I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act : capabilities and requirements
analysis
FINAL REPORT
TASK 3A
Contract No. 68-01-4784
Prepared for:
Richard Robinson
Head, Solid Waste Strategy and
Policy Management Unit
Office of Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
527 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022
and
1025 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20036
r 17, 1978
tnvlnmm«n«r Protection Ag*ncy
library Systems gruw*:. Room 240*
401 W Sir**,, SW, Wt-M PM-213
Waahfngtoh, D.C. 20460
EPA
3007
1978.1
-------
I
I
I
I
I
|-}~-;M A 3 r>c
; J J M r\ L. * i i_
I
• ' ? /—A , "*~*\ /\ 'I -O
I
I*
Prepared for:
I Richard Robinson
Head, Solid Waste Strategy and
I Pol icy Management Unit
Office of Enforcement
U.b. .-Jtviroriinental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-01-4784
Prepared by:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
1527 Madison Avenue
.lew Vork, New York 10022
d ncJ
_ 1025 Connecticut Avenue
I vj^siiin{, i;oii, U.C. 2GU36
:!ov?iiiher 17, 1978
Environr;.-nt't! Prot .otir•,-,
• Library b>s-.^:,.s ;,;-,. i;.
• 4O1 M Str«a<. iw. ;••:>;«
Washington, D.C. 2CX..O
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
FRED C. HART ASSOCIATES. INC. - CONSULTANTS
527 MADISON AVENUE, NEW YORK. N. Y. 1O022 • (212) 371-114O
December 1, 1978
Richard Robinson
Head, Solid Waste Strategy and
Policy Management Unit
Office of Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, O.C. 20460
Dear Rich,
Enclosed are five copies of the final report fulfilling the re-
quirements under Task 3A (Capabilities and Requirements Analysis) of
contract No. 68-01-4784.
The report is presented in two sections:
Tab A Analysis of EPA Enforcement Capabilities
and requirements under RCRA
Tab B Hazardous Waste Inspection and Sampling
Guidance Paper
The focus of Tab A is an analysis of all available budget data and
staffing levels for the Office of Enforcement and Regional Offices in
order to determine EPA's enforcement capabilities and requirements under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Estimates are made of the
resources required to perform the enforcement activities approved under
the ZBB budget level and compared with allocations included in the
approved OMB budget for FY79. In this way, projected resource shortfalls
are identified.
Tab B presents an analysis of enforcement manpower requirements for
an "adequacy of enforcement" assessment of State programs in accordance
with section 3006 of RCRA. A major factor in the adequacy of each
States program will be the provisions for sampling and inspection of
g^fu.'ra'ors, and facilities which treat, store,or dispose of hazardous
wastsj. The paper therefore provides detailed guidance on criteria which
might be used to evaluate individual State programs.
-------
Mr. Richard Robinson
Decaiibsr 1, 1978
If tnere are any questions,
inc. i/e look forward to your con
HAC/io
Enclosure
^ do not hosiLate to con "act
Sincerely,
KRED C. HART ASSOCIATES , Ii!C.
Harry A. Coatos
Project Manager
-------
I
I
I
I
I
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
I
i
I
i
i
i
I
TAB "A"
ANALYSIS OF EPA ENFORCEMENT
CAPABILITIES AND REQUIREMENTS UNDER RCRA
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
January 20, 1978
ANALYSIS OF EPA ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES
AND REQUIREMENTS UNDER RCRA
Prepared for:
Richard Robinson
Head, Solid Waste Strategy and
Policy Management Unit
Office of Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Prepared by:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
527 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Overview
Summary of Proposed FY79 Solid Waste Enforcement
Objectives
Page No.
1
2
Assessment of Potential to Achieve FY79 Enforcement
Activities .
Comparison of Approved FY79 Budget with Resource
Requirement Forecast .
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
LIST OF TABLES
Table
1.
2.
Resource Estimates for Enforcement Activities.
Page No.
8
Comparison of Approved FY79 Budget with Resource
Requirement Forecast 9
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-1-
ANALYSIS OF EPA ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITIES AND REQUIREMENTS UNDER RCRA
Overview
The focus of this paper was an analysis of all available
budget data and staffing levels for the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) Office of Enforcement (OE) in order to determine EPA's enforcement
capabilities and requirements under the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act of 1976 (RCRA). This work is being performed in compliance with
Task 3(a), "Capabilities and Requirements Analysis," of the "Enforcement
Strategy and Guidance Development for the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act" project. The expected outputs of this study included:
1. An analysis of EPA enforcement capabilities and require-
ments under RCRA based upon proposed Fiscal Year (FY)
1979 activities for the Office of Enforcement, and
2. An analysis of enforcement manpower requirements for an
adequacy of enforcement assessment in accordance with
Section 3006 of RCRA, "State Hazardous Waste Programs".
Methodology. The analysis of OE capabilities and requirements focused
on available information on manpower requirements for Federal and State
implementation of RCRA. In addition, an assessment of skills and arrange-
ments in other current EPA programs having analogous enforcement respon-
sibilities — e.g., pesticides, toxic substances, solid waste, water
quality, etc. — was undertaken for comparative purposes.
Reliable data on manpower and funding requirements for State
implementation of RCRA is not presently available. It is anticipated,
however, that information concerning State resource requirements will be
collected during the ten "Regional Workshops" to be conducted in late
January and early February.(1978). At that time, an assessment of the
enforcement manpower requirements for Regional and State hazardous waste-
programs should be made.
While some planning assumptions were available for pesticides
enforcement and water quality enforcement, comparison of resource require-
ments of other EPA programs, with similar enforcement activities as
RCRA, was limited for the most part to evaluating aggregate FY79 budget
data — i.e., total resources, total manpower available for headquarters
and regions, type of enforcement activities, etc. This information
provided a useful, overall "comparative" assessment scenario, however,
it did not allow for analysis of the basic assumptions behind each
enforcement activity in terms of number of permits issued, inspections,
working days per task activity, etc. While it is presumed this "assump-
tion" data exists for each of the other EPA enforcement programs, it was
not available in succinct form for comparative analysis in this paper.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
— 2—
Consequently, the enforcement capabilities and requirements
analysis contained herein, including assumptions related to number of
specific out and manpower per output, draws upon (1) OE's own work-per-
task activity assumptions as defined by the most recent FY79 budget
data, (2) assessment of pesticides and water quality enforcement plan-
ning assumptions, (3) administrative and inspection/staffing data de-
veloped by this contractor for OE.
Summary ofProposed FY79 Solid Waste Enforcement Objectives
General. The Solid VJaste Enforcement Program is responsible
for the enforcement of RCRA and regulations promulgated thereunder.
