other national priorities listed below are not
ordered in terms of importance but represent a comprehensive
framework for implementing the municipal solid waste program
effectively. After adequate attention is given to the MSWLF
criteria program development and implementation activities, each
Region and State/Tribe should determine its progress in these other
national priority activities and establish Regional and
State/Tribal priorities drawn from the major activities lists
beginning on page 6-5.
o Enhance the Federal-State/Tribal partnership by working with
States/Tribes to develop permit programs to ensure compliance
with the revised criteria and to develop approvable
applications.
o Promote the implementation of the revised criteria through
State/Tribal program development and approval of adequate
programs and through technical assistance.
o Promote the goals of Challenges for the 1990's through
effective implementation; promote effective implementation
through education to encourage necessary lifestyle changes.
o Encourage source reduction activities by providing project
support and technical assistance.
6-1
-------
o Support recycling efforts through market development and
procurement activities.
Industrial Solid Waste National Priorities
Data collection and analysis are the first priorities for
Headquarters' industrial solid waste program in FY 1992. In FY
1991, the Agency began collecting data on industrial waste
generation, waste minimization and waste management practices.
After analyzing this data and characterizing the industrial solid
waste universe, EPA will begin exploring innovative pollution
prevention and waste management incentives to address the public
health and environmental problems that are identified. Priority
Headquarters' activities include:
o Complete data collection activities.
o Characterize the industrial solid waste universe through an
analysis of the collected data.
o Begin exploring innovative incentives to ensure
environmentally sound industrial solid waste management.
Overview of Activities
State/Tribal/EPA Relationship; EPA's role in the MISW program
is to facilitate State, Tribal, and local implementation of the
program, including the revised criteria. Facilitation activities
include regulatory and guidance development, training, technical
assistance, and information development and dissemination. EPA
will focus these activities on implementation of the revised
criteria and State/Tribal program development.
Revised Criteria —~ State/Tribal Permit Program Developments
The primary focus of our activities in FY 1992 will be to assist
States/Tribes in implementing the revised municipal solid waste
landfill criteria through the development of permit programs that
meet the requirements of Section 4005(c) and the requirements of
the State Implementation Rule (SIR). The revised criteria will be
promulgated in final form during 1991. The SIR is scheduled for
proposal in 1991, with final promulgation scheduled for twelve
months after proposal. After Regional review and comment, draft
SIR guidance also is scheduled for issuance in 1991 and will be
complemented by workshops based on the SIR guidance and other
training materials.
States are required to adopt and implement a permit program
(or other system of prior approval and conditions) to ensure
compliance with the revised criteria within eighteen months of
promulgation. Tribes have the option of seeking program approval.
6-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Headquarters and the Regions currently are working together to
develop an implementation policy for MSW on Tribal lands. RCRA
requires the Administrator to determine whether State/Tribal permit
programs are "adequate" for purposes of RCRA. Authority to make
determinations of adequacy will be delegated to the Regional
Administrators.
In view of the limited time between promulgation of the final
SIR and the statutory deadline, States/Tribes are urged not to wait
for the final SIR rule and guidance and are encouraged to use the
proposed SIR and the draft SIR guidance as a basis for reviewing
current programs, developing programs that will meet the adequacy
determination criteria, and drafting adequacy determination
applications. States/Tribes should review applicable statutes,
regulations, and guidance to determine their adequacy to ensure
compliance with 40 CFR Part 258 based on Section 4005 (c) and the
adequacy determination criteria in the proposed SIR.
Regions should continue working with the States/Tribes to
assist in interpreting the revised criteria and the SIR
requirements. In FY 1991, we encouraged the Regions to develop
criteria implementation plans which identify outreach activities
to the States/Tribes, needed training, and schedules for receipt
and review of adequacy applications. Regions should review these
plans, update them as necessary, and continue to implement them as
appropriate. Regions should organize to review State/Tribal
applications and make adequacy determinations.
When States/Tribes have identified needed revisions to their
statutes/regulations/guidance, they should develop a schedule for
making these revisions, as well as a schedule for developing and
submitting an application by the effective date of the municipal
solid waste landfill (MSWLF) criteria (Part 258). If a State/Tribe
seeking program approval requires more than 18 months to develop
a program and submit an application, the State/Tribe will need to
submit a letter of intent together with a schedule for application
submission. Since the Regional offices will make all adequacy
determination decisions, all letters of intent, schedules, and
applications are to be submitted to the Regional offices for review
and determination.
In addition to developing programs that meet the adequacy
determination criteria, States/Tribes need to plan for
implementation of the revised criteria. Efforts should be focused
on addressing closing facilities to ensure compliance with the
revised criteria, development of permitting and enforcement
strategies, and addressing the need for continued capacity as
facilities close. As throughout the RCRA program, environmentally
significant facilities should be addressed first.
6-3
-------
EPA expects States/Tribes to be the primary enforcers of
Subtitle D. However, when a State or Indian Tribe fails to
demonstrate that an adequate municipal solid waste landfill permit
program is in place, the Federal government will assume enforcement
authority. A strategy addressing Subtitle D enforcement is in
progress.
Challenges for the 1990's; While criteria implementation
through development and approval of State/Tribal permit programs
is our primary activity, efforts on source reduction and recycling
must continue. The Agency's updated national strategy, The Solid
Waste Dilemma; Challenges for the 1990's. will be issued later in
1991. Challenges highlights accomplishments since February 1989,
includes challenges for all levels of government,
business/industry, public interest groups, and private citizens,
and outlines a number of MSW activities. Specific EPA activities
for FY 1992 are outlined in Challenges.
Major Activities for Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste
Headquarters;
o Finalize the SIR, SIR guidance and training.
o Update/finalize Headquarters' Criteria Implementation Plan.
o Conduct criteria implementation workshops for States, Tribes
and local governments.
o Continue to support development and implementation of solid
waste programs on Indian lands.
o Work with Regions, States, Indian Tribes, and local
governments to develop training modules and other materials
based on a needs assessment.
o Facilitate the implementation of Challenges for the 1990's.
o Continue to work with States/Tribes and the Regional
Implementation Team to develop and implement MISW activities.
o Continue to facilitate peer matching.
o Continue to develop and distribute information on solid waste
issues/areas.
o Continue outreach and development efforts in the areas of
source reduction and recycling.
o Track success in reaching the national recycling goal.
6-4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
o Facilitate procurement workshops in six Regions; prepare and
distribute an evaluation of the workshops.
o Continue national efforts on procurement guideline development
and implementation and other market development activities.
o Continue to prepare for RCRA reauthorization; obtain input
from appropriate parties, including Regions and States.
o Review State plan guidelines to determine need for revision.
o Facilitate implementation of existing solid waste curricula
through outreach activities, such as workshops.
o Continue to conduct necessary solid waste research; continue
to seek input from Regions and States.
o Coordinate MISWs activities with pollution prevention and
public-private partnership activities.
o Complete industrial solid waste data collection activities;
analyze data and characterize the industrial solid waste
universe; begin to explore innovative incentives for
environmentally sound industrial solid waste management.
o Support implementation of the Clean Air Act amendments.
