530D85005
5050
DRAFT GUIDANCE FOR
FACILITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
,-.^
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
July, 1985
;>F,v!ronmenta1 Protection Agency
Street
60604
-------
-------
I. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW OF PROCESS
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 have
a tremendous impact on the RCRA permitting and enforcement
programs. More than ever before, enforcement and permitting
authorities overlap. In addition, a major side effect of the
the Amendments is that EPA and the States are now partners in
every permitting action and many enforcement actions, even in
authorized States. Facility management planning has been
developed by the Office of Solid Waste and the Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement to facilitate the close cooperation
among State and Regional permitting and enforcement staffs
that will be crucial for implementation of the Amendments.
The facility management planning process is outlined in
the Draft Revised National Permits Strategy (NPS) and the FY
1985 and FY 1986 RCRA Implementation Plans (RIP). As stated
in the FY 1986 RIP, this approach requires upfront planning
between those responsible for permitting and those responsible
for enforcement (both at EPA and in the States) in order to
develop facility specific plans leading to compliance with
the RCRA requirements.
As described in the revised NPS and the RIPs, facility
management planning is a three step process: initial screening,
preparation of individual facility plans, and development of
multi-year strategies. Individual facility plans will be
prepared for all environmentally significant facilities
according to schedules described in the RIPs. The plans are
flexible, working documents which should be revised as
necessary to reflect changing situations.
Development of a plan for a typical facility should
require no more than two to four workdays per facility by
staff representing Regional and State permitting, enforcement,
and other appropriate offices (such as Offices of Regional
Counsel or State Attorney General), working jointly to complete
the analysis.
Initial Screening
The initial screening will be conducted to identify
facilities for which FMPs must be developed (i.e., environmentally
significant facilities). Section II of this guidance, "Initial
Screening", elaborates on the criteria to be used to determine
whether or not a facility is environmentally^significant.
Some facilities do not require facility management"plans
because it is unlikely that coordination between enforcement
and permitting will be necessary. For example, there are
-------
I L
facilities that are high priority for permit processing and
have only a snail likelihood of an enforcement component.
These include applications for research, development, and
demonstration permits; and applications for new facilities.
In addition, some facilities, such as those not seeking or
subject to permits, may be dealt with by enforcement without
facility management planning.
Facilities that do not require FMps will be included in
the multi-year strategy.
Facilty Management Plans
The second step in the process consists of three parts.
First, the individual facility analysis outlines the current
regulatory status of the facility and summarizes available
information. In addition, the analysis will identify information
that is not available but must be obtained or developed.
The second part of the planning process is the consideration
of prospective solutions to the problems identified in the
analysis and of the variety of tools available to EPA and
the States to implement the selected options. The final
part is the development of an individual plan summary which
gives a timetable for key elements of the plan and identifies
the lead office for each action.
ik'
Section III of this guidance includes a questionnaire
which is designed to aid review of the relevant information
about a facility. There are also worksheets for evaluating
the options available for each facility and a sample format
for the plan summary.
Development of the Multi-Year Strategy
The third step in the facility management planning
process is the development of a multi-year Facility Management
Strategy. The strategy is a State-by-State summary of
projected permitting and enforcement outputs over the next
year, incorporating the results of the individual facility
plans as well as planned actions for those facilities for
which facility management plans were not required.
Strategy development is an iterative process. After the
FMPs and other planned solutions are combined into a Strategy
certain adjustments will need to be made to accomodate resource
and time constraints. The Region and the State will need
to make choices among the various options to ensure that the
final Strategy can be implemented with available and anticipated
resources. When choosing between options, the planning team
should take into account relevant guidance, policies, and
-------
I i
statutory requirements.
As in the case of the individual facility plan, the
Strategies are flexible documents which can and should
be revised as necessary to reflect new information, changing
priorities, completion of intermediate solutions on which
later solutions depend, and individual facility solutions.
Relationship of Facility Management Planning to SPMS
The Facility Management Strategy will provide a basis
for determining yearly Regional and State commitments for the
Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS). This will
be addressed in each year's SPMS commitments and reports.