Enforcement activities ultimately will be shared by PTSED in Washington,
D.C., the Regional Offices, the States, and the National Enforcement
Investigation Center (NEIC) in Denver. Fiscal Year 1977 was the start-
up year for the development of programs mandated under RCRA. Most of
the enforcement activities were conducted at Headquarters with minimum
involvement from the regional offices. Strategy development and regu-
lation drafting v/ere the primary activities.
During FY78, the majority of the work effort will again be
conducted at Headquarters. Enforcement activities will still be in the
start-up process, with the majority of the work being geared toward
regulation development and promulgation. Pertinent FY78 budget data
includes the allocation of five permanent full time positions for Head-
quarters with total funding of $1,093,000 ($293,000 in--house; $800,000
extramural).
Proposed Solid Waste Enforcement Objectives for FY79. The number of
enforcement objectives to be wholly or partially accomplished by OE
during FY79 is, for the most part, dictated by the ZBB budget level that
was ultimately approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
With that fact in mind, the complete list of proposed FY79 objectives is
presented below:
a. Maintain mechanism to receive reports of hazardous waste
emergencies.
b. Respond to hazardous waste emergencies and reports of
violations of RCRA.
c. Administratively process applications for permits for
hazardous waste facilities and review applications for
enforceability.
d. Participate in preparation of Annual Report to Congress.
e. Provide guidance to Regions and States on inspection and
sampling policies/procedures.
f. Provide guidance to Regions and States on enforcement and
case preparation/policies/procedures.
g. Provide adequate guidance regarding civil penalty and
permit hearings.
h. Assist in promoting State assumption of hazardous waste
programs.
i. Review State plans for adequacy of enforcement.
j. Establish Region and State expertise in inspection and
enforcement procedures.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-3-
k. Adequately monitor for compliance and enforcement noti-
fication and enforcement procedures.
1. Monitor for compliance and enforce regulations applicable
to hazardous waste generators.
m. Oversee State performance of enforcement outputs under
hazardous waste programs.
n. Monitor for compliance and enforce regulations applicable
to hazardous waste facilities.
o. Assist in periodic update of RCRA Subtitle C regulations,
particularly Section 3001.
p. Implement ADP storage and retrieval systems for compliance
histories.
q. Establish cooperative agreements with appropriate Federal
and State agencies.
r. Monitor for compliance and enforce regulations applicable
to hazardous waste transporters.
s. Assist industry relations by fostering voluntary compliance
with RCRA regulations.
t. Participate in education programs to inform public" of
RCRA and its requirements.
Summary of Approved FY79 Solid VJaste Enforcement Budget. The approved
OMB budget for FY79 allocates" $1,300,000; 28 permanent full-time
positions; and, five part-time positions for solid waste enforce-
ment activities. Of the $1,300,000, $775,000 are designated as "in-
house" funds, while the balance ($525,000) has been earmarked as "extra-
mural" or contract funds. EPA headquarters will receive a total of
$727,000. Included in these funds are the $525,000 earmarked for contracts,
$125,000 for 5 full-time staff positions, and $75,000 for 5 part-time
positions. The regions will divide between them the remaining $575,000
and 23 full-time positions, based upon a needs survey to be undertaken
after the "regional workshops" have been concluded and resource needs
have been evaluated.
Enforcement Ac t i vjj; i es. The enforcement activities to be
performed under the approved ZB8 budget level include:
1. Five (5) inspections of hazardous waste emergencies and
imminent hazard reports.
2. The issuance of 1,000 facility permits and 10,000 interim
permits.
3. Monitor and minimally enforce notification requirements,
issue 250 notices of violation, and conduct 10 inspect-
ions.
4. The inspection of one (1) major generator that stores,
treats, or disposes of hazardous v/astes on-site, and
three (3) facilities which treat, store or dispose of
hazardous wastes.
5. The establishment of regional and State expertise in
inspection, sampling, and enforcement procedures.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-4-
6. Establishing regional oversight capabilities of State
hazardous waste enforcement programs.
7. Publishing "rules of practice" governing hearings conducted
in (a) the issuance of civil penalties and compliance
orders, and (b) the issuance, revocation, suspension of
modifications of permits.
Objectives a through k will be wholly or partially accomplished
at this level (see pp. 2-3).
Assessment of Potential to Achieve FY79 Enforcement Activities
Each of the aforementioned enforcement activities will be
analyzed in terms of OE manpower and funding requirements to determine
if the FY79 resource allocations for solid waste enforcement are ade-
quate to achieve the proposed enforcement activity objectives. Poten-
tial resource shortfalls will be identified as will those enforcement
activities which will not be achievable under the presumed budget scenario.
Activity 1. Respond jto 1,000 reports of violations and conduct five (5)
inspections of hazardous waste emergencies and 375 violation
inspections.
In evaluating resource requirements for adequate response to
hazardous waste emergencies and violation reports, two sets of assumptions
were employed. The first set of assumptions were used to determine an
adequate level of response; the second set of assumptions focused on the
inspections in response to reports of emergencies and violations.
In determining an adequate level of response, the following
assumptions were used:
(a) Coordination functions between headquarters and regions
for 1,000 reports of violation:
Headquarters — 1.25 py (person-year)
Regions -- .75 py
(b) Response to five (5) hazardous waste emergencies
Headquarters — 15 days/emergency or 0.34 py
Regions — 30 days/emergency or 0.68 py
In determining inspection resources, the following assumptions
were employed:
a. 75% (750) of the 1,000 violation reports require inspections
NOTE:Person-year estimates entitled "Regions" are for all ten
regions in total.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-5-
b. States to perform 50% (375) of the inspections
c. Regions perform inspections, 4 days per inspection,
sampling collection, etc.
Regions -- 6.81 py
d. Five (5) imminent hazards investigated by regions. Each
emergency requires 0.25 py.
Regions -- 1.25 py
e. Headquarters assists in data analysis at 15 days/emergency
Headquarters — 0.34 py
Total resources required to respond to 5 hazardous waste
emergencies, 1,000 reports of violations, and 375 violation inspections:
Headquarters — 1.93 py
Regions — 9.49 py
Activity 2. Issue 1,000 facility permits and 10,000 interim permits.
The following assumptions were employed to determine resource
requirements for the issuance of 1,000 facility permits:
a. Receive and process 10,000 notices of intent to apply at
one (1) hour per notice.
b. Receive, log and review 1,000 permit applications for
completeness and submit to OSW for technical evaluation
at 4 hours per permit.
c. 250 public hearing requests on permit issuance. Conduct
250 hearings at 0.04 py per hearing.
d. Review claims of confidentiality for 20% {200} of permits
at 2 hours per claim.
e. Prepare, process and issue 1,000 permits at 4 hours per
permit.
f. Resolve legal issues unique to particular permits at 2
days per issue for 10 permits.
g. Headquarters guidance for regional permit programs at 3.5
days/month/region.