Regions:
o Continue to work with States/Tribes to develop adequate permit
programs and implement the revised criteria.
o Review Regional MSWLF criteria implementation plans, update
as necessary, and continue to implement the plans.
o Organize to review State/Tribal permit program adequacy
applications.
o Conduct SIR workshops in States as appropriate.
o Conduct MSWLF criteria training as appropriate.
o Continue to support the development and implementation of
solid waste programs on Indian lands.
o Work with and encourage States, local governments, and
businesses to conduct waste audits to find opportunities to
reduce and recycle waste.
o Foster voluntary reductions of toxics by industry through
activities such as workshops.
6-5
-------
o Work with States and local governments to establish HHW
collection programs.
o Provide technical assistance — including training, speeches,
and presentations — to States, Indian Tribes, and local
governments .
o Facilitate State/Tribal and local activities in implementing
Challenges for the 1990 's. focusing on procurement and
recycling market development activities.
o Provide assistance to States/Tribes and local communities as
they work toward achieving the national recycling goal.
o Work with Headquarters, States/Tribes, and local communities
to assess and address local needs.
o Continue outreach and development efforts in the areas of
source reduction and recycling.
o Continue Regional procurement and market development efforts,
including the procurement workshops and follow-up activities.
o Work with States to develop and implement procurement
strategies.
o Continue to participate in the Regional Implementation Team.
o Update FY 1991 Regional solid waste strategies to identify
ongoing activities and include new activities for FY 1992.
o Continue to provide monthly reports on accomplishments in the
MISW program, including STARS measures.
States/Tribes/Local Gove^n^ypts (as applicable) «
o Review applicable statutes, regulations, and guidance to
determine their adequacy to ensure compliance with 40 CFR Part
258.
o Develop a schedule for making necessary revisions to statutes,
regulations, and guidance.
o Develop adequate programs, if not yet in place, and
approvable adequacy applications.
o Participate in SIR workshops and HSWLF criteria technical
training.
6-6
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
o Develop strategies for implementing the revised criteria,
including permitting and enforcement.
o Implement the revised criteria.
o Focus efforts on ensuring that closing facilities comply with
the revised criteria and close in an environmentally sound
manner and addressing the need for continued capacity as
facilities close.
o Implement Challenges for the 1990's and facilitate local
implementation of Challenges for the 1990*s. focusing on
procurement and recycling market development activities.
o Provide assistance to local communities as they work toward
achieving the national recycling goal.
o Work with EPA Regions and local communities to assess and
address local needs.
o Continue outreach and development efforts in the areas of
source reduction and recycling.
o Continue procurement and recycling market development efforts,
including participation in EPA's procurement workshops.
o Work with EPA's Regions to develop procurement strategies to
comply with EPA's procurement guidelines.
o Provide technical assistance to local governments in
developing regional sites.
o Continue to work with EPA to identify and resolve
implementation issues.
6-7
-------
Appendix I
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1992
RCRA Subtitle C; Stars Overview
This year the RIP sets forth the concept of a Strategic Management Framework that
encompasses hazardous waste permitting and corrective action activities, as well as
program management activities. The Framework has two key components, environmental
priority ranking for all RCRA facilities, and at priority facilities, choosing activities
and documenting those choices. The Strategic Management Framework identifies limited
national priority activities and allows Regions/States flexibility to accommodate both the
national priority activities and other local priorities. In this Framework, EPA and
States must define challenging reachable goals and be accountable for chosen activities.
STARS is a key component of the Strategic Management Framework in that it reflects
national priority activities while maintaining its fundamental role of program
accountability. STARS measures have been restructured to track implementation of high
priority activities that are key to demonstrating progress in the program. Two new
measures (one targeted, one non-targeted) directly address priority setting for
facilities. Many of the other STARS measures track performance of high priority
permitting, closure, and corrective action activities at facilities identified through the
priority setting process as high priority. The remaining STARS measures address high
priority program management activities such as State authorization and RCRIS
implementation. Several of the new reporting measures and targeted measures will require
data source development.
I - 1
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1992
RCRA Subtitle C; Permitting and Closure
Goal; Implement appropriate permitting and closure activities at high priority RCRA
facilities.
OBJECTIVE:
ACTIVITY;
MEASURE;
MEASURE;
Track permitting and closure activity at facilities
subject to RCRA Subtitle C
Track operating permit final determinations and
permit modifications at RCRA TSDFs.
Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive operating permit
final determinations during fiscal year.
ACTIVITY;
Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive permit
modification approval or denial during fiscal
year.
Track progress of closure activity at RCRA TSDFs
STARS CODE; R/C-la
TARGETED; NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET:
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY!
SUNSET:
2/92
R/C-lb
NO
YES
2/92
MEASURE:
MEASURE i
Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closure plan
approval during fiscal year.
Number of RCRA TSDFs to certify closure during
fiscal year.
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
R/C-2a
NO
YES
2/92
R/C-2b
NO
YES
2/92
1-2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
at
PJ
>
CO
G
»
W
<
H
K
W
>
CO
G
33
W
PS
W
>
CO
G
JO
W
SB
M
>
W
G
50
W
<
H
1-3
O TJ Z
A n c
i-l A 3
ft I V
H- O A
M) O 1
H-g
o "a o
0> M M)
rt H-
H-O) O
O 3 O
3 n g
W A *O
u>
0.
a
n
A
ca
ca
H-
vQ
CO
O
H-
Q) A
3 rt
a A
a
CO
H 1-3
»3 A
O
0 V
O 3
3 H-
•D 0
M 0)
H- H"
0)
3 50
O A
A <
A
C
CO
0
M)
CO
A
1^
cn
0)
3
a
H
3
a
c
CO
ft
h^
H-
01
H1
nq
C
h<
3
0)
O
A
cn
73 Z
^ C
H-g
o cr
rt
•< o
i-h
H
CO
O
CO
Q>
3
A
a.
