-------

-------
                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                           OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
                                 NORTHERN DIVISION
                             77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
                                 CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590
                                    March 23, 1999
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:   Audit Report No. E1DSD8-05-0036-9100110
             Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Programs
             Significant Non-Complier Enforcement
FROM:      Anthony C. Carrollo
             Divisional Inspector
             Northern Divisio:

TO:          David A. Ullrich
             Acting Regional Administrator
             Region 5

Attached is the final report on Region 5's and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (IEPA)
identification and enforcement of significant non-compliers under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.  We found that, overall, Region 5 and IEPA were appropriately identifying
and taking enforcement actions against significant non-compliers. We also found that Region 5
and IEPA need to improve the accuracy of Resource Conservation and Recovery Information
System data.

This audit report contains findings that describe problems the Office of Inspector General has
identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. As such, this audit report represents the
opinion of the OIG. Final determinations on matters in the report will be made by EPA
managers in accordance with established EPA audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the
findings contained in this audit report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position and are
not binding upon EPA in any enforcement proceedings brought by EPA or the Department of
Justice.

ACTION REQUIRED

In accordance with EPA Order 2750 you as the action official are required to provide us with a
written response to the audit report, including finalized corrective actions and milestone dates,
within 90 days of the final audit report date.  In responding to the draft report, your office
provided draft corrective actions, with milestone dates, for the recommendation.  Once finalized,
the action plan with comply with our recommendations.

-------
We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public.

We appreciate the cooperation you, your staff, and the IEPA staff provided during this review.
Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact Kimberly O'Lone, Audit Manager, at
312-886-3186.

Attachment

-------
                                                       Identification and Enforcement of
                                                       RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                          EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
RESULTS IN BRIEF
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an audit of
Region 5's and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (IEPA)
identification and enforcement of significant non-compliers under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We
selected this audit because similar OIG reviews indicated that
enforcement of RCRA regulations in other states may not always
be consistent with, or as stringent as, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) enforcement.  Region 5's and lEPA's role is to
ensure that facilities are effectively managing hazardous waste.
This management includes reducing the toxicity and amount of
hazardous waste generated to minimize releases into the
environment.
                          The overall objective was to evaluate significant non-complier
                          (SNC) identification and enforcement at the state and regional
                          level. The specific objectives were:

                          1.     Did the classification of the violator and the related
                                enforcement action comply with the enforcement policy in
                                effect at the time?

                          2.     Was the classification correctly recorded in the Resource
                                Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS)?

                          3.     Did EPA or the state ensure that the facility returned to
                                compliance, and was this adequately documented?

                          4.     If the enforcement was performed under the 1996
                                enforcement policy, was the action timely?
                          Overall, Region 5 and IEPA were appropriately identifying and
                          taking enforcement actions against SNCs.  Specifically, Region 5
                          and IEPA ensured that the: (1) violator classification and related
                          enforcement actions complied with policy, (2) SNC classification
                                                                     Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                         Identification and Enforcement of
                                                         RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                          was usually correctly recorded in RCRIS, and (3) facilities returned
                          to compliance and that this was adequately documented.
                          Enforcement actions were not always timely, but in all but one
                          case the delays were justifiable under EPA's Hazardous Waste
                          Civil Enforcement Response Policy. Also, as part of its annual
                          enforcement activities, IEPA has taken the initiative to visit
                          facilities that are not fully regulated under RCRA. IEPA checks
                          how these facilities are handling their hazardous waste through a
                          procedure IEPA calls a compliance assistance survey.

                          Region 5 and IEPA need to improve the accuracy of RCRIS data
                          entry.  Forty-two percent of the Region 5 files and thirty-six
                          percent of the IEPA files had some information that did not agree
                          with the database. RCRIS inaccuracies were due to: (1)  inspectors
                          not submitting documents for entry, (2) documents being filed
                          prior to entry, and (3) human error. As a result, EPA and IEPA do
                          not have complete data for determining facilities' compliance
                          histories and each agency's enforcement activities.

                          RCRIS also did not accurately reflect lEPA's compliance
                          assistance survey activities. RCRIS did not reflect: (1) letters to
                          facilities stating the deficiencies identified and (2) deficiencies
                          corrected during the surveys. Accurate information helps to show
                          that IEPA is taking additional measures to ensure that more
                          facilities are taking the appropriate steps to prevent hazardous
                          waste releases.  Also, to measure the facilities' willingness to
                          comply, IEPA may want to consider adding a timeframe  for return
                          to compliance in its letters for compliance assistance activities.
RECOMMENDATION
SUGGESTED
IMPROVEMENTS
                          We recommend that the Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5,
                          establish specific procedures for data entry to ensure adequate
                          controls over Regional and state RCRIS input.
Although IEPA is not required to conduct compliance assistance
surveys, we suggest that the Director, IEPA, revise compliance
assistance survey procedures to assure that: (1) information is
                                           11
                                                                       Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                        Identification and Enforcement of
                                                        RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                          accurately coded in RCRIS, (2) all deficiencies are entered, and (3)
                          letters to facilities include timeframes for corrective action.
AGENCY ACTIONS
STATE ACTIONS
OIG EVALUATION
                          In responding (Appendix 1) to our draft report, the Acting
                          Regional Administrator, Region 5, acknowledged that continuous
                          improvement is essential in carrying out established procedures for
                          data entry to ensure adequate controls over Regional and state
                          RCRIS input. The Acting Regional Administrator provided a draft
                          fiscal year 1999 Action Plan which includes milestone dates for
                          RCRIS activities.
                          In response (Appendix 2) to our suggested improvements, IEPA
                          has revised its compliance assistance survey procedures to ensure:
                          (1) activities are more accurately reflected in RCRIS, (2) all
                          deficiencies are entered in RCRIS, and (3) facilities are provided
                          with a timeframe for returning to compliance.
                          Region 5's Action Plan, when finalized and implemented, will
                          address the recommendation in this report. lEPA's actions address
                          the suggested improvements in this report.
                                          111
                                                                      Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                   Identification and Enforcement of
                                                   RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                             Table of Contents


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	i

ABBREVIATIONS 	vi

1     INTRODUCTION	1
            Purpose	1
            Background 	1
            Scope and Methodology  	2

2     SNCs PROPERLY IDENTIFIED AND ENFORCED AGAINST	3
            Classification and Enforcement Complied with Policy	3
            SNC Classification Correctly Recorded  	4
            Ensured and Documented Return to Compliance  	5
            Enforcement Action Not Always Timely  	6
            Conclusion	7