See the revised FY 1985 RIP and the recently issued FY 1986
RIP for priorities for developing FMS and for a complete
description of SPMS measures.
Use of this Guidance
This guidance is intended to provide assistance to the
Regions and the States in implementing the facility management
planning process. it offers several sample formats and
describes the breadth of scope and depth of coverage which is
expected in the facility management process. It should be
considered a foundation upon which individual Regions and
States may build in addressing their individual facility
management planning needs. None of the charts or forms is
mandatory. They are offered as examples only, and may be
modified as appropriate.
-------
II. INITIAL SCREENING
The purpose of the initial screening is to identify those
facilities which are environmentally significant and, therefore,
require Facility Management Plans (FMPs). The determination of
"environmental significance" rests with the Region and State
personnel who are most familiar with the particular facility.
However, certain criteria should be applied to provide a nationally
consistent definition of environmental significance.
In some instances it is readily obvious, even with incomplete
information, that a facility is environmentally significant. How-
ever, a conclusion that a facility is not environmentally significant
cannot be reached without a reasonably complete picture of the
facility. Attachment A is a list of possible sources of information
on a facility. These sources can be used to support the initial
screening and analysis stages.
As previously stated, the criteria for determining environ-
ment significance are the ones listed in the National Permit
Strategy. The factors listed below the criteria are offered to
assist the reviewers in applying the general criteria to specific
facility situations.
Each treatment, storage and disposal facility should be
evaluated. The criteria listed below provide a guide. The rela-
tive weights of these factors may vary from case to case, subject
to the discretion of Regional and State facility planners. Prior-
ity considerations are designated by an asterisk (*). In some
instances, a single factor (such as violation of ground-water
monitoring requirements (interim status, permit application or
permit or actual contamination of ground water) may be sufficient,
regardless of the applicability of other factors, to require a
FMP for the facility. In these instances, which are expected to
predominate at land disposal facilities (landfills, land treatment,
surface impoundments for treatment, storage or disposal, waste
piles and underground injection wells) the screen should be
conducted very quickly, and perhaps by only one member of the
planning team. In other cases, while a single criterion may not
trigger additional analysis, the presence of several factors may
warrant the preparation of a FMP.
0 Facility is a recipient of wastes from a CERCLA site
0 Facility may pose a potential public health or environment
threat from releases.
*- The facility was evaluated as a potential CERCLA
site and the evaluation showed evidence of:
— environmental damage
— ground-water contamination
— close proximity to population or drinking water
source
-------
i t .
DRAFT
*- The facility is or was the subject of a Federal or
State CERCLA action
0 Facility violated environmental standards or disregarded
RCRA regulations as evidenced by designation as a Signi-
ficant noncomplier or High Priority Violator for enforce-
ment action.
*- The facility has failed to properly evaluate facility
hydrogeology, to properly install wells or properly
monitor.
*- The facility is a significant noncomplier
The facility has been known to violate other environ-
mental laws as evidenced by releases to air or surface
water.
The facility has not closed units properly, has not
fully completed post-closure permitting properly, or
has closed in accordance with regulations but substantial
contamination remains.
0 Facility is suspected or potential source of ground-water
or surface-water contamination (e.g., ground-water quality
assessment has identified presence of hazardous waste con-
stituents) or other contamination by prior or continuing
releases of hazardous wastes.
*- the facility is known to be contaminating the ground
water as evidenced by:
— initiation of assessment or compliance monitoring
— physical evidence of contamination.
*- The facility has known or suspected solid waste manage-
ment units.
- The facility may have released hazardous constituents
into the ground water, surface water, or air, as evi-
denced by the likelihood of or reports of spills, odors,
odd-tasting water, or other unusual occurrence at or
near the facility.
8 Facility poses significant environmental or health risk,
determined on the basis of:
- proximity to population centers and/or aquifiers and
surface waters,
- facility size,
amount, nature, and complexity of waste handled, and
-------
I I .
age of facility.
0 Degree of public concern about the facility:
- congressional inquiries
- organized local citizens groups,
- high volume of public mail, or
- local public official concern.
0 Anticipated financial insolvency or inability to
properly close and conduct post-closure monitoring
and maintenance.