H>
O
A
3
O
A
ft
&>
•a jo
H-3
o w
H-3
rtiQ
a z
A C
a z
Z
3 O
Oi l-h
rt
H- *0
O O
3 CO
01
O
A
CO
O
n
A
H-
n
o
A
3
rt
Oi
01
rt
O
H"
O
ca
c
n
A
rt
i-h
H-
01
A
cn o
ft HI
i
o cr
cn M
C H-
II O
A
^3 O
0> rt
*t ^^"
ft O
A
CD cn
0) O
13 H>
tJ
M H-
H-3
O ft
0) A
ft 3
H-rt
O
3 rt
CO O
0)
•O
•O
(D
O
0)
A A
a n
0* H
o *•<
rt Oi
£&
o
•X3
O
CO
ft
1
o
o
CO
c
n
A
*0
0>
hf
ft
09
0)
•0
H-
O
0)
rt
^j_
r**
o
3
CO
K >1
0) vQ
rt n
A
n cn
M CO
0
CO O
A H)
a
•d
F O
o> ca
3 rt
a i
O
0 M
H-O
CO CO
T3 P
o n
CO A
Q)
M13
A
§3
H- H-
ft ft
CO ft
^J.
O> 3
rtvO
50
O
W 50
G W
W
z >o » >
CO O O 50
W
W CO
H H
W O
000
Z •• O
F W
>< ..
W X Z 50
X W OX
VO CO O
to |
OI
cn
G
z 3 »
cn o cn
w 50
N> Z K »
X O WX
vo cn o
to I
cn 50 H
G W >
Z »d 50
woo
w 50 w cn
•• wo
o o o
z ••
F
«o
cn
o
cn m
o
w
w ox
vo cn o
to i
o>
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1992
RCRA Subtitle C; Permitting And Closure Definitions
Facilities new to RCRA as a result of the Toxicity Characteristics (TC) rule, the Boiler
and Industrial Furnace rule (BIF) or other new rules will be identified as such in the
data systems (data structures to be developed in HWDMS/RCRIS).
R/C-la
Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive operating permit final determinations during fiscal year.
Count only one permit per facility per date. A single permit covering multiple processes
(e.g., land disposal and storage and treatment) at a single facility will be counted only
once. Facilities receiving two permits, each on separate dates, will be counted twice.
R/C-lb
Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive permit modification approval or denial during fiscal year.
Count only one permit modification per facility per date. A single permit modification
covering multiple processes (e.g., land disposal and storage and treatment) at a single
facility will be counted only once. Facilities receiving two separate permit
modifications, each on separate dates, will be counted twice.
R/C-2a
Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closure plan approval during fiscal year. Count only one
closure plan approval per facility per date. A single closure plan covering multiple
processes (e.g., land disposal and storage and treatment) at a single facility will be
counted only once. Facilities receiving two closure plan approvals, each on separate
dates, will be counted twice.
R/C-2b
Number of RCRA TSDFs to certify closure during fiscal year. Count only one closure
certification per facility per date or count only one closure certification per unit per
facility per date.
1-4
-------
Goal:
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1992
RCRA Subtitle C; Corrective Action
Implement appropriate cleanup activities at high priority corrective action
facilities.
OBJECTIVE:
ACTIVITY;
MEASURE;
MEASURE;
MEASURE;
ACTIVITY;
Track progress of corrective action activity at
facilities subject to RCRA Subtitle C
Track progress of facilities through the corrective
action pipeline's three targeted stages
STAGE I: Information collection and study at
High Priority Pipeline Facilities
STAGE II; Remedy development and selection at
High Priority Pipeline Facilities
STAGE III: Remedy implementation at high
priority pipeline facilities
Track progress toward completing key activities
in the corrective action program
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
R/J-la
YES
NO
2/92
R/J-lb
YES
NO
2/92
R/J-lc
YES
NO
2/92
MEASURE;
Number of TSDFs prioritized under NCAPS
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
R/J-2a
YES
NO
2/92
1-6
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
I
ui
M) *O 25
ft ro c
H-*1 tr
M HI ro
H-ft H
rt o
*< H-O
M Hi
3 H-
ft ft 03
*< "< H
3" *
ft »o
< Z H
A c ro
tr & o
o ro o
ft H 3
Jj TJ
O M
*O Hi H-
H ft
A 03 3
1 H O
o >*j ro
o
300
•o o ro
H* 3 H
H-TJ ft
ft H1 H-
3 H- Hi
O ft H-
ro 3 o
O ft
» ro rt
3 H-
a o o
ro 3
O H
0 ft ft
3 H-ro
•a HI o
I— H- 3"
H-O 3
ft ft H-
3 ft O
0 H-ft
ro o M
3
0 H
ro rt ro
H ro <
rt o H-
H-3- ro
HI 3 C
H- H- 01
0 0
ft ft O
rt H- o
H- 3
O ^J *O
3 » H-
01 < ro
• H-rt
-' A ro
c a
01 •
o
o o
3 0
•o c
t- 3
» li-
ft
ro o
a 3
k^
•— •• o
O 3
3 ro
ro
50 SC O Hi»O Z
•v 2 O O H C
O O 3 H H- 3
i as 01 o &
tn w H- H- H ro
\ a ft H- H
» ro w rt
rt H •< o
50 ft ro • HI
H» ft 3
WH-< 50
• O H- > rt
3 H 50
01 O H) >
3 ft
ft 8 O HI
3 » H-ft
a 3 M o
rt H-H-
ft ft ft H-
01 H"< H-
01 ft
H-01 C H-
(Q t^» ^* (0
3 vQ H> 01
ro 3 H-
a H- »o
HI tr H
ft H-ro H-
0 O
3* ft O H
H-3 O H-
H- H-
O A a 01
C 3*C O
< H ft
H H- H- H<
ft n o
3 O H *<
*r 3 H- A
H-3 ft ft
3 ro H-H
«a 3 N
• rt ro HI
ft a o
H' S ^t
o
ft tr o rt
ft A 3 31
ft 3 O A
ro ro H-
0) Hi H
O H-H-
c ft rt o
M a <
O S1 A
A ft ft H
3 01 ft
ft a H-
o tr H*
O A
tr ft A A
A 3*3 3
A <
an A H-
A < H
< ft O
A H- 3
M C 3
O ft A
•O ft 3
A A ft
0« Qd ft
(-j
H-
» rt»O rt Z
\ 3* ro O C
rt » H C 3
1 3 &
*» HI a, rt ro
H-ft H
01 ft O
o ro 3 o
ft • H< H,
H1 *<
50
*< •») o rt
ro ft 3 50
ft o ro >
H H-
* H1 *T3 t-3
H-O W
» rt co D
ft H- rt »fl
o ro i to
3* CO rt
0 C 0 0
3 H-CO 0)
ft C rt
01 3* H 1
ro ro rt
T) rt M
o> "tj *r3 O
H O ft 01
ft H C
ft 01 ft H
ro ro ro
•O 03
Cb ft *T3
ft H 73 ft)
ft ft » H
» ft H ft
01 ro 3
H- 03
T3 ^T
CO *O
H- 01 a ro
H- rt ro H
H- 1 ft 3
rt ro H-
tr M H rt
ro o 3
w H- a
o c 3 ro
O H ft rt
C A ft A
3 H-H
ft 13 O 3
ro ft 3 H-
O. H 3
rt aft
ft c rt
C 03 H H-
H- H-O
O*O 3 3
(D (D vjQ 0)
• 3
3 HiB
H-H- ft
ft 01 a
o ro
a ft
A H- a
ft C
SA H-
ft 3
5"
ft 13 HI
ft A H-
H-H 01
O O
3 Hi ft
01 ft H-
O
C H- A
H H- ft
H-rt H
3 *^ •
tQ
50 01 *t3 *O ft Z
•^ ro c o *o c
rt »o tr 01 *o 3
1 ft H- ft H< &
w H H- i H- n
0 ft O rt 0 H
rt M ft
» Z O rt o
O CO H-Hi