Resource requirements to issue 1,000 permits:
Headquarters -- 1.90 py
Regions -- 20.53 py
-------
I
I
I
I
I
-6-
• Activity 3. Monitor and minimally enforce notification requirements
(Section 3010); issue 250 notices of violation; and,
_ conduct Ijj[notification violations inpsections. (Res-
• pons i ve Com pi i ance Mon i
Assumptions used to calculate resource requirements to monitor
for compliance and minimally enforce notification requirements include:
a. 72,000 notifications received (60,000 on-site, 12,000
transportors);
I
* b. 36,000 certified letters issued (25% fail to respond);
• c. States monitor 50% (4,500) of non-respondents.
d. 250 violation notices issued and 4% (10) fail to respond,
• two hours per notice.
e. Inspect non-responding facilities at 4.4 days per inspection,
1 person for 10 inspections.
f. 8 violations require civil penalty actions.
g. Case preparation 0.5 days/case, 8 cases.
h. Case prosecution 4.0 days/case, 8 cases.
i. Headquarters oversight of case preparation and prosecution
activities, 3 days/case, 8 cases
• Resources required:
Headquarters -- 0.11 py
I Regions — 0.64 py
• Activity 4. Inspection of one (1) major generator thajt stores, treats,
or disposes of hazardous wastes on-site, and three (1J
facilities that store, treat or dispose of hazardous waste.
• ( Af f i rmati ve Coir.pl 1 ancg Morn tor ing ) .
~ Assumptions used to obtain resource requirements for four
comprehensive inspections:
• a. 4.4 days per inspection, 2 person team, 0.5 days per
inspection sample analysis.
| b. Headquarters assistance -- .005 py/inspection
_ Resource requirements to inspect four facilities:
™ Headquarters -- 0.02 py
Regions -- 0.17 py
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Activity 5.
Establish regional and State expertise in inspect! ori,
sampling,and enforcement procedures.
The following assumptions were used to establish regional and
State expertise in inspection, sampling and enforcement procedures:
a. Headquarters training on sampling and inspections
10 days/session, 4 sessions
b. Headquarters training on enforcement procedure
10 days/session, 4 sessions
c. Headquarter preparation for each session
5 days/session for 4 sessions (also assume that program
is established during FY78).
d. 4 HQ personnel = 1 Training Team
Resources Required:
Headquarters. -- 0.45 py
Regions
Activity 6. Establish regional oversight capabilities of State
hazardous waste enforcement programs.
Assumptions used in obtaining resource estimates to establish
regional oversight capabilities of State programs include:
a. 50% of States will implement hazardous waste enforcement
programs;
b. Regions oversee enforcement programs, 1.0 py/region.
c. Headquarters assistance 1.0 py.
Resource requirements:
Headquarters -- 1.00 py
Regions -- 10.00 py
Activity 7.
Publisj^'rules of practice" governing hearings conducted
in la^^the issuance of civil penalties and compliance
orders >~jind__(b) the issuance, relocation, suspensionjor
modifications of permits.
The following assumptions were used:
a. Procedural rules should allow for maximum procedural
informality and efficiency (i.e., regional input) ;
b. Adjudicate hearings in regions;
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-8-
c. Headquarters provides guidance.
Resource Requirements:
Headquarters -- 0.50 py
Regions -- 0.50 py
The resource estimates for the seven enforcement activities
above are summarized by activity in Table 1 below:
TABLE 1
ACTIVITY
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
?UB TOTALS
HEADQUARTERS
PY $(000)'
1.93
1.90
0.11
0.02
0.45
1.00
0.50
5.91
48.25
47.50
2.75
0.50
11.25
25.00
12.50
147.75
REGIONS
PY
9.49
20.53
0.64
0.17
10.00
0.50
41.33
$(000)
237.25
513.25
16.00
4.25
250.00
12.50
1,033.25
TOTAL
PY
11.42
22.43
0.75
0.19
0.45
11.00
1.00
47.24
$(000)
285.50
560.75
18.75
4.75
11.25
275.00
25.00
1,181.00
PART-TIME
POSITIONS
EXTRAMURAL
5.00
75.00
525.00
5.00
75.00
525.00
TOTALS
NOTE: ONE
8.91
747.75
PERSON-YEAR (PY) EQUALS
41.33
$25,000
1,033.25
50.24
1,781 .00
ONE PART TIME POSITION EQUALS $15,000, OR 0.6 PY
Comparison of Approved FY79 Budget with Resource Requirement Forecast.
An analysis of EPA enforcement capabilities under the approved
FY79 OE budget indicates that there will be a minor resource shortfall
of 0.91 person-years and $22,750 at the headquarters level. More signi-
ficantly, however, is the forecasted resource shortfall of approximately
18.33 person-years and $458,250 at the regional level. Total resource
shortfalls are estimated at 19.24 persons years and $481,000. It should
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-9-
be noted the expected shortfalls occur in the performance of those
activities approved in the FY79 budget for the indicated output/workload
levels. Table 2 presents this data in tabular form.
TABLE 2
HEADQU
PY*
APPROVED FY79
BUDGET
RESOURCE
FORECAST
PROJECTED BUDGET
SHORTFALL
8
8
(0
.0
.91
• 91)
ARTER
HOD
200.
222.
(22.
:S
£1
0
75
75)
REGIONS
23
41
(18
PY
.0
.33
.33)
$(00
575
1,033
(458
01
.0
.25
.25)
TOTAL
PY* $(000)**
31.0
50.24
(19.24)
1,300
1,781
(481
.0
.0
.0)
* Includes 5 other than full time headquarters positions, equivalent
to 3 full time positions
** Includes extramural (i.e., contract) funding totaling $525,000
Discussion. As previously noted, the projected resource
shortfalls will occur in the performance of tasks at the output/workload
levels as delineated in the approved solid waste enforcement budget for
FY79. Even if the resource shortfalls should be overcome or reduced as
efficiencies of operation can be identified for each of the enforcement
activities, the achievement of all the enforcement objectives in the
approved FY79 should not be construed as a comprehensive level of imple-
mentation of OE's enforcement management strategy. The designated
output/workload levels — especially for activities 1, 2, 3 and 4 — are
extremely low, and represents superficial implementation of certain
aspects of the enforcement management strategy vis-a-vis RCRA requirements.