*- The facility has declared financial insolvency
as evidenced through:
— application of modeling against financial
test data, and
information from institution providing
financial assurance.
-------
i L
III. DEVELOPING THE PLAN
Part 1 - Evaluating the Facility
The purpose of this part of the planning process is to
review the environmental and regulatory status of the facility.
The questionnaire format on the following pages is designed
to assist the reviewers in systematically addressing all
relevant information about the particular facility. The
questions center on those areas of concern that will most
likely require coordination between Regional and State
enforcement and permitting staffs:
— ground-water monitoring at regulated units
— prior and continuing releases from solid waste
management units
— the adequacy of a facility's Part B application and/or
closure plan, and
— requirements of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984.
When completing the questionnaire, it is suggested that
the reviewers note any additional information which is not
specifically covered by the questions and highlight any
missing information which is necessary to evaluate the
facility. The major problems and missing information will
form the basis of the analysis conducted under Part 2.
-------
FACILITY ANALYSIS
Date:
Facility Name
EPA I.D Nb:
Facility Address
Facility Contact
Facility Status:
Interim status Y N
Permitted Y N
Receiving Waste Y Some Units
Closed Y Some Units
Commercial Y N
CERCLA waste Y N
New unit(s) proposed Y N
N
N
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
Process Description (e.g., chemicals produced, production processes) and
general description of waste management processes
CHRONOLOGY (optional)
Attach chronology or narrative summarizing significant events and information
related to the facility that may be used for multiple purposes, including
informing other FMP team members of relevant facts.
-------
UNIT DESCRIPTION
*******************
UNIT
IDENTIFIER
CODE
(keyed to site
map)
TYPE OF
UNIT
Receivec
aft«
11/19/80
Y or N
1 waste
Jr :
7/26/82
Y or N
WASTE TYPE(S)
STATUS*
EXAMPLE:
A
B
landfill
SWMU
N
N
F006
unknown
active
closed
*e.g., active/ inactive/ closed, under constrution
-------
GROUND-WATER MONITORING AND RELEASES AT REGULATED UNITS
The purpose of the following questions is to determine the compliance status
of the facility with respect to Part 265 and Part 270 ground water monitoring
requirements.
1. Does the facility have regulated units subject to interim status ground-water
monitoring (surface impoundments, landfills, or land treatment units)?
a. Yes - List by each unit by
identifier code
b. ND - Skip this section
c. Under Dispute (explain)
2. Is the facility operating under a waiver from ground-water rtonitoring require-
ments?
a. Reviewed and adequate COMMENTS:
b. Reviewed and not adequate
c. Not reviewed
d. Adequacy under dispute
3. Has the owner/operator performed a detailed site-specific study of the hydro-
geology beneath the site including:
a. a program of soil borings or rock corings? Y N
b. water level monitoring to determine ground-water flow direction? Y N
c. hydraulic conductivity measurements Y N
COMMENTS:
4. Has the hydrogeologic study yielded enough information to make reasoned decisions
regarding well placement and depth?
a. Yes for all regulated units
b. Yes for some units (list exceptions by code)
c. No
COMMENTS:
* Use coding system established on previous page on "Unit Description" chart
-------
i i
5. Does the study provide good hydrogeologic information about areas underlying
solid waste management units as well as areas underlying regulated units?
Yes No COMMENTS:
6. Has the owner/operator installed a sufficient number of downgradient wells at
adequate locations and depths to immediately detect the migration of hazardous
waste from regulated units into the uppermost aquifer (defined as the first
saturated hydrogeologic formation that could serve as a potential pathway for
contaminant flow)?
a. Yes at all units
b. Yes for some units (list exceptions by code)
c. No
d. Don't Know
7. Has the owner/operator installed a sufficient number of background wells at
adequate locations and depths to characterize the spatial and temporal variation
of ground water unaffected by the facility?
a. Yes b. No c. Don't Know
8. Has the owner/operator established and maintained a ground-water sampling
protocol that yields representative samples and maintains the integrity of
the sample in light of the chemical parameters to be analyzed (e.g., does the
equipment minimize de-gassing)?