a rt c o
ft H-H 3 50
rt o ro co rt
ro ro S3
01 01 »o a >
ft C
O H H H
C H» ft H- W
H- 30
M H- 03 vQ >fl
H» 3 CO
ft ft Hi
tr ro *d H- »o
A 3T3 0) C
rt M o tr
O H- ft H<
O ft O H* H-
C O ft O
ft ft H- ro z
ro "a o ft o
fi< *O 3 H rt
H 01 • H-
rt O O
^r c TJ A
H- ro ro o 01
o \ H o
ro o, co
• ro HI 3 HI
3 ft rt
>< O H-
H-O 3
*d H 3 ft
o H- H< ro
01 rt»< 3
^« ^C ^T
1 0
rt*O 3 rt
M ro A o
O H
01 TJ ft
c a c tJ
H ft O"O
A rt M H
A H-O
»C • O <
ft ro
ft »ij o a
ft ft A
03 0 H-3
ft H- ro
•OH- nj
•O ft O O
H* H-H) 01
H-A ft
O 01 H- 1
ft 3 rt
ft C rt M
H- H- A O
O ft 3 01
3 3" ft C
CO H
« ft rt A
C 0
A O *ti
ft ft ft
O 01 »O H
3* A*O ft
•O H
O ft O 03
Z3 *• ^5
ft A i
A a
A
3
^
50 ro a>< z
\ ft ft ro c
rt O rt ft 3
i 3* ro H tr
w • • ro
tr o H
•fl rt O
01 ft O Hi
ro o c
•O H- 3 50
ft M ft O
H H- »
ft rt o >
rt H- 3
ro ro M H
CO *< W
a o
ft C O *J
rt H- 3 co
ro rt ro
01 y is
* u o
ft O 01
C C 01 rt
H- O rt i
H« 1 rt
H* 01 rt H-
ro M o
O"c o 01
ro ft co c
H C H
o ft H ro
o rt ro
C A ft
3 ft »O
A O *O M
a co H< H-
ft H-O
rt i o ft
C rt ft rt
H- M rt H-
O O H-O
A 01 O 3
• C 3 CO
H
A H H
A A
ft O O
T3 ro ro
•O H-H-
H- » ro
o o. a
ft
rt ft ft
H-3 3
0 P.O.
3
01 C C
3 3
H O. O.
A A A
O H H
A
H-H H
< A A
A < <
O. H- H-
A A
ft C C
3
A C
C H H
3 H-
O. H>3
« 0)02
n o
H-Hi
H M H-
» H-O)
< ft O
H-^ ft
A H-
* A
H
S3
rt
1
U)
ft
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1992
RCRA Subtitle C: Corrective Action Definitions
R/J-la
Stage I: Information collection and study at high priority pipeline facilities. Consider
the following activities to be part of this stage of the corrective action process: RFI
Workplan Approved, RFI completed. This measure will count the number of facilities which
have moved into this stage for the first time. Facilities should only move into this
stage if they are not feasible candidates for stabilization and are still of high
corrective action priority OR stabilization is underway but the facility must continue
through to final remedy for other acceptable reasons.
R/J-lb
Stage II: Remedy development and selection at high priority pipeline facilities.
Consider the following activities to be part of this stage of the corrective action
process: CMS Workplan Approved, CMS Completed, Remedy Selected, Corrective Measures
Design Approved. Count facilities which have moved into this stage of the process for the
first time. Facilities should only move into this stage if they are not feasible
candidates for stabilization and are still of high corrective action priority OR
stabilization is underway but the facility must continue through to final remedy for other
acceptable reasons.
R/J-lc
Stage III: Remedy implementation at high priority pipeline facilities. Consider the
following activities to be part of this stage of the corrective action process:
Corrective Measures Implementation Workplan Approved, Corrective Measures Implementation
Completed. Count facilities which have moved into this stage of the process for the first
time. Facilities should only move into this stage if they are not feasible candidates for
stabilization and are still of high corrective action priority OR stabilization is
underway but the facility must continue through to final remedy for other acceptable
reasons.
1-8
-------
MEASURE;
MEASURE;
MEASURE;
MEASURE;
Number of EPI Preliminary Assessments completed
at RCRA TSDFs
Number of RFIs imposed requiring early data
collection for stabilization decisions (at
high priority facilities)
RCRA facilities evaluated for stabilization
measures
Number of facilities with stabilization
implemented (underway)
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
R/J-2b
YES.
NO
2/92
R/J-2C
NO
YES
2/92
R/J-2d
YES
NO
2/92
R/J-2e
NO
YES
2/92
1-7
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1992
RCRA Subtitle C; Program Management
GOAL: Complete activities essential to the general operation and effectiveness
of the RCRA program. ___^_
OBJECTIVE:
ACTIVITY;
MEASURE;
ACTIVITY;
MEASURE;
Track progress of program management activity implementation
Track progress of State and Regional
implementation of RCRIS according to
national schedule
Number of States in each Region whose data is
being pulled directly from RCRIS
Track progress of State Authorization for RCRA
Subtitle C
Progress in getting States authorized for
the RCRA Subtitle C program
STARS CODE;
TARGETED:
SUNSET:
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
R/PM-1
YES
REPORT ONLY: NO
2/92
R/PM-2
NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET:
2/92
I - 10
-------
R/J-2a
Number of treatment, storage and disposal facilities ranked for environmental significance
using the National Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPS).
R/J-2b
Number of RCRA facilities to receive EPI Preliminary Assessments (PAs) during fiscal year.
Count only one PA per facility.
R/J-2C
Number of RFIs imposed (for high priority facilities) that require early/up-front data
collection to determine if the facilities are candidates for stabilization actions.
R/J-2d
Number of facilities that have been determined to be amenable to emergency or control type
stabilization. We expect emphasis to be on measures taken to reduce imminent threats to
human health and the environment and/or to prevent or minimize further spread of
contamination.
R/J-2e
Number of facilities that have initiated stabilization measures during the fiscal year.
1-9
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1992
Program Area: Municipal Solid Waste Program
GOAL: To facilitate State implementation of MSWLF criteria; to enhance markets
development.