Activity 1. While the assumption of maintaining and responding
to 1,000 reports of violation and hazardous waste emergencies is reason-
able, the response to five (5) hazardous waste emergencies is considered
to be inadequate. Regional offices should be expected to respond to 25
hazardous waste emergencies, at a minimum. This level of response would
require an additional resource requirement of 2.72 py ($68,000) at
headquarters and 7.72 py ($193,000) at the regional level.
Activity 2. The issuance of only 1,000 permits during FY79
will severely protract the permitting process. A more appropriate level
of permitting activity would be the issuance of 2,500 permits. This
level of activity will effectively reduce the overall permitting process
by approximately six years. Additional resources to implement this
level of permitting activity would be about 22.29 py ($557,250) at the
regional level. Headquarters resource needs would not increase appreciably.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-10-
Activity 3. In order to monitor and minimally enforce noti-
fication requirements, it should be assumed that at least 500 facilities
shall receive notices of violation and that 5% (25) of those firms will
require inspections. This level of activity will require a resource
commitment of 0.16 py ($4,000) at headquarters and 0.82 py ($20,500) at
the regional level.
Activity 4. The inspection of only one major generator that
stores, treats, or disposes of hazardous v/aste on-site and three faci-
lities which store, treat, or dispose of hazardous wastes is wholly
inadequate. The purpose of affirmative compliance monitoring is data
gathering, further defining regulation development, and refining enforce-
ment guidance. Consequently, a combined total of 100 inspections of
these facilities would be the minimum level of effort to attain these
goals. Additional resources to meet this level of activity would be
0.48 py ($12,000) at headquarters and 4.05 ($101,250) at the regional
level.
Activities 5, 6, and 7. The resource assumptions employed to
develop staffing and funding requirements for these activities are
consistent with adequate implementation of OE's enforcement management
strategy and do not require modifications.
One conspicuous inadequacy of the approved FY79 budget is the
absence of any resource provisions for compliance monitoring and enforce-
ment of regulations applicable to hazardous waste generators. The
nonexistence of these "enforcement action" resources is inconsistent
with OE's enforcement management strategy.
To provide adequate enforcement, case preparation and case
prosecution activities can be divided into three sets of work task
assumptions: (1) Imminent Hazard Prosecutions; (2) Generator/Disposer
Prosecutions; and, (3) Response to Reports of Violation (Sections 3002,
3003, 3004, 3005, and 3010).
1. Imminent Hazard Prosecutions. The assumptions used to estimate an
adequate level of enforcement against imminent hazards during FY79
include:
o. Five imminent hazard situations will result in prose-
cutions for temporary restraining orders and permanent
injunction.
b. Case preparation at 15 days per case (including clerical
and supervisory).
c. Case prosecution at 15 days per case (including clerical
and supervisory).
d. Compliance monitoring with terms of orders: 2 inspections
per order, 3 days per inspection, 1 person.
e. Case preparation and prosecution for specific performance
at 10 days per case, for 1 case.
-------
-11-
f. Headquarters concurrence and support of case preparation
and case prosecution at 10 days per case, 5 cases.
Resource Requirements:
I
I
I
Headquarters -- 0.22 py ($5,500)
_ Regions -- 0.86 py ($21,500)
2- Generator/Disposer Prosecutions (Sections 3002, 3004, 3005). The
assumptions for generator/disposer prosecutions include:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a. Inspect 100 facilities: 50% (50) violation rate
b. Notice of warning for minor violation: 40 warnings, 0.5
day/case (including case preparation, clerical and super-
visory)
c. Notice of Violation: 15 cases, 3 days/case (including
case preparation, clerical, supervisory and legal)
d. Compliance monitoring of flotice of Violation: 1 day/-
notice, violation rate, 2 cases
e. Case preparation for Compliance Order, Civil Penalty: 10
days/case, 2 cases
f. Formal Hearing: 1 case (50% settle, 50* request hearing)
Case Preparation: 15 days per case (legal, clerical,
case preparation, and supervisory)
Case Prosecution: 15 days per case (legal, clerical,
case preparation, and supervisory)
g. Compliance monitoring of Final Order from Hearings,
Settlements: inspect 2 orders, 1.5 times, 2 days per
inspection
h. Referral to U.S. Attorney for civil or criminal penalty
for failure to comply with Final Order: 10 days per
case, 1 case
i. Formal Hearing to suspend, modify, and revoke permits:
15 days/case, 1 case (including legal, clerical, super-
visory)
j. Headquarter concurrence and support of case preparation
and case prosecution (witness preparation, attend hearing,
assist briefing, prepare notice of judgements), 10 days/-
case, 2 cases
Resource required:
Headquarters — 0.09 py ($2,250)
Regions — 0.73 py ($18,250)
3. Response to Reports of Violation (Section 3002, 3003, 3004, 3005,
and 30101. The following assumptions were employed to determine the
requisite resources for an adequate level of response to reports of
violation:
a. Inspect 20 facilities: 80% (16) violation rate
b. Notice of warning for minor violation:
12 warnings, 0.5 day/case (including case prepar-
ation, clerical and supervisory)
-------
-12-
c. Notice of Violation:
4 cases, 3.0 days/case {including case preparation,
clerical, supervisory and legal)
d. Compliance Monitoring for Notice of Violation:
1 day/notice, 4 cases {20f> (1) violation rate)
e. Case Preparation for Compliance Order, Civil Penalty:
10 days/case, 1 case
f. Formal Hearing: 1 case (507, settle, 50% request hearing)
Case Preparation:
15 days/per case (legal, clerical, case preparation,
and supervisory)
Case Prosecution:
15 days/per case (legal, clerical, case preparation,
and supervisory)
g. Compliance Monitoring of Final Order from Hearings,
Settlements:
Inspect 1 order, 1.5 times, 2 days per inspection
h. Referral to U.S. Attorney for civil or criminal penalty
for failure to comply with Final Order: 10 days per
case, 1 case
i. Headquarter concurrence and support of case preparation
and case prosecution (witness preparation, attend hearing,
assist briefing, prepare notice of judgements): 10
days/case, 1 case
Resources required:
Headquarters — 0.05 py ($1,250)
Regions — 0.38 py (59,500)
The total resources required to provide adequate enforcement
action -- i.e., case preparation and case prosecution -- for all three
categories of violation are 0.36 py ($9,000) at headquarters and 1.97 py
($49,250) at the regional level.
Summary. In order to achieve a satisfactory level of imple-
mentation of the enforcement management strategy vis-a-vis RCRA require-
ments, it is recommended that the FY79 solid waste enforcement budget be
increased by 40.57 person-years and $1,014,250 in total funding. Approxi-
mately 3.72 py and $93,000 should be earmarked for headquarters and
36.85 py and $921,250 should be allocated to the regions. These recom-
mended increases are over and above the resource shortfalls identified
as necessary to accomplish the proposed FY79 enforcement activity
objectives.