Yes No Cbn't Know
COMMENTS:
9. Has the owner/operator detected leakage from any regulated unit(s)?
a) Yes (list units)
b) No
c) Detected leakage, source unclear
COMMENTS:
-------
10. If not, is the owner/operator's ironitoring system technically adequate to
detect leakage should it occur?
NOTE: When evaluating adequacy, consider not only inadequacies that would
constitute violations of the regulations (e.g. insufficient number of
wells), but any problem at the site that may be compromising the ability of
the system to detect leakage (e.g., inability of four indicator parameters
to detect level and type of contamination suspected at site).
Yes for all units Yes for some units ND
COMMENTS:
11. Do the inadequacies identified in question 10 represent violations of the
Part 265 ground-water monitoring regulations ? Explain.
12. If leakage has been detected, has the owner/operator assessed the plume(s)
for hazardous waste constituents (Appendix VII) using appropriate techniques
(at a minimum direct sampling downgradient from the point of leakage)?
Yes Incomplete assessment Complete assessment
COMMENTS:
13. Has the owner/operator characterized any plume(s) with respect to all
Appendix VIII constituents as required by §270.14(c)(4)?
Yes Incomplete charaterization ND
COMMENTS:
12
-------
I I
14. The owner/operator's permit application includes plans for which of the
following Part 264 ground-water monitoring/cleanup program(s)?
a. Detection nonitoring §270.14(c)(6)
b. Compliance monitoring §270.14(c)(7)
c. Corrective action §270.14(c)(8)
d. None of the above
15. Ebes the owner/operator's permit application include proposals for any
Alternate Concentration Limits (ACLs)?
a. Yes, all proposals deemed adequate
b. Yes, some proposals deemed inadequate List:
c. Yes, all proposals deemed inadequate
d. Review not complete
e. No
16. Given the compliance status of the facility's interim status monitoring system
and the validity or non-validity of any ACL proposals, has the owner/operator
submitted plans for the appropriate Part 264 ground-water program?
a. Yes
b. No - inadequate Part 265 monitoring may be masking leakage; detection
monitoring may not be appropriate program.
c. ND - ACL demonstrations inadequate, should have submitted corrective
action program
d. ND for other reasons (explain)
e. Not sure
17. If the answer to 16 is "yes," is the ground-water program that is proposed
adequate?
Yes Partially adequate totally inadequate
Explain deficiencies:
13
-------
18. Identify what actions, if any, EPA or the State has taken to bring the facility
into compliance with Part 265 and 270 ground-water monitoring requirements
(e.g., NCOs, §3008(a) order, etc.)?
19. Identify what actions, if any, EPA or the State has taken regarding releases from
regulated units (describe by unit).
PRIOR OR CONTINUING RELEASES FROM SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS
The purpose of the following questions is to determine whether or not there have
been or may have been prior or continuing releases of hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents from solid waste management units which would require corrective action
under Sections 3004(u) or 3008(h) of RCRA as amended by HWSA.
The purpose of the analysis is to determine:
a) CD such units exist?
b) Have there been prior or continuing releases of hazardous waste or constituents
from such units?
c) Are releases presenting potential environmental threat that would warrent
corrective action?
d) If the above questions cannot be answered, what additional data, information or
investigation is needed to yield clear yes or no answers?
14
-------
The following sources of information should be consulted before answering questions
regarding prior and continuing releases form solid waste management units:
1. Any response to the Solid Waste Management Questionnaire sent to facilities
2. CERCIA §103(c) Notification information
3. CERCLA or RCRA PA/SI information
4. Part A and Part B permit applications
5. Previous inspection reports
(look especially for: evidence of past waste disposal practices not currently
regulated under RCRA such as pile of waste or rubbish, ponds or surface
impoundments that might contain waste, active or inactive landfills; evidence
of discolored soils or dead vegetation that might be caused by a spill,
discharge or disposal of hazardous wastes or constituents; any reference to
tanks that are used for waste storage which are located below grade and could
possibly leak without being noticed by visual observation.
1. Are there solid waste management units (SWMUs) at the facility?
a. Yes
b. No evidence of units
c. Maybe
2. If the answer to question 1 is "maybe," provide the information that prompts
suspicion that there may be SWMUs?