3     OTHER MATTERS: RCRIS DATA INACCURATE	8
            RCRIS Data Inaccurate 	8
                  Region 5	9
                  IEPA	10
            Compliance Assistance Survey Data Not Accurate in RCRIS  	11
                  Surveys Encourage Proper Waste Handling  	11
                  RCRIS Code Needed For Survey Actions	12
                  Corrected Deficiencies Not Recorded	13
                  Letters Should Include Timeframe  	13
            Conclusion	13
            Recommendation	14
            Suggested Improvements	14
            Agency Actions	14
            State Actions  	14
            OIG Evaluation 	15

EXHIBIT

      Scope, Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage	16
                                       IV
                                                               Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                       Identification and Enforcement of
                                                       RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
APPENDICES

1     Region 5 Response to Draft Report	19

2     IEPA Response to Draft Report	33

3     Distribution 	34
                                                                    Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                     Identification and Enforcement of
                                                     RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                ABBREVIATIONS

EPA        U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

IEPA       Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

OECA      Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance

OIG        Office of Inspector General

Policy      Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy

RCRA      Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

RCRIS      Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System

SNC        Significant Non-Complier
                                        VI
                                                                   Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                       Identification and Enforcement of
                                                       RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                  CHAPTER 1
                                  Introduction
PURPOSE
BACKGROUND
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an audit of
significant non-complier (SNC) identification and enforcement
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  We
selected this area for review because similar OIG reviews in
Regions 1,3, and 10 indicated that state enforcement of RCRA
regulations may not always be consistent with, or as stringent as,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement.  Our
overall objective was to evaluate SNC identification and
enforcement at the state and regional level. The specific objectives
were to answer the questions:

1.      Did the classification of the violator and the related
       enforcement action comply with the enforcement policy in
       effect at the time?

2.      Was the classification correctly recorded in the Resource
       Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS)?

3.      Did EPA or the state ensure that the facility returned to
       compliance,  and was it adequately documented?

4.      If the enforcement was performed under the 1996
       enforcement policy, was the action timely?
                          Congress enacted RCRA Subtitle C in 1976 to establish a
                          framework for managing hazardous waste; waste that is capable of
                          harming human health or the environment. RCRA mandated that
                          EPA develop a comprehensive set of regulations for hazardous
                          waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal
                          facilities.

                          EPA's current Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response
                          Policy (Policy), effective April 15, 1996, establishes two types of
                          violators under RCRA: SNCs and Secondary Violators.  A facility
                                          1
                                                                     Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                          Identification and Enforcement of
                                                          RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                           that is found to be in violation but does not meet the SNC
                           definition is a Secondary Violator.  SNCs are:

                                  those facilities which have caused actual
                                  exposure or a substantial likelihood of
                                  exposure to hazardous waste or hazardous
                                  waste constituents; are chronic or
                                  recalcitrant violators; or deviate
                                  substantially from the terms of a permit,
                                  order, agreement or from RCRA statutory or
                                  regulatory requirements.

                           States play a crucial role in implementing the hazardous waste
                           program. One aspect of implementation is monitoring facilities to
                           verify that they comply with regulatory requirements.  The primary
                           method of monitoring is through an inspection. Inspections of
                           hazardous waste facilities may include formally visiting the
                           handler, reviewing records, taking samples, and observing
                           operations.

                           States also have the authority to assist some facilities, such as
                           small businesses, in complying with regulations. Facilities that
                           generate less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste and
                           less than 1  kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste are
                           conditionally exempt from full regulation under Subtitle C. Small
                           quantity  generators which generate between 100 and 1000
                           kilograms of hazardous waste per month are also exempt from full
                           regulation. IEPA primarily uses compliance assistance to ensure
                           these facilities are operating in accordance with the regulations.
METHODOLOGY        We performed our audit in accordance with the U.S. General
                           Accounting Office's Government Auditing Standards, 1994
                           Revision, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States,
                           and included such tests as we saw necessary to complete the
                           objectives.

                           For further details on the audit scope, methodology, and prior audit
                           coverage, see exhibit 1 .
                                                                         Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                       Identification and Enforcement of
                                                       RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                  CHAPTER 2
                          SNCs  Properly Identified
                            and Enforced Against
CLASSIFICATION AND
ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIED WITH
POLICY
(OBJECTIVE 1)
                          Region 5 and IEPA generally identified and took appropriate
                          enforcement actions against SNCs, for the cases we reviewed.
                          Overall, (1) violator classification and related enforcement actions
                          complied with the Policy, (2) classifications were correctly
                          recorded in RCRIS, and (3) return to compliance was ensured and
                          adequately documented.  Also, the enforcement actions were not
                          always timely, but in all but one case the delays were justifiable
                          under the Policy.
Region 5 and IEPA correctly classified violators and took
appropriate enforcement actions for most of the cases in our
sample.  These actions ensured that facilities were complying with
RCRA requirements. For example, as a result of IEPA's
enforcement actions, unknown waste was tested to determine if it
was hazardous. The waste could then be properly handled to
minimize releases into the environment.

The 1987 and 1996 Policies explain the requirements for
identifying and providing appropriate enforcement of SNCs.  Each
Policy defines classes of violators and prescribes the minimally
acceptable enforcement action. The 1996 Policy contains two
classes of violators: secondary violators and SNCs. The Policy
calls for an informal enforcement action, at a minimum, for a
secondary  violator. An informal enforcement response recites the
violations and includes a schedule for returning the facility to full
compliance. The Policy calls for a formal enforcement response
for an SNC. A formal response mandates compliance and seeks
injunctive  relief to ensure that the facility will promptly return to
full compliance. Economic sanctions, such as penalties, should be
incorporated into the formal enforcement response, as appropriate.
                                                                     Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                       Identification and Enforcement of
                                                       RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                          Region 5 and IEPA properly classified the violators and took
                          enforcement action in accordance with the Policy for all but one
                          case. See table 1.

                                     Table 1: Proper Classification
                                              and Enforcement

Properly Classified
Proper Enforcement Action
Region 5
12
12
IEPA
27
26
                          For the 12 Region 5 cases reviewed, the Region properly classified
                          and took related enforcement actions that complied with the Policy
                          in effect at the time. For IEPA, 26 of the 27 cases complied with
                          the Policy in effect at the time. While the classification was
                          correct, IEPA did not take a formal enforcement action for the
                          remaining case because it involved a paperwork violation that did
                          not threaten human health or the environment, and the facility was
                          closing.
SNC CLASSIFICATION
CORRECTLY            Region 5 and IEPA usually recorded the proper classification in
RECORDED              RCRIS when the facility was an SNC. EPA requires SNCs to be
(OBJECTIVE!)             recorded in RCRIS. EPA uses RCRIS to:

                                 obtain the data it needs to manage and track the RCRA
                                 enforcement program, and

                            •     review and track the program's progress toward the
                                 Government Performance and Results Act goals.