NOTE: The budget forecast contained herein for adequate implemen-
tation of the enforcement management strategy, is subject to
revision following data collection and analysis at the regional
workshops.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TAB "B"
HAZARDOUS WASTE INSPECTION
AND SAMPLING GUIDANCE PAPER
-------
September 2, 1977
HAZARDOUS WASTE INSPECTION
AND SAMPLING GUIDANCE PAPER
Prepared for:
Richard Robinson
Head Solid Waste Policy Management Unit (EM-342)
Office of Enforcement
U. S. Environment Protection Agency
Prepared By:
Fred C. Hart Associates, Inc.
527 Madison Avenue
New York, New York 10022
and
One Short Hills Avenue
Short Hills, New Jersey 07078
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PREFACE
This report presents guidance as to what constitutes "adequacy of
enforcement" for a state program to be in compliance with section 3006
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. Guidance criteria are
presented in the text of the report. The rationale for the criteria is
provided in Appendix C. The criteria present here are based, to a large
extent, on information secured from sixteen existing state hazardous
waste programs. Data collection was accomplished primarily by means
of telephone interviews with the administrators of these programs. The
results of the state survey are documented both in the text and in
appendix A. A list of those persons contacted is provided in
Appendix B.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Introduction
Work Summary
Data Summary
Data Limitations
Guidance
Recommendations
Appendix A: Survey of State
programs and the National
Pollutant Discharge Eli-
mination System (NPDES)
program
Appendix B: List of
Contacts
Appendix C: Rationale for
Guidance Criteria
Page No.
1
1
1
6
7
11
12
33
36
-------
I
I
I
I
* LIST OF TABLES
I
Table Page No,
1. State Hazardous 3
_ Waste Program Summary
~ 2. Program Manpower 5
Parameters
I 3. Hazardous Waste 7
Inspection Frequency
| 4. Hazardous Waste 9
Sampling Criteria
15. Hazardous Waste 10
State Staffing
Requirements
| 6. Proposed Hazardous 11
Waste Staffing Personnel
• Mix
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Hazardous Waste Inspection andSampIing Guidance Paper
Introduction
Section 3006, Subtitle C. of the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act of 1976, RCRA , Public Law 94-580 states that "Any
State which seeks to administer and enforce a hazardous waste pro-
gram pursuant to this subtitle may develop and, after notice and
opportunity for public hearing, submit to the Administrator an
application ... for authorization of such program." The Environ-
mental Protection Agency must prepare guidelines to assist States
in the development of State hazardous waste programs and must re-
view State applications for equivalency, consistency, and enforce-
ment capability with respect to the RCRA requirements. A major
factor in the adequacy of each State's program will be the pro-
visions for sampling and inspection of generators, transporters,and
facilities which treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste, The purpose of this
paper, therefore is to provide some detailed guidance as to criteria
which might be utilized to evaluate individual state programs.
Work Summary
To assist in establishing sampling and inspection criteria,
several states with hazardous waste programs, either currently
active, or presently being established, were interviewed. Major
topics for discussion included current status of the program,
inspection types and frequency, sampling types and frequency,
staffing availability and problems in establishing a state hazardous
waste management program as experienced on the state organizational
level. A total of sixteen states were contacted, generally by
utilizing a telephone interview procedure with existing hazardous
waste personnel, or through solid waste departments where seoarate
hazardous waste units have not yet been developed. Information
from Texas and Maryland was received through personnel interviews
with hazardous waste personnel. The data was summarized as follox^s
in the succeeding section and was utilized as a base for the
criteria as developed in this paper.
In addition, administrators of the National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System (NPDES) in EPA Region II were questioned
via telephone on aspects of that program applicable to a hazardous
waste program. This primarily dealt with manpower planning aspects.
Data Summary
In this section the data gathered during the survey of the
States will be summarized. Generally speaking, program elements
vary widely on a State-to-state basis. This variation is attributable
to a number of factors, including different stages of program de-
velopment, resource constraints, enabling legislations, and the
varying needs and concerns of each State as each perceives them.
These points will be discussed later in this paper. The results
of the survey will be presented in five parts: program status,
inspections, sampling, staffing, and program development rationale.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-2-
Table 1 presents the data in tabulated form. A more detailed de-
scription of each state's program is provided in Appendix A.
Program Status. The majority of states do not have formal
hazardous waste programs. A number of states, however, are in the
process of developing programs--!.e., proposing enabling legisla-
tion or drafting regulations. Those states with established pro-
grams—California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts—are
still in the initial stages of program implementation.
Inspections. States primarily concentrate their inspection
activities on disposal/treatment/storage facilities. Transporters
are also inspected to a significant extent. The States of Maryland
and New York have separate conservation police forces who, among
other duties, spotcheck waste haulers. Generators, generally,
are not as closely monitored.
Half of the states surveyed have monthly inspections. Two
states have quarterly inspections; another two, annual inspections.
These frequencies usually apply to disposal facilities. Inspections
of treatment or storage facilities, transporters, and generators
occur less frequently, generally in that order. States allow them-
selves a good deal of flexibility in the selection of inspection
targets. The frequency at which a facility is inspected depends
on a number of variables, including the size and type of facility,
type of wastes handled, the quality of the operation, and the po-
tential or real threat to the public health and environment. Re-
sources are primarily applied to the inspection of "problem" fa-
cilities. Therefore, the frequencies of inspections among the
states vary over a wide spectrum, ranging from weekly to bi-yearly.
Smaller facilities, in general, are inspected infrequently.
One of the foci of inspections is generally managerial aspects--
i.e., the manifest system and record keeping requirements. In
California, an inspector will station himself at the gate of a dis-
posal facility. He checks compliance by the incoming haulers (and
generators) with the manifest system and takes a sample of the
wastes. In states with more established programs—New York, Texas,
California—inspectors spend a considerable percentage of their
time familiarizing themselves with the operation of a facility and
establishing a professional rapport with the owners/operators.
The objective, here, is to keep facilities within the enforcement
program's net—i.e., under the permit system—so control can be
maintained. The achievement of this objective is facilitated by
encouraging cooperation rather than relying solely on enforcement
actions.
Inspectors, through experience, gain a good perspective with
respect to the quality of a particular facility's operation. The
comprehensiveness of an inspection usually varys accordingly. More
time is allotted to an inspection if the inspector feels the opera-
tion is of IOXVT quality and/or if he suspects a violation. In Cali-
fornia, emphasis is placed on ensuring incompatible x\rastes are not
mixed. Texas and Illinois utilize a check-list or standardized
inspection form.