3. Is there any reason to doubt the information which the applicant has submitted
on the questionnaire re: the existence of Solid Waste Management Units and the
possibility of continuing or prior releases of hazardous wastes or constituents?
Yes No
Areas of doubt:
15
-------
i t '
4. If the answer to question 1 is "yes", describe what is known about each
SWMU in terms of the wastes present and when the wastes were placed in the
unit(s). (State whether a PA and/or SI has been undertaken and when. Reference
reports on each where applicable).
5. If there is a ground-water ironitoring network installed at the facility (to
nonitor regulated units), to what extent is the network capable of ironitoring
releases from each SWMU?
SWMU CAPABILITY
6. Are the parameters being monitored adequate to detect contamination from
each SWMU?
a. Yes
b. Yes some units (list units)
c. Don't know enough about wastes
d. No
7. Is the sanpling and analysis methodology adequate to detect contamination from
each SWMU?
a. Yes
b. Yes some units (list units)
c. Don't know enough about wastes
d. No
8. Are there other environmental monitoring systems at the facility (air, surface
water, soil, leak detection systems)?
a. Yes > Describe:
b. No
c. Don't Know
16
-------
9. Are the existing monitoring systems considered capable of detecting releases
from the SWMUs?
a. Yes
b. Yes some units (list)
c. No
d. Don't know
10. For those SWMUS known to be present, available information indicates:
LIST BY UNIT COD
a. Releases of hazardous waste or constituents have occurred
b. There is evidence that releases may have occurred
c. Releases of hazardous waste or constituents have not occurred
d. There is insufficient information to determine whether releases
of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents have occured.
11. Summarize any release in terms of the extent of release, the media involved
(ground water, surface water, soil, air) the constituents of the release,
the unit(s) involved, and any other pertinent information.
12. Describe what additional information or testing is needed to determine if the
releases suspected in question 10 have indeed occurred (answer may refer to PA
and/or SI and/or RI, etc.).
17
-------
I I
14. Describe the potential threats that facility poses to health or the environment.
Describe information needed to assess the significance of these threats.
CERCLA/RCRA INTERFACE
1. After reviewing the CERCLA NDtification form, the RCRA Part A and Part B
appplications it appears that:
a. The RCRA units and CERLA units are one and the same
b. The RCRA units and CERCLA units are clearly different units
c. There is overlap between the RCRA and CERCLA units some are the same
and some are different
d. Not applicable
2. Is this facility included on the CERCLA National Priorities List? Y N
3. Has a CERCLA PA/SI been completed for this site Y N
If yes, summarize briefly the findings focusing on environmental
contamination, environmenatal threats and wastes found:
18
-------
PERMIT AND CLOSURE STATUS, ISSUES AND ACTIONS NEEDED
The purpose of the following questions is to identify the degree to which the
applicant's stage in the permit process will affect the type of actions necessary
at the facility
1. Key Dates (Future dates may be noted as expected)
PART B: a) Date Part B called
b) Date Part B received
c) Date First NOD sent
d) Date first revised Part B received
e) Date 2nd NOD sent
f ) Date of Enforcement Actions for Deficient Part B
g) Date 2nd Revised Part B received _
* h) _
* i)
CLOSURE:
PC PERMIT
a) Date closure plan submitted (by unit)
b) Date comments sent to o/o (by unit)
c) Date revised closure plan submitted (by unit)
d) Date closure plan approved (by unit) _
* e)
f)
a) Date post-closure permit called
b) Date post-closure permit received
*c)
*d)
* Fill in further processing/enforcement actions that have taken place
19
-------
fc I
2. Summarize the principal Part B deficiencies or issues that remain unresolved;
3. Summarize the principal closure/post-closure deficiencies/issues that remain
unresolved (by unit).
4. Is the facility targeted by the National Permit strategy as a high priority
for final permit determination (FY86 priorities include existing commercial
incinerators; expansion of facilities to provide alternate treatment or
incineration capacity; and research, development, and denonstration permits)
Yes Kb
5. Is the facility targeted for expanded public participation?
Yes tt>
20
-------
I i .