                          Therefore, if SNCs are not properly designated in RCRIS, it could
                          lead to erroneous conclusions of RCRA enforcement
                          accomplishments.

                          Seven of the twelve Region 5 cases reviewed were SNCs. Four of
                          the seven cases were correctly designated as SNCs in RCRIS. One
                                                                     Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                        Identification and Enforcement of
                                                        RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                          case was not entered into RCRIS as required.  The other two cases
                          were recently classified as SNCs, so the RCRIS entries had not
                          been made prior to our review. Subsequent to our fieldwork,
                          Region 5 entered all three SNC designations into RCRIS.

                          For IEPA, 3 of the 27 inspection cases reviewed should have been
                          recorded as SNCs in RCRIS.  While IEPA began to use the new
                          RCRIS code for SNCs as soon at it was available, RCRIS did not
                          reflect lEPA's SNC determination for one of the three cases. IEPA
                          officials corrected this during our review.
ENSURED AND
DOCUMENTED RETURN Region 5 and IEPA ensured and adequately documented return to
TO COMPLIANCE
(OBJECTIVE 3)
compliance for all except two of the facilities that are now
complying with regulations. See table 2. Bringing facilities back
into compliance is needed for the program to effectively reduce
risks to human health and the environment.  The Policy provides
guidelines designed to promptly return facilities to compliance
with all applicable RCRA requirements. To document the return to
compliance, both Region 5 and IEPA issue letters to the facilities.

           Table 2: Verified and Documented
                    Return to Compliance

Cases Returned to Compliance
Return to Compliance Verified
Return to Compliance Documented
Region 5
4
4
4
IEPA
22
21
20
                          For Region 5,4 of the 12 cases reviewed had returned to
                          compliance, and Region 5 verified and documented the return to
                          compliance with a letter to the facility.

                          For IEPA, 22 of the 27 inspection cases reviewed indicated that the
                          facility had returned to compliance. IEPA verified return to
                          compliance for 21 cases. For the remaining case, there was no
                                                                      Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                         Identification and Enforcement of
                                                         RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION NOT ALWAYS
TIMELY
(OBJECTIVE 4)
                           evidence that the facility had returned to compliance.  IEPA
                           officials were following up on this case by requiring the collection
                           of soil samples. IEPA adequately documented return to
                           compliance by issuing letters for 20 of the 21 cases. One return to
                           compliance letter had not been issued since a settlement was being
                           negotiated with the Attorney General's office.
Region 5 and IEPA did not always take formal enforcement
actions within the established timeframes. When delays occurred,
however, all but one were justifiable under the Policy. The Policy
establishes a timeframe for taking formal enforcement action.
Untimely enforcement actions create the potential for the
violations to continue to pose a threat to human health and the
environment and do not deter future non-compliance.

The Policy: (1) states that regions and states should meet, to the
extent possible, the standard enforcement response times;
(2) provides for an annual 20 percent exceedence for cases that
involved unique factors; and (3) identifies circumstances that
might prevent an agency  from meeting the response times, such as:
potential criminal conduct, cases involving two or more media, or
additional sampling or information requests.

Seven of the twelve Region 5 cases reviewed involved formal
enforcement actions.  In one of those seven, Region 5 took a
formal enforcement action within the timeframe established in the
Policy.  One case was 17 days late, which we did not consider to
be significant.  For the five remaining cases, delays were justifiable
under the Policy.

  •    Region 5 management decided to try a new approach,
       which required revising the documents for two cases to
       make them  stronger. A novel defense is one factor that
       might result in exceeding the response time established in
       the Policy.

  •    Two other cases were multi-media, involving more than
       just RCRA  violations, and it took longer to get concurrence
                                           6
                                                                       Report No. 9100110

-------
                              Identification and Enforcement of
                              RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
      from all EPA programs involved. The Policy states that
      cases involving two or more media may exceed the
      standard response times.

  •    One case was delayed because it raised complex questions,
      and Region 5 had to make additional information requests.
      The Policy recognizes such requests may prevent the
      implementing agency from meeting the response time.

For IEPA, formal enforcement action was taken for 3 of the 27
inspection cases.  Two of these actions were taken within the
timeframe established in the Policy.  The third case involved
criminal conduct, which is recognized in the Policy as requiring
additional time for an enforcement action.
Region 5 and IEPA generally identified and performed appropriate
enforcement against significant non-compliers, thereby effectively
reducing risks to human health and the environment.  Region 5 and
IEPA need to continue to ensure that the:  (1) violator classification
and related enforcement actions comply with policy, (2) SNC
classification is correctly recorded in RCRIS, (3) return to
compliance is achieved and adequately documented, and (4)
enforcement action is taken timely.
                                            Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                        Identification and Enforcement of
                                                        RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                  CHAPTER 3
                                 Other Matters:
                           RCRIS Data Inaccurate
                          Although Region 5 and IEPA were generally meeting our audit
                          objectives, we found some other areas that could use improvement.
                          Region 5 and IEPA could improve the completeness and accuracy
                          of the hazardous waste database, RCRIS. Forty-two percent of the
                          Region 5 files and thirty-six percent of the IEPA files reviewed had
                          some information that did not agree with the database. RCRIS
                          inaccuracies were the result of: (1) documents not being submitted
                          for entry, (2) documents being filed prior to entry, and (3) human
                          error. Data problems result in Region 5, IEPA, and the Office of
                          Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) having
                          inaccurate information on facilities' compliance histories and each
                          agency's enforcement activities. Data problems also result in the
                          public having  access to inaccurate information.

                          Through compliance assistance surveys, IEPA is encouraging
                          proper waste handling and bringing more facilities into compliance
                          than RCRA requires.  However, to provide an accurate picture of
                          the State's enforcement activities, IEPA needs to  ensure that
                          RCRIS reflects: (1) actions taken because of the surveys and (2)
                          corrected deficiencies. IEPA should also consider adding a
                          timeframe for action to its letters to facilities.
INACCURATE           Region 5's and lEPA's RCRIS data were not always accurate.
                          RCRIS did not include some information on such things as:
                          inspections, violations, or facilities' corrections of violations.
                          RCRIS needs to accurately reflect all enforcement activities to
                          ensure that EPA and the states have the information they need to
                          take appropriate future enforcement actions. Accurate information
                          is also essential for the public to make informed environmental
                          decisions and for businesses to improve environmental
                          management practices.
                                                                      Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                        Identification and Enforcement of
                                                        RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                          The RCRIS database includes information on hazardous waste
                          generators; transporters; and treatment, storage, and disposal
                          facilities regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. RCRIS is used
                          interactively at the state and regional level with monthly updates to
                          the National Oversight database. The national database contains
                          those data elements which states, EPA regions, and EPA
                          headquarters have determined to be necessary for RCRA oversight
                          from a national perspective.