OBJECTIVE:
ACTIVITY;
MEASURE;
ACTIVITY;
MEASURE;
ACTIVITY;
MEASURE;
Track progress of implementation of statutory requirements
for Subtitle D.
Submittal of State application for determination
of adequacy of State MSWLF permit program.
Number of States submitting applications for
determination of adequacy under Section 3.
Regional determination of adequacy of State
permit program.
Number of Regional determinations of adequacy
completed (include both determinations of
adequacy and determinations of inadequacy).
Implementation of EPA procurement guidelines
under RCRA Section 6002 and 40 CFR Part 250.
Report on development of procurement
implementation plan
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORTED ONLY:
SUNSET:
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORTED ONLY:
SUNSET:
R/D-la
NO
YES
2/92
R/D-lb
NO
YES
2/92
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORTED ONLY:
SUNSET:
R/D-lc
NO
YES
2/92
1-12
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1992
RCRA Subtitle C; Program Management Definitions
R/PM-1 Number of States within each Region whose data is being pulled directly
from RCRIS.
The number of States with all RCRA data in RCRIS. , •
R/PM-2 Progress in getting States authorized for the RCRA Subtitle C program
The number of rules the States in the Region are authorized for as compared to the total
number of non-optional rules that they should be authorized for in accordance with
national cluster deadlines. In addition to reporting the actual number of rules
authorized, also report as a percentage the total number of rules authorized vs. the total
number of non-optional rules that are required to be authorized. Data source: State
Authorization Tracking System (STATS).
I - 11
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1992
Program Area; RCRA Enforcement
GOAL: To ensure compliance monitoring and enforcement.
OBJECTIVE: Improved compliance of hazardous waste handling with
RCRA requirements.
ACTIVITY; Inspections
MEASURE: Target and report, year-to-date, the number of Land
Disposal facilities that have received an inspection
in FY 92. (Combined EPA/State target).
MEASURE; Target and report, year-to-date, the number of
treatment or storage facilities, other than land
disposal facilities, that have received an
inspection in FY 92. (Combined EPA/State target).
MEASURE; Target and report, year-to-date, the number of
Federal, State and local government TSDs (including
Land Disposal) that received an inspection in FY 92.
(Combined EPA/State target).
STARS CODE: R/E-la
TARGETED: Y
REPORTED ONLY: N
SUNSET: 1993
STARS CODE: R/E-lb
TARGETED: Y
REPORTED ONLY: N
SUNSET: 1993
STARS CODE: R/E-lc
TARGETED: Y
REPORTED ONLY: N
SUNSET: 1993
MEASURE: Report, year-to-date, the number of hazardous waste
generators that have received an inspection in
FY 92. (Combined EPA/State numbers).
STARS CODE: R/E-ld
TARGETED: N
REPORTED ONLY: Y
SUNSET: 1993
1-14
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
H"
U>
JO
A
•o
O
ft
C
A
3
•o
n
o
o
c
n
A
a
A
ft
H-
a
•o
A
a
A
3
ft
01
ft
H-
0
3
•o
CD
3
a
A
<
A
H<
O
•0
A
a
» a z
-v AC
1 (D CT
o i8
3 O
0) Ml
ft
O A
3 ft
cn A
si
3
fly Of
art
A H-
*§
a* cn
ft
A JO
A
Q| ^
3 H-
a o
H-
3TJ
Qi C
a cr
A H-
tQ H-
c cn
0) 3"
ft A
A cn
*
H-
3
ft
sr
A
•fl
A
a
A
n
JO Z
^ c
o a
i cr
M A
cr ft
o
Ml
cn
rt
0)
ft
A
cn
n
c
cr
a
H-
ft
ft
H-
3
O
O
a
i>4
A
ft
A
0)
T3
tJ
H-
O
fll
rt
H-
O
3
cn
Ml
O
JO
s.
O
1
M
0*
SO
A
tO
CO
ft
A
a
A
ft
A
a
O)
ft
H-
o
o
Ml
PI
a
A
£
Ol
cn
rt
A
O
m
3
H-
ft
M-
O
CO
\o
VO
ro
w
D
CO
H
W
0>
o
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1992
Program Area; RCRA Enforcement
OBJECTIVE: Ensure that SNCs return to full physical compliance.
ACTIVITY: Return to Compliance
MEASURE! Of the SNCs in existence as of October 1, 1991 STARS CODE: R/E-3a
(as a result of an inspection, record review, etc. TARGETED: N
conducted prior to October 1, 1988), report the REPORTED ONLY: Y
number of handlers that have returned to SUNSET: 1993
compliance without formal enforcement action.
MEASURE; Report the number of SNCs in existence as of STARS CODE: R/E-3b
October 1, 1991 (as a result of an inspection TARGETED: N
conducted prior to October 1, 1988), that have had REPORTED ONLY: Y
formal actions and have returned to compliance SUNSET: 1993
with all violations which caused them to be in
SNC.
1-16
-------
r-
o
o
o
o
(N
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1992
Program Area; RCRA Enforcement
-H-
m GOAL: To ensure compliance monitoring and enforcement.
S OBJECTIVE: Ensure that timely and appropriate enforcement action
Q is taken against SNCs.
K
I ACTIVITY; Identify and Address Significant Noncompliance
MEASURE; Of the SNCs (all handlers that are High Priority
Violators) at this point in time, report the number of
handlers that have been addressed by a formal
enforcement action, but have not returned to physical
compliance.
STARS CODE: R/E-2a
TARGETED: N
REPORTED ONLY: Y
SUNSET: 1993
MEASURE; Of the SNCs (all handlers that are High Priority
Violators) at this point in time, report the number
of handlers that have not had a formal enforcement
action (to address all violations causing the
facility to be in SNC) within 135 days of an
inspection, record review or other compliance
monitoring event in which significant non-
compliance was detected.
STARS CODE: R/E-2b
TARGETED: N
REPORTED ONLY: Y
SUNSET: 1993
1-15
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1992
RCRA Enforcement Definitions
R/E-l(a) Inspections: In FY 92, inspection requirements for Land Disposal Facilities will be
modified to allow greater flexibility in setting targets. Those operating, permitted, or
closing land disposal facilities (except Underground Injection Control (UIC) facilities)
that have no outstanding Class I violations as of July 1, 1991, that are not Federal,
State or local facilities and received an inspection during FY 91 are not required to be
inspected during FY 92. LDFs not inspected in FY 91 must be inspected the following
year. Closed LDFs must be inspected at least every other year, except those clean-closed
by removal. Federal, State and local (FSLs) LDFs must receive annual inspections. This
measure is intended to evaluate whether these facilities have been addressed with a full
compliance inspection under RCRA Sections 3007(c), (d), and (e). Inspections to be
counted are Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs).