-------
I
I
I
I
r
O.S
f. t>
•;' -:
1 cs.1,
• txK!
lib
M s- in
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-4-
Texas advises against the use of surprise inspections for two
reasons. One, with an unannounced inspection, the people—i .e., owners/
operators—the inspector needs to talk to might not be there. Two, it's
impossible for a "bad" facility to clean itself up within a short time-
frame.
Sampling. Thirteen of the sixteen states surveyed had self-
monitoring requirements for disposal facilities. The frequency of moni-
toring is generally site-specific and written into the facility's permit.
Illinois and Oregon have monthly self-mom" tor ing requirements; California,
monthly; and Texas, annually. Monitoring frequency varys from weekly to
bimonthly in New York.
Sampling by states, as with inspections, is generally up to the
discretion of the inspector. If he does not suspect a violation, he gene-
rally will not take a sample. If a sample is taken, the type of sample
taken—i.e., ground water, surface water, the wastes—depends on the indi-
vidual facility situation.
Many states do not have state-approved or certified labs. A
number of states, however, are moving in this direction.
Staffing. Among the states, staffing levels are universally
predicated on available resources (as opposed to some set criteria, as
number of man-days per permit, etc.). In addition, future manpower plan-
ning levels are based upon the experience and judgment of the administrator
(again, as opposed to some set criteria).
In Texas, the majority of the staff is involved in inspection
activities (39 percent) or in various legal capacities (30 percent). The
remaining manpower is involved in technical or administrative support
activities.
Professional staff usually include expertises in hydrology, geology,
civil and sanitary engineering, and chemistry. Other disciplines include
public health, biology, and soils science.
Table 2 presents by state (and the NPDES program) an analysis of
existing manpower levels based upon the data obtained in our survey. Two
staffing parameters are examined: man-days expended per inspection by
staff only; and the ratio of the total staff to the inspection staff. A
figure of 220 work-days per man per year is assumed. Future analysts,
however, should be cognizant of the data's limitations as expressed later
in this paper. Data limitations will be discussed more fully in the
following section.
The data does, however, reasonably indicate current staffing
ranges. An examination of the table reveals that the average ratio of
total staff to inspection staff is 2.1; the median value is 2.0. The
average number of man-days per inspection (inspection staff only) is 4.4;
the median value is also 4.4.
-------
-5-
TABLE 2
ProgramManpowerParameters
Man-days per In-
spection (Inspec-
tion Staff only)
FLORIDA
KANSAS
KENTUCKY
MISSISSIPPI
NEBRASKA
NEW JERSEY
OHIO
WASHINGTON
MINNESOTA
MASSACHUSETTS
ILLINOIS
OREGON
MARYLAND
CALIFORNIA
NEW YORK
TEXAS
NPDES
AVERAGE:
MEDIAN:
N/A
2.1
N/A
6.1
N/A
N/A
3.7
N/A
N/A
5.5
7.3
N/A
N/A
2.5
2.2
4.4
4-8
4.4
4.4
Ratio of Total
Staff to Inspec-
tion Staff*
N/A
2.5
1.2
2.0
2.0
N/A
N/A
2.5
N/A
2.3
N/A
N/A
1.5
10**
2.0
2.5
approximately 2.7
2.1
2.0
*N/A means not available
**The ratio would be more on the magnitude of 2 to 1 if the program was
funded at a sufficient level to support its planned structure.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-6-
Program Development Rationale.
programs is three-fold.
The rationale for existing state
2.
3.
Enabling legislation. The scope of some state programs
is restricted by lack of legislative authority. For
example, persons with the New York program indicated
lack of authority prevents them from implementing a
manifest system. Likewise, Texas is restricted in
their control of generators.
Resource constraints. As aforementioned, all states are
limited in their activities and manpower levels due to
resource constraints.
Professional judgment. In planning future manpower
needs/levels, administrators generally rely on their
judgment and experience.
Data Limitations
The limitations of the data base upon which guidance recommenda-
tions will be made in the following section should be noted. Five short-
comings have been identified.
1. Of the hazardous waste programs that have been established,
all are generally in the developmental stages. All program
elements have not yet been implemented and/or operational
wrinkles have not been ironed out. Therefore, at this
time little guidance can be anticipated from the states in
the structure of the RCRA program. In addition, state
programs vary in their similarity to RCRA.
2. Due to resource constraints, state programs are not staffed
as structured. In addition, some states are prevented from
implementing all the program elements their enabling legis-
lations allow. Oregon, for instance, has the authority to
permit treatment facilities, but lacks the resources to do
so. For California, as shown in Table 2, the current ratio
of total staff to inspection staff is 10:1; however, if the
program was staffed at full strength the ratio would be
more in the order of 2:1. This results in a distortion of
analytical interpretations.
3. The enforcement net of state programs is extremely small.
In an earlier report done by this firm for the U.S. EPA,
Office of Solid Waste, it was estimated that approximately
twelve thousand permits would be required in the industrial
and governmental sectors to cover all storage, treatment,
and disposal activities in the U.S. An examination of
Table 1 indicates, however, that the current magnitude of
the states' enforcement net does not even approach this
number. Oregon, for instance, permits only one (!) disposal
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-7-
site. This small number skews the results of any analysis
of Oregon's program.
4. The shortcomings of telephone interviews within such a
short-time frame must be realized. This data gathering
approach prohibits any detailed manpower and systems
analyses.
5. In some states, the hazardous waste and solid waste programs
are intertwined. It was difficult, therefore, to determine
those data that specifically applied to hazardous waste
activities.
In recognition of these data limitations, the authors in making
guidance recommendations have tempered the conclusions of the state survey
with their professional judgment. Emphasis was placed on those states
with the more established programs.
Guidance
Criteria have been developed to assist in establishing minimum
recommended levels of acceptable inspection and sampling programs on a state-
by-state basis. These criteria, to be utilized as guidance in evaluating
the adequacy of state hazardous waste management programs, have been sub-
divided into three major categories, inspection, sampling, and staffing
requirements as follows:
Inspection. Table 3 presents recommended inspection frequencies
for generators, transporters, and treatment/storage/disposal facilities as
well as possible effective ranges for inspection frequency. Specific
rationales for criteria developed herein for all three categories are
described in Appendix C.