6. In light of outstanding permit deficiencies, the presence or absence of
solid waste management units with prior or continuing releases, and the priority
given this facility in the National Permit strategy, issuance of a permit
to this facility (operating or post-closure) is likely to take from / / ;
date
Time Vbffr
a. 0-6 nonths
b. 6-12 nonths
c. 12-18 nonths
d. 18-24 ironths
e. more than 24 months
After referrring to the attached chart, summarize the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Act Amendments that apply to this facility (note especially the requirements
related to: 1) retrofitting surface impoundments by 1988; 2) exposure assessments
for landfills and surface impoundments; Corrective action and financial assurance
for prior releases.
21
-------
-------
INFORMATION GAPS
List those pieces of infornation that were identified as
missing from State or EPA files and which are needed to address
permitting and enforcement issues at the facility. Describe
why it is needed.
23
-------
Part 2 - Considering the Solutions to Address the Problems
The purposes of this section are: (a) to provide a means to
evaluate the possible solutions to the specific problems raised by
the answers under Part 1 and (b) to identify the short-term
(FY 1985-1986) and long-term (FY 1987-1992) objectives for the
facility.
The chart on the following page is offered as a possible
mechanism to use in considering the solutions to the problems. The
problems identified in Part 1 would be listed in the first column,
grouping them by subject matter. In the second column, the reviewers
would list the solutions to the problems. The solutions should be
consistent with the SPMS measures. In the third column, the tools
available to EPA and/or the State to accomplish these solutions would
be listed. Attachment B provides a selection of tools available to
EPA which may be used to resolve several of the problems found at
facilities. Attachment C is an inventory of federal tools.
The last column is intended to provide a condensed assessment of
the pros and cons or related concerns associated with the various
tools as they pertain to the particular facility. Issues such as
timeliness of the action, resources, and "standard of proof" required
for an enforcement action may all be addressed in this section. The
discussion under "Comments" should take into account appropriate
permit and enforcement guidance issued by EPA Headquarters.
The spaces for short-term and long-term objectives are provided
to summarize the expectations for the particular facility. These
objectives provide the basis for developing SPMS commitments.
It is suggested that, after consideration of the pros and cons of
the various tools, the one chosen to resolve each identified problem
be highlighted by underlining or other method to distinguish the
selected tool. This will facilitate the transfer of that information
onto the plan under Part 3. An example of a completed chart is
provided on page 19.
-------
O>
w
•2-8
21
uS
a>
a
g
8
B
-------
I I .
S
0)
D CO
8£
JJ
0)
3
•8
5
4J O
3 r-
(0 CN
c 3
-2!
JJ CO JJ
<0 (0
u JJ
CD (0
2 ir> 0i
804
CO
CD JJ
CO U
(0
(D
C
CO
to
10
co
CO
co
•8
CD
o o
SU 05
o ^
o»« us
(0
M cn
z o
tu c5
DI H H
c O
•H CM ' ~
w « O C U JJ
B CD 3 (0
as0- tig-l
1 .2 'B ^ co i
2 jj •!-( Z
x Qi*4-i O
UJ Cj 'H M
JJ f
01 c b
CO) 3
uS 8
S5£
>,q> 8
•H (0 >«-l
-73^ o
CD O CD JJ
•O <0 rH C
00
o
o
n
V)
3
CD
•H
n
•H
CO
CO
R
CO
(0
>,
1— I
m
t-H
o
ro
VI
^_^
CJ
00
CO
JJ
u
CD
8
tTcB-g w
e-iss
o>
oo
CO
•s i
CD CO
U CO
1 i
S £
Q
w
M
Cb
M
M «V «
g^.«
8
cu
0)
4J
(0
•1H (N --i
I
B
u
-------
Part 3 - Establishing the Plan
The purpose of the individual plan is to summarize the results of
the analysis under Parts 1 and 2, to describe the tools chosen to
achieve the solutions to selected problems, to establish a timetable
for accomplishing the solutions to the problems, and to identify
which office is responsible for that action. The plans for all
facilities will be combined to make up the core of the Facility
Management Strategy.
The chart on the following page is a possible format for the plan,
An example of a completed form follows the model format.