                          Inaccurate RCRIS data were due to documents not being submitted
                          for entry, documents being filed prior to entry, and human error.
                          For example:

                            •    A follow-up compliance assistance survey performed in
                                 September 1997 was not reflected in RCRIS. As a result of
                                 our work, the State's regional inspector submitted the
                                 document to the Springfield office for entry.

                            •    Documentation regarding an inspection and the related
                                 violations was on file, but not in RCRIS.

                            •    A return to compliance date was incorrectly entered as the
                                 date the violation was identified.

                          If data are missing or inaccurate, Region 5, IEPA, and OECA can
                          not, for example, properly determine a facility's compliance status
                          or get an accurate picture of a facility's violation history.
                          Inaccurate RCRIS information could impact future enforcement. If
                          RCRIS does not reflect that a violation is a repeat violation, IEPA
                          may mistakenly take an informal enforcement action when a
                          formal action may have been more appropriate.

Region 5                  Some information in 42 percent (5 of 12) of the Region 5 files
                          reviewed did not agree with RCRIS.  For example:
                                 A document, dated February 19, 1998, indicated that no
                                 RCRA violations were found during a multi-media
                                 inspection at a facility. However, a September 1998
                                                                       Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                         Identification and Enforcement of
                                                         RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                 RCRIS printout indicated that RCRA violations were still
                                 pending.

                             •    An enforcement action requesting information was not
                                 entered.

                             •    A September 1998 RCRIS printout showed an incorrect
                                 date for a final compliance order.

                           Region 5 started correcting the inaccuracies we identified while
                           our fieldwork was on-going. Region 5 subsequently corrected all
                           five discrepancies.

IEPA                      Some information in 36 percent (18 of 50) of the IEPA files
                           reviewed disagreed with RCRIS data. For example, IEPA did not
                           enter:

                             •    return to compliance dates for eight facilities.  Thus,
                                 although these facilities were now complying with RCRA,
                                 the database showed them as out of compliance.

                             •    follow-up inspections at two facilities, so the database did
                                 not show that these facilities had corrected the problems.

                             •    an inspection and the related violations, thereby under-
                                 representing the work IEPA did and making the data
                                 incomplete.

                           IEPA started correcting the inaccuracies we identified while our
                           fieldwork was on-going.  Of the 18 facilities where some RCRIS
                           information did not agree with the files, IEPA corrected 14 during
                           our fieldwork and one was pending. We noted discrepancies but
                                           10
                                                                       Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                           Identification and Enforcement of
                                                           RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                            did not suggest corrections be made for the remaining three cases
                            due to specialized circumstances.1
COMPLIANCE
ASSISTANCE SURVEY
DATA NOT ACCURATE
IN RCRIS
Surveys Encourage
Proper Waste Handling
RCRIS did not accurately reflect lEPA's compliance assistance
survey activities. IEPA uses compliance assistance surveys to
bring facilities that are not fully regulated under Subtitle C into
compliance.  However, RCRIS did not reflect: (1) letters to
facilities stating the deficiencies identified and (2) deficiencies
corrected during the surveys. As a result of our work, Region 5
and IEPA officials established a new RCRIS code that will more
accurately reflect lEPA's actions for compliance assistance
surveys.

IEPA is helping facilities that are not fully regulated effectively
manage hazardous waste.  This includes reducing the toxicity and
amount of hazardous waste generated to minimize releases into the
environment. IEPA focuses compliance assistance surveys on
small businesses, such as small or conditionally exempt generators,
that have not previously been inspected since they are not fully
regulated under RCRA. For example, IEPA performed compliance
assistance surveys at a dry cleaner, automotive repair shop,
machine shop, and rock quarry. The surveys focus primarily on
waste handling procedures with some emphasis on pollution
prevention, recycling, and waste minimization. lEPA's goal is to
make more businesses aware of hazardous waste regulations and
help them achieve compliance without the use of penalties or
enforcement. Also, IEPA discontinues a compliance assistance
survey and formally inspects those facilities where a substantial
and imminent danger to public health or the environment is
identified.
         One case was one of the first compliance assistance surveys IEPA entered into RCRIS and did not include the
deficiencies identified.  Since performing and recording surveys was new, Region 5 and IEPA had not decided how to record
deficiencies. One case was entered as a compliance assistance survey follow-up when the return to compliance was actually
based on a record review. The last case showed a non-financial record review on the same date the significant non-complier
determination was made, but there was no supporting documentation for the review or the determination on file.
                                            11
                                                                          Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                          Identification and Enforcement of
                                                          RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                           For fiscal year 1997, IEPA performed compliance assistance
                           surveys at 1,868 facilities. Of the total, 1,696, or 91 percent,
                           either: (1) were in compliance before lEPA's visit, (2) returned to
                           compliance during the visit, or (3) returned to compliance after the
                           visit.  See chart 1. IEPA plans to conduct follow-up surveys and
                           additional compliance assistance surveys at the remaining 172 sites
                           that are still in non-compliance.

                                                      Chart 1:

                                               Fiscal Year  1997
                                              Illinois Compliance Assistance Surveys
                                            LJ  In Compliance Before Visit
                                            B  Returned to Compliance During Visit
                                            •  Returned to Compliance After Visit
                                            H  Still Not In Compliance

                           IEPA has procedures for recording any problems noted during
                           compliance assistance surveys and for  issuing letters to the
                           facilities. IEPA has revised its procedures due to internal issues as
                           well as issues we identified.

RCRIS Code Needed       OIG, Region 5, and IEPA officials agreed that a RCRIS code
For Survey Actions        identifying an action that is less than informal enforcement would
                           be more reflective of IEPA's actual actions for compliance
                           assistance surveys.  Because IEPA is monitoring facilities that are
                           not fully regulated, IEPA views the problems identified as
                           deficiencies, not violations. The state records the compliance
                           assistance survey and any deficiencies in RCRIS. It then issues
                           letters to the facilities which indicate any concerns noted and
                           recommended corrective actions.  However, it did not record these
                           letters in RCRIS. Since the goal of compliance assistance is to
                           achieve compliance without the threat  of enforcement, IEPA did
                           not want RCRIS to reflect the letter as an informal enforcement

                                           12
                                                                         Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                          Identification and Enforcement of
                                                          RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                           action. However, not recording the action in RCRIS left the
                           database incomplete. Based on our work, Region 5 and IEPA
                           established a code, effective December 18, 1998, to reflect actions
                           taken for compliance assistance surveys.
Corrected Deficiencies
Not Recorded
Letters Should
Include Timeframe
CONCLUSION
IEPA does not record deficiencies corrected during compliance
assistance surveys in RCRIS. This is because IEPA uses the date
of the return to compliance letter, rather than the actual return to
compliance date, to reflect a facility's actions. As a result, Region
5, IEPA, and OECA can not get an accurate history of compliance
for a facility.  If a facility is cited for additional problems in the
future, the history of violations is important for determining the
appropriate actions to take.