TABLE 3
Hazardous Haste Inspection Frequency
Type of Hazardous Recommended Possible Effective
Waste Facility Inspection Frequency Range in Frequency
Generator Yearly Twice/year to
once/two years
Transporter Quarterly Monthly-yearly
Treatment/Storage/Oisposal Monthly Weekly-quarterly
Hazardous waste inspection of generators should include physical inspection
of facilities, hazardous end-products, hazardous waste storage facilities
and containers, labelling and record-keeping techniques, and current and
proposed disposal practices.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-8-
Inspection of hazardous waste transporters should include inspec-
tion and evaluation of specific transport equipment (containers, vehicles,
etc.) and labelling and record-keeping techniques.
Inspection of treatment/storage/disposal sites should include
an investigation of the adequacy of treatment and/or disposal methods,
hazardous waste storage facilities and containers, monitoring facilities
and record-keeping techniques.
Recommended inspection frequencies are noted in Table 3. The
possible effective frequency range is also noted and provides some degree
of latitude with respect to the eval ition of any state's proposed
hazardous waste inspection program. Specific inspection frequencies for
any particular site could vary depending on the type of waste produced
the size of the facility, the current problems being experienced, and the
degree of public health hazard.
Sampling. Table 4 presents details on sampling criteria recommended
to be utilized in evaluating individual state programs.
Hazardous waste sampling at generator facilities should include
sampling of stored hazardous wastes, and final hazardous waste products.
Specific waste sampling techniques must vary from facility to facility due
to the large variety of goods and hazardous wastes that are produced by
generator facilities. State sampling should accompany each inspection with
a comprehensive analysis being completed yearly to verify the waste charac-
teristics as reported, utilizing the manifest system. Self-monitoring and
reporting requirements should be at least twice yearly with a possible
effective range being weekly to yearly depending on the potential hazard
to public health.
Hazardous waste sampling for transporters can be much more flexi-
ble. Occasional sampling of wastes in the transit processs for instance at
the transfer point to the disposal site, should be completed to verify
manifest reported waste characteristics. Specific analytical procedures will
vary depending on the type of waste. Self-monitoring need not be required
for transporters. Specific reporting requirements should be incorporated
as part of the manifest system.
Hazardous waste sampling for treatment/storage/disposal sites
should include analysis of incoming wastes, stored wastes, and samples from
monitoring facilities. Sampling techniques and analytical procedures will
again be variable depending on the specific category of wastes being
handled for treatment. State sampling should occur at least quarterly,
in conjunction with the monthly inspections. Self-monitoring and reporting
requirement frequencies can vary from weekly to quarterly depending on the
potential hazards to the public.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-9-
O)
CD
C
(O
QJ
•r—
CJ
QJ
|J^
t j 1
O>
r—
f^)
• p.
V)
O
(X
•o
T3
g—
QJ
IS
'£
<3J
•M
*£
O
en
c
CL
E
res
to
OJ
s
l/>
^3
O
s-
CD
E
5-
O
O
^
.*
_
o>
to
c
•r-
en
c
5.
O
4-J
*f*
C
s
»•-
QJ
t/1
en
c
*""
Q.
J~
cr
n3
CO
_
fT3
o
1 1
>)
O)
cr
OJ
S-
-L_
^t
0
c
QJ
rs
cr1
£
Uu
O
c
QJ
CT
QJ
LL.
in
Ol
cr
*Q. >, E
fd
t/i
r—
(O
c
j
^*«^
QJ
O
J£
u
(O
a>
-M
QJ
rtJ
*I~~
S-
f3
*
cr.
QJ
4-1
CJ)
CD
'a
E
CO
QJ
4->
(O
S
I—"
(0
f*
*, —
c
0
+J
o
GJ
O.
C
•r"
f)
4J
U
3
T3
0
S_
•^
r—
rt
CD
in
CJ
+->
in
3
"X5
a>
S-
0
U- CL '/)
i,
(T3
o
-a
its
N
o£
gj
O)
c:
o
0>
o
o
*" 71
Jd CJ
•i^ 5-
5- rs
rcJ 125
>• cr
o
-Q
GJ
J3
(A
s-
QJ -
-4-> M
tn O
ra +J
2 tn en t/i
CB C QJ
en 2 -r- .^
•r- "d O 'I—
£= QJ ^_) ,—
0 O C 0
C 4^ O ^D
(O
s_
QJ
C
QJ
t£»
O OJ OJ to
l-i E CTl l/l
tn 4J ro O
C <0 1- QL
f^ GJ O (/I
S» S^ +-> -r-
h- 1— LO Q
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-10-
Stafflng. Table 5 presents recommended yearly staffing require-
ments for state hazardous waste programs. Criteria per each 100 permits °r
per each 100 generator/transporter facilities have been developed and expressed in
the following table:
TABLE 5
Hazardous Waste State Staffing Requirements*
Type of Hazardous
Was te Faci1i ty
Inspection Staffing
Requirements
Total Staff
Requirements
Possible Total
Staffing Range
Generator
Transporter
Treatment/
Storage/ Disposal
2.0
7.0
21.5
4.0
14.5
43.0
2.0 -
3.5 -
11.0 -
7.0
57.5
173.0
* Per 100 permits or facilities, 220 mandays/year, rounded to nearest 1/2
man.
The above staffing requirements are based upon approximately
4 mandays per inspection including completion of inspection reporting require-
ments. Total support staff is estimated as the required inspection staff
plus 100% additional management personnel. It must be stressed that the
type of people (i.e. applicable training and experience) will be critical to
successful implementation of a hazardous waste program. Additionally, the
personnel mix must include the proper categories of personnel to successfully
inspect, evaluate, and enforce a hazardous waste program. Such a mix must
include experienced hazardous waste field inspectors, chemists, engineers,
hydrologists, geologists, lawyers, management personnel, and clerical
assistants. A proposed personnel mix to accomplish the various monitoring,
evaluation and legal processes is as follows in Table 6.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Category
-11-
TASLE 6
Proposed Hazardous Waste Staffing Personnel Mix
Possible % of Work Force
Chemists
Hydrologists/geologists
Engineers
Lawyers
Clerical assistants
Management
15 - 25
5 - 15
15 - 25
5-20
20 - 30
10 - 20
Approximately 30-60% of the staff will be directly involved in
field inspection work.
The above developed criteria should be applied judiciously on a
state-by-state basis. Determining the "equivalency" or "consistency" of
a state program should involve determining whether a proposed state program
will reasonably accomplish the information gathering, analytical capacity,
data evaluation, permitting procedures, regulation and enforcement provi-
sions of Subtitle C of the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act. Specific
information from each state as to available manpower and the assignment of
this manpower to proposed work tasks should be required to evaluate whether
state goals are achievable and consistent with RCRA requirements. It must
be stressed that there is a degree of flexibility available in evaluating
the state programs, i.e. a more rigorous self-monitoring program could
offset a more austere state sampling program. At the same time, this
flexibility must be tempered by the realization that a degree of confor-
mity must be achieved to prevent inequities in waste disposal practices
from developing state-to-state and to prevent unnecessary complexities in
the reporting processes.