When using the chart, the reviewer would list the solutions and
the tools to accomplish those solutions agreed upon as a result of
the analysis completed in Part 2. The respective lead office would
also be identified. This may be accomplished by establishing a code
system, as illustrated in the example, or narratively.
The.example format provides space for indicating the quarters
(for the remainder of the current and upcoming fiscal year) or the
years (for subsequent fiscal years) during which the particular
solution or tool would be tracked. The time tables should be
detailed enough to be used to develop SPMS commitments. Solutions,
in most cases, would be indicated by their completion dates. Tools,
however, may require start dates, completion dates, or both.
It is important to keep in mind that the statutory deadlines for
making final determinations must be observed (i.e., all land disposal
facility final determinations must be completed by November 1988).
The indications should be as specific as necessary to serve Regional
and State planning and scheduling needs.
Finally, the estimated resource cost associated with planned
actions should be identified. This will assist in the iterative
process of developing a Facility Management Strategy which is
consistent with available resources.
-------
CO
CL,
CO
CO
CK
CC
Cb
0, *.
Z
U
W -C
O u
2 CD
< >•
S fa
JH -0
E" C
i-l (N
J
D
£ -u
n
A
in
CO
Eh
•o
1
•D 0
|Q £
I—I *<
£
•O
10
a
0
•H
3 •
n
|
^ •'
3 ^
•s §
8
3 JH
•3 §
M
S
•H
1 8
4J
S
•c U S
0) a) •*
4J 0 -W
10 M 0
E 3 10
•i-i 0
*J W W
0) 01 01
C
*> 01
•W C E
4j CO) 01
C 01 E U
01 E 01 >-i
6 0> U 0
01 U U >w
u MO e
U 0 •« W
O «« C ffl
•*H C W -U <
5(3 -< j
a < e D
4J < K u OS
< •* J U 0) U
K E CJ « Cu O
O W QJ
K 01 U 01 01 01
a o +> *j v
10 10 (0
« < JJ *» .W
a, a a, w w co
WWW
U N II
" " ' w a, o
-------
3
J
0.
1
s 1
04 2
£ 5
S 22
u s
^
H
J
O
fix
t
•
00
u.
CO
00
CK
r-
co
h
<*
£
•D
vO •
CO
£
•o
c
(N
XI
CO
i-S
£
TJ.
in
CO
fu
•0
£
0
• O
•O-rt
(0 *H
41 *t
U 0
T)
g
a
o
j-i m
Gu
Id
(A
•U kl
•^ (OS
-i a.2
•H 0
10 *"^
-I 4J 4) 0
41 U U kl X
Q -H 3 10
ki C*l 4) C
~ (0 0 C ki 4)
SOi O 4) O. B
B 41
•»* o
xi •«< ~ m -i-i
d.
^^
H
IH
(0
"ji-
0. ki
4)
41 -0
4J kt
4) O
"o. -+
! £
U CD
O
a O
~ - m
Si "
*> u -
•o
fcfl
*Q
2
in
•a
in
4J
8
u c
•O 0
4> « -rt
*• 0 xi
Ski U
3 «
•U O
C 0 *
1-8
4) ki xi
U 0
ki ki
0 C 0
M-l O
W 4J 0
CO 3 -H
JJ < I-H *J
-H J 0 3
B O a FH
ki OS 0
41 U 4) CO
Cu U xi
10 £
41 4) --H (0
10 10 -^ C
X> XI C -H
CO U IH CM
» » » *
Q. U >-i C*
W U
XI C
4J C 4)
C 41 B
4) B 41
B 4) 0
41 U ki
U ki 0
kl 0
-------
I t
Attachment A
SOURCES OF DATA FOR
FACILITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Compliance History
- high priority violator
- number of compliance orders
- significant noncompliance
- violations of other laws or regulations
- types of violations
Part B Information
- type of facility
- commercial versus onsite
- releases indicated
- completeness of groundwater monitoring data
requirement for double liners
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log
types of violations
- enforcement actions
Major Facility Status Sheets
- inadequacy of financial information
- inadequacy of groundwater monitoring systems
- inadequacy of closure or postclpsure plans
Other Environmental Permits Which Apply to Facility
- NPDES
- PSD
State permits (solid or industrial waste)
Results of facility site visit
number and type of violations
owner/operator approach to permit process, demonstrated
willingness to cooperate
- distance between existing interim status activities and what
must be in place for permit
-------
I L
Additional information requested d ". response to or required by HSWA
SWMUs present; apparent completeness of data on SWMUs
releases exist; apparent completeness of data on releases
- corrective measures already underway
- exposure assessment data
Information on ERRIS and other Superfund databases