R/E-l(b) Inspections: All Treatment and Storage Facilities (TSFs owned/operated by
Federal/State/local entities, commercial TSFs and all incinerators) must be inspected in
FY 1992. In addition, inspections must be conducted at TSFs not inspected in FY 91.
Inspections to oe counted are Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs).
R/E-l(c) Federal, State and local TSDs: These numbers are a subset of the numbers targeted and
reported in (a) and (b). Thus Federal, State and local facilities are counted both in
(c) and in (a) and (b). State inspections of State and local facilities will not be
counted toward this target.
R/E-2(a) In this Measure, SNCs are all handlers that are High Priority Violators (HPVs), including
Treatment, Storage, Disposal facilities, Transporters, Generators, Non-Notifiers
identified as HPVs during Fy 92. This measure is the number of handlers that have been
addressed by a formal enforcement action, but have not returned to full physical
compliance.
R/E-2(b) This measure is all SNCs that have not had a formal enforcement action within 135 days of
an inspection, record review or other compliance monitoring event. It is a combination
of the R/E-2(a) - (c) measures from the FY 91 AOG.
R/E-3(a) Of the SNCs in existence as of October 1, 1991 (as a result of an inspection, record
review, or other compliance monitoring event conducted prior to October 1, 1988), report
the number of handlers that have returned to compliance without formal enforcement
action.
1-18
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1992
Program Area: RCRA Enforcement
MEASURE: Report the number of SNCs in existence as of STARS CODE: R/E-3c
October I, 1991 (as a result of an inspection, TARGETED: N
record review, etc. conducted prior to REPORTED ONLY: Y
October 1, 1988), that are currently undergoing SUNSET: 1993
legal proceedings (i.e. ALJ/CJO hearings) or
are in compliance with their schedules.
ACTIVITY; Enforcement Actions
MEASURE: Report the number of formal administrative STARS CODE: R/E-4a
actions issued year-to-date (including 3008(a), TARGETED: N
3008(h), 3013 and 7003). REPORTED ONLY: Y
SUNSET: 1993
1-17
-------
R/E-3(b) This measure reports the number of SNCs in existence as of October 1, 1991 (as a result
r- of an inspection, record review, or other compliance monitoring event conducted prior to
° October 1, 1988), that have had formal actions and have returned to compliance with all
8 violations which caused them to be in SNC.
•
o
Ql R/E-3(c) This measure reports the number of SNCs in existence as of October 1, 1991 (as a result
^ of an inspection, record review, or other compliance monitoring event conducted prior to
u October 1, 1988), that are currently undergoing legal proceedings (i.e. ALJ/CJO hearings)
M or are in compliance with their schedules.
B
&JR/E-4(a) This measure reports the number of formal administrative actions issued year-to-date
o (including 3008(a), 3008(h), 3013, and 7003). Note: this measure is a combination of
os R/E-5(a) and (b) from the FY 91 AOG.
1-19
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
APPENDIX IIA:
LIST OF NEW AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS
NOTE: The dates listed were the most recent at the time of
publication and are subject to change.
osw
Mining Waste Management Under RCRA Subtitle D (SAR 2389)
NPRM 8/91
Final Action 11/92
Solid Waste Disposal Facility Criteria (SAR 2224)
NPRM 8/88
Final Action 91
Materials Source Separation for Municipal Waste Landfills (MSWLFS)
ANPRM 7/91
Adequacy Determinations for State Solid Waste Programs (SAR 2751)
NPRM 8/91
Final Action 8/92
Definition of Hazardous Waste Tank, Surface Impoundment and Waste
Pile (Revision)
NPRM To be determined
Final Action To be determined
Hazardous Waste Management System; Amendment to Subpart C
Rulemaking Petitions; Use of Groundwater Data in Delisting
Decisions (SAR 2622)
NPRM 10/89
Final Action 10/91
Determination on Solid Waste From Selected Metallic Ore Processing
Operations
Notice of Determination... 91
RCRA Definition of Solid Waste (Revision)
NPRM To be determined
Final Action To be determined
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes - Chlorinated
Aromatics
NPRM 12/91
Final Action 12/92
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes .from Coke
By-product Industries (SAR 2227)
NPRM 7/91
Final Action 7/92 x
IZA - 1
-------
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Wastes - De Minimis
Exemption Levels
NPRM 11/91
Final Action 3/94
Tests Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste Manual SW 846 -
Incorporation by Reference and Mandatory Good Laboratory
Practices (SAR 2507)
NPRM 1/89 ; 2/90
Final Action 7/91
New and Revised Testing Methods Approved for RCRA Subtitle C
Hazardous Waste Testing Manual SW-846, Third Edition, Update II
NPRM 7/91
Final Action 7/92
Amendments to Biennial Reporting Requirements
NPRM 7/91
Final Action 12/91
Location Standards for Hazardous Waste Facilities (SAR 2303)
NPRM 11/91
Final Action 12/93
Groundwater Monitoring at Hazardous Waste Facilities (SAR 2277)
NPRM 7/88
Final Action 7/91
Groundwater Monitoring Constituents (Phase II) and Methods
NPRM 6/91
Final Action 1/93
Amendments to Interim Status Standards for Downgradient Ground-
Waster Monitoring Well Locations at Hazardous Waste Facilities
NPRM 1/91
Final Action 12/91
RCRA Subtitle C Financial Test Criteria (SAR 2647)
NPRM 5/91
Final Action 5/92
Financial Test for Local Governments that Own/Operate Municipal
Solid Waste Landfills (SAR 2761)
NPRM 8/91
Final Action 8/92
ZZA - 2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Disposal of Containerized Liquids in Hazardous Waste Landfills
NPRM 12/86
Final Action 10/92
Double Liner and Leachate Collection System for Hazardous Waste
Land Disposal Units
NPRM 3/86
Final Action 9/92 (In conjunction with the Liner
Leak Detection Rule)
Liners and Leak Detection for Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Units
(SAR 2080)
NPRM 5/87
Final Action 9/92
Hazardous Waste Sump Requirements in Response to Rulemaking
Petition (Revision)
NPRM To be determined
Final Action To be determined
Emission Controls for Hazardous Waste Incinerators
NPRM On hold
Final Action On hold
Burning of Hazardous Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces
(SAR 2078)
NPRM 5/87; 10/89
Final Action 2/91 (56 FR 7134)
Corrective Action for Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) at
Hazardous Waste Management Facilities
NPRM 7/90
Final Action 1/93
Corrective Action for Releases to Ground Water from Regulated
Hazardous Waste Units
NPRM On hold
Final Action On hold
Management of Used Oil
Reproposal Date 7/91
Final Action 5/92
Land Disposal Restrictions for Soil and Debris Containing
Hazardous Waste (SAR 2461)
ANPRM 6/92 (debris), (soil)
NPRM 11/91 (debris), 5/92 (soil)
Final Action 6/92 (debris), 4/93 (soil)
IIA - 3
-------
No-Migration Variance for Restricted Hazardous Waste Land
Disposal
NPRM 7/91
Final Action 7/92
Land Disposal Restrictions Revision to K061 Treatment Standard
NPRM 4/91
Final 9/91
Causes for Permit Modifications to Hazardous Waste Management
Facilities (SAR 2780)
NPRM On hold
Final Action On hold
Treatment of Indian Tribes as States (For RCRA Subtitle C Program
Authorization)
NPRM 7/91
Final Action 7/92
OWPE
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Requirements for State
Hazardous Waste Management Programs (SAR 2158)
NPRM 6/91
Final Action 6/92
National Contingency Plan - Subpart K: A Road Map to the NCP for
Federal Facilities (SAR 2650)
NPRM 3/90
Final Action
CERCLA Cost Recovery (SAR 2702)
NPRM 7/90
Final Action 7/91
Reporting Hazardous Substances Activity When Transferring Federal
Real Property (SAR 2464)
NPRM 1/88
Final Action 2/90
Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-Site Response
Actions (SAR 2538)
NPRM 11/88
Final Action 91
HA - 4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Appendix IIB
RELEVANT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
NOTE: Some of the dates listed were the most recent at the time
of publication. They are subject to change, and they may differ
from those listed in the Administrator's Tracking System (ATS).