For the 23 IEPA compliance assistance surveys reviewed, only
4 included a return to compliance timeframe in the letter sent to the
facility. Because these facilities  are not fully regulated under
Subtitle C, timeframes are not required. However, IEPA may want
to consider  including a timeframe as a way to measure facilities'
willingness to timely return to compliance.

IEPA ensured 15 of the 23 facilities corrected problems and sent
them return to compliance letters. One facility had not returned to
compliance and IEPA had not verified corrections at the other
seven facilities. IEPA committed to follow-up on the status for the
remaining 172 compliance assistance surveys conducted in fiscal
year 1997.  This follow-up will show facilities that IEPA is
committed to the compliance assistance approach and that facilities
need to address the problems identified.
                           Region 5 and IEPA need to improve the accuracy of RCRIS data
                           entry.  Accurate data are essential for determining a facility's
                           compliance history and each agency's enforcement activities.  This
                           helps to ensure that Region 5 and IEPA are taking appropriate and
                           timely actions to prevent the release of hazardous waste into the
                           environment.  Entry of compliance assistance survey data also
                           helps to show that IEPA is taking additional measures to ensure
                           that more facilities are taking the appropriate steps to prevent
                                           13
                                                                        Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                        Identification and Enforcement of
                                                        RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                          hazardous waste releases. Accurate data are also essential for the
                          public's right-to-know, so that citizens and communities can make
                          informed environmental decisions and businesses will have an
                          incentive for improving environmental management.
RECOMMENDATION
SUGGESTED
IMPROVEMENTS
AGENCY ACTIONS
STATE ACTIONS
                          We recommend that the Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5,
                          establish specific procedures for data entry to ensure adequate
                          controls over Regional and state RCRIS input.
Because IEPA is not required to conduct compliance assistance
surveys, we are not making formal recommendations. However,
we suggest that the Director, IEPA, revise compliance assistance
survey procedures to ensure that: (1) information is accurately
coded in RCRIS, (2) all deficiencies are input, and (3) letters to
facilities include timeframes for corrective action.
                          In responding to our draft report, the Acting Regional
                          Administrator, Region 5, acknowledged that continuous
                          improvement is essential in carrying out established procedures for
                          data entry to ensure adequate controls over Regional and state
                          RCRIS input. The Acting Regional Administrator provided a draft
                          fiscal year 1999 Action Plan which includes milestone dates for
                          RCRIS activities. For example, Region 5 is enhancing the
                          accuracy of RCRIS data through a one-time review of event
                          records.
                          In response to our suggested improvements, IEPA has revised its
                          compliance assistance survey procedures to ensure: (1) activities
                          are more accurately reflected in RCRIS, (2) all deficiencies are
                          entered in RCRIS, and (3) facilities are provided with a timeframe
                          for returning to compliance.
                                          14
                                                                      Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                       Identification and Enforcement of
                                                       RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
OIG EVALUATION
                         Region 5's Action Plan, when finalized and implemented, will
                         address the recommendation in this report. lEPA's actions address
                         the suggested improvements in this report.
                                         15
                                                                     Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                        Identification and Enforcement of
                                                        RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                                                            Exhibit I
                                                                           Page 1 of3


             Scope, Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage

SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY        Our audit focused on IEPA' sand Region 5's RCRA programs. We
                          performed our fieldwork from July 9, 1998 to December 29, 1998.

                          We selected IEPA for review based on:  (1) RCRIS and Biennial
                          Reporting System data, (2) Headquarters Office of Enforcement
                          and Compliance Assurance information on SNCs identified in
                          Region 5 from 1993 through 1998, (3) sample inspection reports,
                          (4) Region 5 input, and (5) the centralization of IEPA files.
                          RCRIS tracks Subtitle C facility-specific data related to hazardous
                          waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal
                          facilities.  The Biennial Reporting System tracks large quantity
                          generators' and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities'
                          hazardous waste activity reports. Although we used data from the
                          RCRIS and Biennial Reporting systems, we did not evaluate the
                          adequacy of the controls over the systems.

                          To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed applicable policies and
                          guidance and interviewed IEPA and Region 5 officials. We used
                          the following EPA guidance as criteria to evaluate enforcement
                          activities:

                          •      Enforcement Response Policy, December, 1987.

                                 Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response  Policy,
                                 March 15, 1996.

                          To evaluate enforcement activities for IEPA and Region 5, we
                          randomly selected  10 percent, or 51 facilities, from a RCRIS list of
                           512 IEPA facilities where violations were identified during
                           calendar years 1995,1996, or 1997. Because IEPA and Region  5
                           both inspected some facilities, file reviews focused on the agency
                           that performed the most recent enforcement activity at  a facility.

                                          16
                                                                      Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                            Identification and Enforcement of
                                                            RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                                                                  Exhibit 1
                                                                                 Page 2 of3

                            The sample consisted of 48 facilities IEPA monitored and three
                            facilities Region 5 monitored.

                            Our final sample of IEPA cases consisted of 50 (48+3-1) facilities.
                            In addition to the 48 facilities we selected randomly, we
                            judgementally selected three additional facilities from an SNC list
                            generated from the State's internal tracking system.  We did this to
                            ensure that we reviewed some facilities that IEPA identified as
                            SNCs.  We deleted one case from our sample because the facility,
                            selected from lEPA's list, violated only state regulations.  Of our
                            final sample of 50, IEPA inspected 27 facilities and our
                            conclusions are  discussed in Chapter 2. IEPA performed
                            compliance assistance activities at the remaining 23 facilities and
                            our findings are discussed in Chapter 3.