- PA/SI or RI/FS results
enforcement actions
- notification under CERCLA §103
Hazard Ranking System Score
other data showing population exposure, threats to human
health or the environment
State files (depends upon authorization status)
- compliance history
permitting history
releases or spills
state CERCLA actions/information/multi-site cooperative
arrangements
solid waste management unit information
groundwater information
Personal knowledge of Regional and State staff
-------
I k
Attachment B
A SELECTION OF TOOLS TO ADDRESS PROBLEMS
RAISED DURING FACILITY MANAGEMENT PLANNING
Problem
Evidence of release
Suspicion of release
Imminent hazard
Financial insolvency
No release
Incomplete Part B with
respect to ground-water
information
Incomplete Part B with
respect to information
other than ground
water
Tools
§3008(h) Order
§3013 Order
final determination
post-closure permit
§3013 Order
final determination
§3008(a) Order if GWM
violation
§3007 letter or inspection
RCRA PA/SI
post-closure permit
§7003 Order
CERCLA §106 Order
fund-financed removal action
§3008(h) Order
§3008(h) §106 Order
Fund-financed removal or
remedial action
final determination
post-closure permit
§3008(a) Order
§3013 Order
§3008(h) Order
comprehensive ground-water
inspection
post-closure permit.
Notice of intent to deny
permit
§3008(a) Order
NOD
§3007 letter or inspection
-------
Attachment C
INVENTORY OF TOOLS AVAILABLE
TO ADDRESS IDENTIFIED PROBLEMS
Permit Tools
- additional information request
Notice of Deficiency
post closure permit application request
- draft permit
notice of intent to deny
- notice of availability of closure plans
preparation of public involvement work plan
field assessment conducted
public meetings
public hearing
permit issuance
permit denial
approval or denial of closure plan
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Tools
§3007 information letter
compliance evaluation inspections (CEI)
- comprehensive ground water evaluation (CME)
sampling inspection (SI)
-------
I I
- §3008(a) order or civil action issued for a violation of
permit or interim status < tandards
§3013 order issued to collect additional information
§7003 order or civil action for imminent hazards
§3008(h) corrective action order
— for information gathering
— to conduct PA/SI
to conduct RI
to undertake corrective measures
CERCLA §106 order or civil action for imminent hazards.
- §3008(d), §3008(e) or CERCLA §103(b) criminal action for
knowing violations
Other Tools
Preliminary Assessment/Site Investigation (PA/SI)
RCRA Remedial Investigation (RI)
CERCLA §104 removal action
-------
Prot
ection
°n
-------
Attachment D
Principles of Facility Management Planning
A Facility Management Plan should be:
.Simple
Flexible
Built on Existing
Systems
Detailed
Time-oriented
A Cooperative Effort
Goal-oriented
It should clearly identify the key
steps to be undertaken.
The plan should not be set in
concrete, but should be flexible
enough to adjust to changes in the
facility, in actions taken at the
facility, or in the schedule.
The plan should be developed in the
context of existing planning and
management structures - not a "new
reporting system," but looked on as a
way to more- comprehensively address
existing systems.
The plan should describe work on a
quarterly basis of the current and
next fiscal year, but may be less
detailed for later years.
The plan should identify tentative
time frames when the next step depends
on completion of a former step.
The plan should be developed jointly
with region and state - permitting and
enforcement personnel. CERCLA staff
and other necessary personnel should
also be involved as necessary.
The plan should identify problems at
the facility and the solutions to
those problems.
-------
U.SL Environmental Protection Agency
Region V, Library
230 South Dearborn Street
hira Hilnols 60604
------- |