Permitting/Facility Closure/Post-Closure
Air Emissions - Technical Guidance Documents:
Control of Air Emissions from Process Vents and
Equipment Leaks at TSD facilities. Distribute Final
Document: (7/90).
Incinerator Guidance Series:
Volume I: Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste
Incinerator Permits, July 1983 (Update late 1991)
Volume II: Guidance on Setting Permit Conditions and
Reporting Trial Burn Results, January 1989
- Volume III: Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement
Guidance Manual, June 1989
Volume IV: Guidance on Metals and Hydrogen Chloride
Controls for Hazarodus Waste Incinerators, Draft,
August 1989 (Will be superceded by "Interim Status
Compliance Document for Boilers and Industrial
Furnances" scheduled to be final late 1991)
Volume V: Guidance on PIC Controls for Hazardous Waste
Incinerators, Draft
Volume VI: Proposed Methods for Measurement of CO, 02,
HC, HCL, and Metals at Hazarodus Waste Incinerators
Implementing the Land Disposal Restrictions: Question and
Answers (09/89).
RCRA Permit Appeals Guidance (9/90).
Five Year Permit Review Strategy (6/91*).
RCRA Permit Policy Compendium (available in Regional
Offices) (4/91*).
Modifying RCRA Permits (9/89)
Statistical Analysis of Ground Water Monitoring Data at RCRA
Facilities (Interim final guidance 4/89).
Practical Guide for Assessing and Remediating Contaminated
Sites (Draft 5/89).
"Facility Location: A Comprehensive Approach to Siting
Hazardous Waste Facilities" (4/91*).
Public Information Brochure to Precede Location Standards
Proposed Rule (4/91*).
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Statement of Basis Guidance (Final, 3/91*)
Incinerator Enforcement Strategy (Final, 3/90)
Land Ban First Third Enforcement Strategy. (Final, 1/89)
Land Ban Third Third Enforcement Strategy. (Final, 2/91*)
IIB - 1
-------
RELEVANT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
(Continued)
Mixed Waste Enforcement Strategy. (Final, 6/91*)
Mixed Waste Inspection Guidance. (Final, 2/91*)
Land Disposal Restrictions Inspection Manual (Final, 10/91*)
(Revision for Third Third Rule)
Incinerator Inspection Guidance. (Final, 4/89)
Control of Air Emissions from Process Vents
and Equipment Leaks at TSD Facilities
Guidance and Enforcement Strategy (Final, *)
Toxicity Characteristic Enforcement Strategy (Final, *)
Revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (Final, 10/90)
Tracking and Management of Medical Waste (Interim Final,3/89)
Mineral Processing Wastes Rules Guidance (Final *)
Waste Analysis Plan Guidance (Final 91)
Land Disposal Restrictions Summary of
Requirements (Final 2/91)
Hazardous Waste Tank System Inspection Manual (Final, 9/88).
RCRA Laboratory Audit Inspection Guidance (LAI) (Final, 9/88).
RCRA Technical Case Development Guidance Document (Final,
6/88).
EPA Order 3500.1 - Training and Development for Compliance
Inspections/Field Investigations (June 29, 1988).
Operation and Maintenance Inspection Guide (Final, 3/88).
RCRA Inspection Manual (Final, 3/88).
RCRA Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Evaluation Guidance
Document (Final, 3/88).
Enforcement Strategy, Hazardous Waste Exports EPA NEIC, Denver
(Final, 3/88).
Revised Enforcement Response Policy (Final, 12/87) .
RCRA State Oversight Inspection Guide (Final, 12/87).
Revised Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-site
Response Actions (Final, 11/87).
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Violations Classification
Guide (Final, 6/91).
* Anticipated Dates
XXB - 2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
RELEVANT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
(Continued)
Corrective Action
RCRA Corrective Action Outyear Strategy (09/89).
Guidance for Environmental Priorities Initiative Facilities in
the Superfund Pre-Remedial Program (01/89).
Interim Final Model §3008(h) Unilateral Order (01/89).
RCRA Section 3008(h) Model Order. (01/88).
Guidance on the Use of Stipulated Penalties in Hazardous Waste
Consent Decree (09/87).
RFI Guidance (07/87).
RCRA CAP (11/86)
RCRA Interim Measures Guidance (6/87).
Administrative Hearing Procedures for §3008(h) Orders (05/87).
RFA Guidance (10/86).
Subpart S Training Manual (9/89).
Corrective Action Section of the RCRA Model Permit (11/88).
Subpart S - Draft Rule (Draft 8/89).
Contaminated Media/Contained in Policy Guidance
"Status of Contaminated Ground Water and Limitations on
Disposal and Reuse11 (Memo; 1/24/89) .
"Contained-in Response Memo to Thomas Jorling,
Commissioner, Dept. of Environment Conservation, New York"
(Memo: 6/19/89).
"Application of Land Disposal Restrictions to RCRA and
CERCLA Ground Water Treatment Reinjection" (Memo:
12/27/89).
V
* Anticipated Date
IIB - 3
-------
RELEVANT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
(Continued)
Federal Facilities
Enforcement Actions Under RCRA and CERCLA at Federal
Facilities (January 25, 1988).
Elevation Process for Achieving Federal Facility Compliance
Under RCRA (March 24, 1988).
Agreement with the Department of Energy—Model Provisions for
CERCLA Federal Facility Agreements (May 27, 1988).
Agreement with the Department of Defense—Model Provisions for
CERCLA Federal Facility Agreements (June 17, 1988).