                            Our final sample of Region 5 cases consisted of 12 (3+12-3)
                            facilities. In addition to our original random sample of 3 facilities,
                            we randomly selected  12 facilities from 31 facilities listed in the
                            RCRIS printout where Region  5 performed the most recent
                            enforcement activity.  We selected the additional facilities to
                            ensure an adequate review of Region 5 activities. However, we
                            later deleted three cases because they were not applicable to the
                            objectives of our review.2

                            During the audit, IEPA and Region 5 corrected several RCRIS
                            inaccuracies that we identified. Chapter 3 contains information
                            regarding the types of problems identified and the corrective
                            actions taken.
         One case was a review of documentation and subsequent referral for Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act violations. The second case showed a pending violation for a multi-media inspection, but no
RCRA violations were identified. The third case was a joint inspection where Region 5 officials accompanied IEPA on an
inspection.

                                             17
                                                                           Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                       Identification and Enforcement of
                                                       RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                                                            Exhibit 1
                                                                          Page 3 of3
PRIOR AUDIT
COVERAGE              In March 1998, the OIG issued a report regarding EPA Region 10
                          and the Washington Department of Ecology's SNC Enforcement
                          (Report No. 8100093).  The audit found that Region 10 needed to:
                          (1) ensure that the State's enforcement program is consistent with
                          EPA policy and (2) include deadlines in informal enforcement
                          actions.  The audit also found that the State did not always:  (1)
                          document return to compliance or (2) perform follow-up
                          inspections, where appropriate. The OIG is currently performing
                          similar work in Regions 1 and 3 which also identified problems
                          with SNC enforcement.
                                          18
                                                                      Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                  Identification and Enforcement of
                                                  RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                                                     Appendix 1
                                                                     Pagel of 14
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
              UNITED  STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                 REGION 5

                               MAR 03 1999
Draft Report for the Audit of Resource Conservation and
  Recovery Act Programs

David A. Ullrich
Acting Regional Administrator

Anthony C. Carrollo
Divisional Inspector General for Audits
Northern Division
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the draft
report, attached to your January 28, 1999 memorandum on the same
subject.

The Waste Pesticides and Toxics Division  (WPTD) reviewed the
report and acknowledges the conclusion on page 7 that Region 5
"generally identified and performed appropriate enforcement of
significant non-compilers, thereby effectively reducing risks to
human health and the environment." WPTD also acknowledges that
continuous improvement is essential in carrying out established
procedures for data entry to ensure adequate controls over
Regional and State RCRIS input.  To that end, I have attached a
copy of our draft RCRIS Action Plan for FY99.

If you wish to discuss these comments or any other aspect of our
review of the draft report, please contact me at your earliest
convenience.
                                  David A.  Ullrich
Attachment
              Note: The original response was signed by David A. Ullrich.
                                    19
                                                                Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                 Identification and Enforcement of
                                                 RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                                                   Appendix 1
                                                                   Page 2 of 14
                        U.S. EPA REGION 5
                RCRIS ACTION PLAN FOR FY99
Category 1: One-time basic RCRIS maintenance actions.

Desired Results: These activities will enhance the accuracy and completeness of
               our RCRIS records for tracking programmatic activities and for
               Internet presentation of data records to the regulated community
               and the public.
Category 2: Ongoing basic RCRIS review and maintenance actions.

Desired Results: These activities will ensure that RCRA program offices and
               States are reviewing and updating specific RCRIS records on a
               periodic basis throughout the year.
Category 3: Transitional activities for moving RCRIS to the new web based RCRA
           INFO platform and development of our revised data management
           tracking and reports menu system.

Desired Results: Provide streamlined data entry and retrievals of detailed
                programmatic activities for both federal and State RCRA
                programs. Easy access and sharing of data are keys to
                maintaining a strong working relationship with our State
                 partners.
                                   20
                                                               Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                    Identification and Enforcement of
                                                    RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                                                        Appendix 1
                                                                        Page 3 of 14
                            U.S. EPA REGION 5
                    RCRIS ACTION PLAN FOR FY99

Category 1: One-time basic RCRIS maintenance actions.

Desired Results: These activities will enhance the accuracy and completeness of our RCRIS
              records for tracking programmatic activities and for Internet
              presentation of data records to the regulated community and the public.
Key Activity

A. Review and assess the accuracy of
all CA210 event records (referred to a
non-RCRA authority, 96 total for
Region 5) and all permit module
process file "SF" operating status
codes (referred to CERCLA or other
authority, 32 total for Region 5).
Necessary data changes will be
forwarded to the appropriate RCRIS
Module Specialist for follow-up data
entry.
B. Review and assess the accuracy of
all CA999 event records (CA process
terminated, 122 total for Region 5).
Necessary data changes will be
forwarded to the RCRIS CA Module
Specialist for follow-up data entry.





Responsible
Individual(s)
CA Program
Staff and
RCRIS Module
Specialist







CA Program
Staff and
RCRIS Module
Specialist







Due
Date






















Status

This will be a
coordinated effort
between IMS and our
CA program sections.
RCRIS reports pulled
by IMS staff will be
reviewed by CA
program staff. Section
chiefs are scheduled to
meet 12. 11. 98 to
finalize actions.
This will be a
coordinated effort
between IMS and our
CA program sections.
RCRIS reports pulled
by IMS staff will be
reviewed by CA
program staff. Section
chiefs are scheduled to
meet 12. 11. 98 to
finalize actions.
                                     21
                                                                   Report No. 9100110

-------
              Identification and Enforcement of
              RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                Appendix 1
                                Page 4 of 14
Key Activity

C. Prepare and send letters to Illinois
and Wisconsin regarding current
RCRIS IOR table settings for
corrective action, procedures used for
CA data entry, and ongoing universe
maintenance in RCRIS. Also, conduct
follow-up discussions with all States
to remind them of the availability of
RCRIS fields to record voluntary State
CA activities and provided additional
CA data entry training for State
offices as needed.


D. Review and update RCRIS SNC
indicators for EPA lead evaluations
and enforcement actions. Coordinate
review and updates for State lead
evaluations and enforcement actions
with individual State offices.



Responsible
Individual(s)
RCRIS IMS
State
Coordinators











RCRIS Module
Specialist and
Enforcement
Program
RCRIS
Specialist



Due
Date
01.31.99













1.31.99








Status

Illinois and Wisconsin
may be ready to take or
CA data management
activities later this
year. The individual
State Coordinators will
prepare and send letters
to these two States.
State Coordinators will
also work with CA
program staff to
coordinate and plan
any additional training
need by our States.
This project was
discussed with all
States at the November
RCRIS/BRS
conference in Chicago.
Follow-up coordination
will be performed until
this project is
completed.
22
                            Report No. 9100110

-------
              Identification and Enforcement of
              RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                 Appendix 1
                                Page 5 of 14



































Key Activity

E. Review all final closure records in
RCRIS to ensure that all closed
process units have up-to-date process
status codes and complete closure
event records. Document any needed
adjustments in process status codes or
event records, as agreed on with State
offices, for data entry into RCRIS.