Enforcement Actions at Government-Owned Contractor-Operated
Facilities (September 8, 1988).
Federal Facilities Compliance Strategy (November, 1988).
Listing Policy for Federal Facilities (March 13, 1989).
Federal Facilities Negotiations Strategy (August 19, 1989).
Municipal Solid Waste
State Program Adequacy (Summer 1991).
Update of Agenda for Action (Summer 1991).
Implementation Strategy for the Revised Criteria (Summer
1991).
Study of Recent State and Tribal Municipal Solid Waste
Management Plans (Spring of 1990).
Report to Congress on Methods to Manage and Control Plastic
Waste (Final - February 1990).
Review of Potential Substitutes for Lead and Cadmium in
Products (Draft - February 1990) (Final May 1990).
Technical Guidance on Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Criteria
(Draft - Spring 1990) (Final - Summer 1990)..
How to be An Environmentally Alert Consumer1 (Draft - February
1990) (Final - April 1990).
IIB - 4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
RELEVANT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
(Continued)
Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the U.S. (Draft
- March 1990) (Final - ?).
Decision Maker's Guide to Solid Waste Management - November
1989
Sites for Our Solid Waste: A Guidebook for Effective Public
Involvement - April 1990.
Land Disposal Restriction (not including LDR enforcement
guidance)
"No Migration" Variances to the Hazardous Waste Land Disposal
Prohibitions: A Guidance Manual for Petitioners (Draft Interim
Final) (March 1990)
Guidance on the Land Disposal Restrictions' Effects on Storage
and Disposal of Commercial Mixed Waste (9555.00-01) (September
1990)
Case-By-Case Extensions: A Guidance Document to Support the
Land Disposal Restriction (Draft 1988)
Mixed Waste
Guidance on the Definition and Identification of Radioactive
Mixed Waste (9440-1) (January 1987)
Guidance on the Definition and Identification of Commercial
Mixed Waste, Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste and
Answers to Anticipated Questions (October 4, 1989)
State Programs
Capability Assessments for RCRA Authorization Program
Revisions (April 9, 1987).
Capability Assessment Guidance - 1990 Edition
RCRA Quality Criteria (revised July 1986).
Protocols for evaluating permit quality and closure/post-
closure plans (August 1986).
Enforcement Response Policy (December 21, 1987).
RCRA Program Evaluation Guide (July 1988).
IIB - 5
-------
RELEVANT GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
(Continued)
State Authorization Manual (SAM), (9540.00-9A) (November
1990).
RCRA Orientation Manual 1990 Edition
State Grants and Work Programs/Waste Minimization and Capacity
Assurance
Assurance of Hazardous Waste Capacity, Guidance to State
Officials (9010.00, Dec. 1988), revision scheduled 10/90.
Agency Review of SARA Capacity Assurance Plans (October,
1989).
Waste Minimization (Pollution Prevention)
Pollution Prevention Policy Statement (Proposed, 1/26/89).
Guidance to Hazardous Waste Generators on the Elements of a
Waste Minimization Program (Proposed, 6/12/89).
Video - "Less is More: Pollution Prevention is Good Business"
(10/89).
Waste Minimization Opportunity Assessments Manual (7/88).
Information Management
Functional Requirements for RCRIS Modules 1-7 (i.e., Handler
Identification, Permitting/Closure/Post-Closure, Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement, Data Quality/Data Management,
Corrective Action, Facility Management Planning, and Program
Management) (12/31/88).
Technical Specifications for the Conversion of HWDMS and CARS
Data to the RCRIS Data Base (1/29/90).
RCRIS Data Element Dictionary (on-line, i.e., Mainframe) (on-
going update).
Framework for National Implementation.
RCRIS System Architecture Paper (1/23/87).
RCRIS System Start up Guide (1/29/90).
RCRIS User's Guide (1/1/90).
Student Training Guide and Exercise Booklet (1/1/90).
IIB - 6
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
Configuration Management Board Charter and Process (10/89).
RCRIS Translator Guide (1/29/90).
RCRIS Database Structure Chart (12/89).
RCRIS Reports Library (1/22/90).
IIB - 7
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
APPENDIX III
List of FY 92 Events
NOTE: This list does not cover the whole range of RCRA events
that may occur in FY 92. However, States and Regions
may find this list useful in developing their operating
plans.
Sept. - Dec. 91
September 1, 1991
October 1991
November 1991
November 1, 1991
Nov. 1991 - June
1992
December 1, 1991
December 1991
Dec. 1991 - Jan.
1992
January 1992
Jan. - July 1992
1991 Biennial Report forms distributed
by HQ, Regions, States.
"Corrective action pipeline facilties"
environmental priority ranking deadline.
"Facilities with post-closure permitting
needs" environmental priority ranking
deadline.
BIFs with permitted units must notify
the public of Class 1 permit
modification.
"Facilities in midst of active
permitting needs" environmental priority
ranking deadline.
BIFs will submit compliance test
protocols.
"Facilities with RFAs" environmental
priority ranking deadline.
1991 Biennial Report forms distributed
by HQ, Regions, States.
1993 Biennial Report regulation
publicized.
1991 Biennial Report forms training held
Termination of all HWDMS/CARS activity
at States and Regions.
Cement facilities that cannot meet the
BIF interim status hydrocarbon limit
will submit unsolicited Part B
applications.
Ill - 1
-------
February 1992
February 1992
Feb. - March 92
Feb.-Aug.21,1992
March 1992
April 1, 1992
April - June 92
June 1992
July 1, 1992
July 1992
July - Sept. 92
BIFs that cannot meet the Aug. 21, 1992
deadline for certification of compliance
will submit a request for a time
extension.
BIFs with permitted units must submit
Class 2 and/or Class 3 permit
modification(s).
State submission of revised Capacity
Assurance Plans.
Biennial Report software training
provided.
BIFs will submit compliance test results
and compliance certifications.
1991 Biennial Report forms due from
facilities to States.
1989 Biennial Report released.
Industry submits Biennial Reports to
States.
"Remaining facilities" environmental
priority ranking deadline.
Implementer data entry of forms and
QA/QC by States.
States submit Biennial Report data to
Regions.
Biennial Report data due from States to
Regions.
Authorized States must have made
statutory changes, if necessary, to
adopt the September 1, 1989, and
January 23, 1990, final Bevill mineral
processing waste rules.
RCRA Cluster I State modification
deadline. (First cluster to combine
HSWA and non-HSWA rules.)
Regions QA/QC Data. -
III - 2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-07
August 1992
September 1992
Regions submit Biennial Report data to
Headquarters.
BIF compliance certification due to
Region.
RCRA Cluster I State revision
application deadline. (First cluster to
combine HSWA and non-HSWA rules.)
1993 Biennial Report forms available for
distribution.
Data due from Regions to HQ.
Ill - 3
------- |