F. FII handler information reviews
and data updates.
G. Establish an updated record of
locational reference tables used in our
R5 EJ GIS mapping system. Identify
any current locations data gaps in
these tables and update as needed.
Facilities which are currently not
included, but having recent
enforcement/CA/BRS activities will
be added.
H. Other special maintenance projects
as they are brought to the attention of
the RCRIS team. A good example of
this was the recent Sector Facility
Indexing Project launched by the
OECA office in headquarters.
Responsible
Individual(s)
IMS State
Coordinators















RCRIS Team








RCRIS Team





Due
Date
3.15.99
















4.1.99








Ongoing





Status

IMS State Coordinators
will review
comprehensive permit
module reports to
identify questionable
records. Necessary
updates will be made
after discussions with
State offices. Accurate
closure records will
ensure that RCRIS
TSD universes for
permitting,
enforcement and CA
are correct.


Updates will ensure
that all significant
facilities are presented
in EJ GIS mapping
products.












































4
23
                            Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                     Identification and Enforcement of
                                                     RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                                                         Appendix 1
                                                                        Page 6 of 14
                            U.S. EPA REGION 5
                     RCRIS ACTION PLAN FOR FY99

Category 2: Ongoing basic RCRIS review and maintenance actions.

Desired Results: These activities will ensure that RCRA program offices and States are
              involved in reviewing and updating specific RCRIS records on a periodic
              basis throughout the year.
Key Activity

A. Run selected RCRIS reports
showing recent programmatic
activities and data assessment
reports for distribute to program
office contacts for review and
feedback.



B. Perform monthly RCRIS
databases merges and
programmatic universe calculations
to maintain current RCRIS records
in the Merge and National
Oversight RCRIS databases.

C. Coordinate data entry into
appropriate RCRIS databases as
updates are received from program
offices and the regulated
community.
Responsible
Individual(s)
RCRIS Module
Specialists







RCRIS DBA






RCRIS Module
Specialists



Due
Date
As
shown on
the
attached
reports
schedule.



Monthly
as shown
in the
attached
merge
cycle
calendar
Ongoing




Status

Permitting and CA
program PAR reports,
RECAP enforcement
activity reports, other
specific programmatic
activities tracking
reports, and data
assessment reports will
be distributed.
Ongoing






Ongoing




                                      24
                                                                    Report No. 9100110

-------
              Identification and Enforcement of
              RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                Appendix 1
                                Page 7 of 14
Key Activity
D. Run new RCRIS data
assessment reports as they are
developed and become available to
review CM&E, permitting and CA
data records.
E. Hold conference calls with State
contacts twice a month to review
current HW data management
issues. Plan visits to State offices
and necessary training.
F. Enter CA725 and CA750
environmental indicator event
records and status codes as they are
received from program staff.
Responsible
Individual(s)
RCRIS Team
IMS State
Coordinators

RCRIS CA
Module
Specialist
Due
Date
Ongoing
Ongoing

Ongoing

Status
As new reports become
available additional data
assessments will be
performed.
Visits to State offices
and necessary training
will vary from State to
State.

Ongoing.

25
                            Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                       Identification and Enforcement of
                                                       RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                                                            Appendix 1
                                                                           Page 8 of 14
                             U.S. EPA REGION 5
                     RCRIS ACTION PLAN FOR FY99

Category 3: Transitional activities for moving RCRIS to the new web based RCRA INFO
           platform and development of our revised data management tracking and reports
           menu system.

Desired Results: Provide streamlined data entry and retrievals of detailed programmatic
              activities for both federal and State RCRA programs. Easy access and
              sharing of data are keys to maintaining a strong working relationship with
              our State partners.
Key Activity
A. Host a meeting with Region
5 States to review and discuss
the WIN business systems
design team high level design
proposal for an alternative
platform for RCRIS and to plan
our regional transition
activities.
B. Integrate the new GPRA
baseline universes for CA,
permitting and post-closure into
the Region 5 RCRIS reports
and menu system to facilitate
report retrievals for these new
universes.
Responsible
Individuals)
RCRIS Team
RCRIS Team
Due
Date


Status
Completed on November 16
& 17, 1998.
Completed November 16,
1998.
                                       26
                                                                       Report No. 9100110

-------
              Identification and Enforcement of
              RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                Appendix 1
                                Page 9 of 14
Key Activity
C. Facilitate the development
of RCRA INFO management
tracking reports and revisions to
existing RCRIS reports for R5
and State RCRA program
offices.
D. Plan and prepare follow-up
actions for ensuring that all
RCRA INFO CA events are
linked to correct areas and
authorities before conversion.
E. Revise R5 RCRIS reports
and menu system as necessary
when national changes/updates
are completed.
F. Address training needs of R5
and State personnel on Oracle
and other software to be used in
support of RCRA INFO.
Responsible
Individual(s)
RCRIS Team
RCRIS Team


RCRIS Module
Specialists/
RCRIS Team
RCRIS Team

Due
Date
Ongoing



Ongoing
Ongoing

Status
Coordination with permitting,
enforcement, and CA
program managers is ongoing.
We are working closely with
the business systems design
team on this issue.


Ongoing.
Ongoing

27
                            Report No. 9100110

-------
              Identification and Enforcement of
              RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                 Appendix 1
                               Page 10 of 14
0)
01
ra
0-









o>
o>
u.
1
ja>


^^J
~
E
Bi-Monthly
15th of the month
(February, April , Ji
August, October,
December )


'Of
^
O
1
in


State One Liner
1) Alpha Sort
2) Numeric Sort
3) City Sort















c
o
•ct
i£
1
CO
.c
03

1
n»
Quarterly
15th of the month
(January, April, Auj
October)



QJ
"E
Q)
0
en
I
u


One-liner (internal) Report -
-3 sets of all 6 states -
1) Alpha Sort
2) Numeric Sort
3) City Sort

































Corrective Action








i
E
o
O

.
'
0)
fi-
J2 «
.2 'S
6 §
.1 g
0 «
»H
1-
CO ra
go
UJ 5


Corrective Action Status Report





&
O
1
^

J_



c
!E
O
_i
i
u
£
_
s
_ E
Quarterly
15thofthemontr
(March, July, Septe
December)





to
3*
UL
CO

1
n
Corrective Action Detailed Verific
Report
0
I
U
H
CO
tl o>
O O>
£ u.
.2 .9

«j 2?
w u
D .£



c
1
_i
"5
.c
o
fo
n:


As needed




1 fc
S^ i
III

n
Corrective Action Program
Accomplishments Report and Dat
Assessmet Report


































28
                             Report No. 9100110

-------
              Identification and Enforcement of
              RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                Appendix 1
                               Page 11 of 14

• .
u.
1

0)

3
T3
Q)
0
CO
15
>
.0)
"S
a: ^
C c
O E
O 
u
c
.2
15.
E
o
o






.«2
w
E




I
in
O^
CO
.fi
c

I
s




0}
1



Customer Name



c
ne and Specificatio
i
O
8-
o:














c
£
<3

"eo
CC
1
u
CD
 o 
a^.°
CJ

S
1
I
iZ
01

c v
$$
CO CL




C C

E CD ' CD
0) . .
X _J 1 _1
_: o> ! "OS
2-5-5
5(0 (Q
Qi £E
fit
o o o
III
000
S \ S £
u> ir> u>
CD  u> i »
CO O> U.
S 2 »
LU CO j £

i2
41)
E
"o.
c
O
1
"5
>
LJJ
S
o
cc

0
1
I
LL
"5
O)

1|
S1 £
m a.






E
ID
X
O
1
a>
*o
i
d)
£

g
1
ECAB State Coord

§.
£•
a:
nsive Enforcement
mary Charts
Comprehel
with Sumi















c
£
c5

j Rachel L
0
1
•s
ffi
1

&
1
SPAS State Coord






°
1
I
•cS
si
J2 .S
£ «
i^ la
«  .S




c_
£
5

i
o:

*
-------
              Identification and Enforcement of
              RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                Appendix 1
                              Page 12 of 14
<"
OJ
TO
Q_




O>
0>
U_
i
"5
•a
0
u
CO
re
S
"5
tt
o
Q.
o£
(O
o











O)
c
^2
«
<5
CL







i
=l
llJ
o m -s
0 0. S
0
'S
|
en
to>
P
0) u.
w .c
*O ™

||

f~~^

^ ^
-9 8
y rf
'f
E D>
w S
0. Q.






































30
                            Report No. 9100110

-------
              Identification and Enforcement of
              RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                Appendix 1
                              Page 13 of 14




0
LL.

jO)
3
•0
O
O
CO
15
>
.2
J5
(D
oc
^
o
Q.
O
a:
CO
or
RC
Maintenance
3
o>
o
O

1
CO
0)
CC
c
o
0)
a.
GO



.2
2
>
?




E
z
To
0
(A
C
U}
1
I







•5
c
o
<

0)
TJ?
*t
fO>
=
^,
O" 12
II
X
Merge reporting cycle including the
extracts, updates, refreshes, rebuilds
and universe calculations for RCRIS.
Electronic submission to the customer
as an extract. 72 reports compressed.







•E
C
O
.c
I
£
1
1
Sr
CD
1-
"?
CN

$ «•
O re "m £
OT 2 « £
>o -5, <" 8
§ £- o
fill

Merge edit detail (edit error) report
Electronic submission and hard copy
of reports to the States and Region.
12 reports submitted & distributed.







1
>-
5
1
£
i 1
0} O)
r <
If ^
^ -R _c
^~ c c
£ ™ *
Tf . — . Vj

t |':5.-s §
2 raS |Q
5 £ 2 Si °
||^||
S ^ § ~ a
cc o o £ £

RACF Security reports are run to
keep track of users and the accounts
they are working under. Divisional
cost reports for tracking expenditures
12 hard copy reports are ran.


























31
                            Report No. 9100110

-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                   Appendix 1
                 Page 14 of 14


0>
o>
II
UM


0
CO
15
>
d>
'S a
d) ^
rv' O
Uu r>
tev {£
O o
G. •=
fl j --
^^ ^J
U" ^5
CO ^
(£ ^

8 !

0)
£
E
Qj
"to
>t
(0
_o
o
c
0)
ill

i
E

o
O
Jl)
"ui
c
g.
Ul
(V C
o
si

























o
1"
-Si
tn
W





-Q

£•
O
1


1

ra
0}
'o
I
(D
>,
ffl




z
CRAU
cc
to
a









o
u_
Z
s
o
IT







1
m
E


£
E
o
•5
^
25
o>
£
i-





1
§

1
1


•£
en
(U »-*^
(O O)
< £
s|
CO (0
^O
if
c E

cc S-







tD
5
to
i

te
§0
E 1
^- co §"
1^ --
1st
« cf
e |
£-1





I

1
1


S
gl
•^* Q
K -2 ^
O^5
o ^ l=
g CC 0
111
III
ill
UJ O Q.






































               Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                        Identification and Enforcement of
                                                        RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                                                              Appendix 2
                                                                              Page 1 of 1
          ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

          1021 North Grand Avenue East, P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276  -MB^iMriipMlOTr

217/782-3397        RECEIVED

                      MAR 1 5 1999
March  10,  1999        „.,„,„,
                  OmCE Of REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

Mr. David Ullrich, Acting Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590

Dear Mr. Ullrich:

With this letter, the Illinois EPA is transmitting comments in response to the Draft Report for the
Audit of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Programs. The report, dated January 28,
1999, is based on an August 1998 audit of Region 5's and Illinois EPA's RCRA compliance
programs. The audit was conducted by Region 5's Office of Inspector General (OIG).

I have been informed by Illinois EPA personnel directly involved in the audit process that OIG
personnel that conducted the audit should be commended for the thorough and professional
manner in which the audit was performed. Several valuable recommendations have been
identified in the draft report and, as you will see in our comments, the Illinois EPA has acted on
all the recommendations identified through the revision of our Compliance Assistance Survey
(CAS) procedures (see second enclosure).

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns relating to the
enclosed comments.

Sincerely,


Thomas V. Skinner
Director

ENCLOSURES

cc:    Howard Levin, Audit Liaison (Region 5)

                                  Printed on Recycled Paper
 Note: The original response was signed by Thomas V. Skinner and enclosures are not included.

                                        33
                                                                         Report No. 9100110

-------
                                                       Identification and Enforcement of
                                                       RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
                                                                         Appendix 3
                                                                          Page 1 of 1
                                  DISTRIBUTION

Region 5

Regional Administrator (R-19J)
Audit Followup Coordinator (MFA-10J)
Library (PL-12J)

Headquarters

Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201)
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations (1501)
Agency Followup Official (3101)
 Attn: Assistant Administrator, OARM
Agency Followup Coordinator (3304)
 Attn: Director, RMD
Headquarters Library (3404)

Office of Inspector General

Inspector General (2410)
GAO - Issue Area Planner
                                         34
                                                                     Report No. 9100110

-------