Recommendations
Qualifications with respect to the interpretation of available
data were presented in the Data Summary section. These limitations were
due to the current status of most state programs, the interference with
on-going solid waste programs, the constraints of conducting telephone
interviews over a relatively short time span, and resource constraints
currently being experienced by most states.
Therefore we recommend that serious thought be given to develop-
ing a more adequate data base. This work effort would include personal and/or
telephone interviews of the remaining states and additional contact with
EPA regional offices. A more accurate picture of both current state
hazardous waste planning processes and of the states' viewpoints with
respect to the structure of adequate hazardous waste programs could then
be developed.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-12-
APPENDIX A:
SURVEY OF STATE PROGRAMS
AND THE NATIONAL POLLUTANT
DISCHARGE ELIMIflATION SYSTEM
-------
1
1
1
^H
I
•
1
1
1
1
1
1
-13-
CALIFORNIA
General Status. A State hazardous waste law has been on the books
since July, 1973. An organization and interim regulations have been in
place for the past 3-1/2 to 4 years. Public hearings on final regulations
have recently been concluded. Regulations are due to become effective
within 60 days (approximately October 15, 1977).
There are 67 off-site facilities, and 200 to 250 on-site facili-
ties that accept hazardous wastes. Under a waste haulers registration
program being developed, approximately 500 companies owning 1100 to 1200
trucks are expected to be covered.
Inspections. The number and frequency of inspections are based
on available resources and the problems posed by a facility. A Class I
(most hazardous wastes) site is inspected quarterly. Other sites of
adequate quality are inspected less frequently.
There are three types of inspections— financial , operational
and managerial. The financial inspection is simply an audit so the State
can ensure it is receiving its just fees. The managerial inspection deals
primarily with the operation of the manifest system. Inspectors will
station themselves at the entrance of a facility. They will take a copy
of incoming manifest and a sample of the waste. The emphasis of operating
inspections is on detecting the mixing of incompatible wastes.
Enforcement emphasis is placed on the detection of promiscuous
dumping.
The inspection of haulers is restricted by lack of legislative
authority.
Sampling. There are self-monitoring requirements with follow-up
by inspectors. The frequency and type of sampling performed are site-
specific. Applicable requirements are written into the permit. A program
to certify labs is being developed.
Staffing. There are currently 3 field inspectors. The program,
however, is structured for 25 people. This situation is duo to lack of
adequate resourses.
There are 30 persons, altogether, in the hazardous waste program,
15 of whom are engaged in R&D activities. A well functioning program
would require approximately 50 people, 50 percent of whom would be engaged
in enforcement- related activities.
Manpower needs are based on experience.
I
»
t
i
i
{
1
•
I
1
1
•
I
1
I
•
•
•
•
I
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
I
•
1
1
1
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-14-
CALIFORNIA (continued)
Remarks. Adequacy of Enforcement criteria should consist of the
following:
1. The quality rather than the number of inspectors should be
governed.
2. As a minimum standard, one inspection per year per facility.
3. The EPA Regional Administrator is best able to determine
the needs of a State, and whether its enforcement program is
adequate to meet those needs.
4. Criteria should ensure that the State has adequate authori-
ties and mechanisms in place to enforce regulations.
5. Monitoring requirements should be site-specific, depending
on the site and operation, types of waste, and potential
public health threat.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-15-
FLORIDA
General Status. fJo formal hazardous waste management program is
in existence. Current hazardous waste management activities are carried out
as part of a state solid v/aste program. Deep-well injection permits are
issued at the water management district and the environmental district
level. A hazardous waste survey is scheduled for completion this fall.
Inspections. Mo specific hazardous waste inspection program
currently exists. Deep-well injection permits have specific self-
monitoring and reporting requirements.
Sampling. Sampling requirements vary on a case-by-case basis.
No. specific lab certification requirement is currently in effect.
Staffing. One person is assigned full-time to hazardous waste
management duties.
Problems. The RCRA time schedule is too accelerated to permit
formulation of in-state hazardous waste legislation.
Remarks. The manifest system should be handled on a national rather
than a slate-by-state basis. Each state should have sufficient leeway to
utilize existing state organization and expertise without requiring major
reorganization to create separate hazardous waste departments.
-------
-16-
ILLINOIS
General Status. The program has been in existence since 1974.
Altogether, approximately 400 land disposal sites are permitted by the
State, of these, 50 accept some form of special wastes, including hazardous
wastes and liquid sludges. An estimated 1,000 supplemental permits
(issued on a waste specific basis) have been written for these 50 sites.
Inspections. Ultimate disposal facilities are inspected on an
average of once a month; more so, if there are problems. There are no
set guidelines, however, as to frequency of inspection. A standardized
inspection form is utilized.
Sampling. There are quarterly self-monitoring requirements.
Surface and ground waters must be sampled. There is follow-up by state
field inspectors. Whether or not a sample is actually taken, however,
depends on the field inspector's impressions as to the quality of the
operator. A sample is generally not taken if the facility is felt to be
a "good operation". Additional monitoring requirements on a waste-
specific basis are spelled out on the supplemental permits. Wastes must
be analyzed annually as a prerequisite for renewal of the supplement
permit.
Approved analytical methods are provided on the supplemental
permit. Labs will eventually be certified by the State under the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Staffing. The enforcement program state-wide has 20 people.
This staff performs all functions, i.e., inspections, administrative
aspects, etc. Staffing is based on available resources.
Remarks. The size of the program is defined by resource limits.
-------
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-17-
KANSAS
General Status. In 1977 enabling legislation (excluding
transporters) was passed. The first draft of proposed hazardous waste
regulations is being prepared for release this fall.
Inspections. Generators and treatment facilities are inspected.
Inspection frequency is variable on a case-by-case basis.
Sampling. Sampling requirements vary on a case-by-case basis.
State-approved labs must be utilized for analytical procedures.
Staffing. Currently two people are utilized as field inspectors,
Future personnel requirements will total four to five people.
Problems. Budgeting sufficient money.
Remarks. Generators, as well as treatment facilities and
transporters should be categorized to determine how stringent sampling
and monitoring requirements must be.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-18-
KENTUCKY
General Status. No specific hazardous waste program is currently
in effect. A legislative package is currently being prepared. Draft regu-
lations have been completed. Legislative authority for regulation of
transporters is currently in evidence and a program permit system is being
developed. A number of landfills (10-15) handle hazardous waste on a
case-by-case approval basis under the solid waste permit program.
Inspections. Landfill inspections are completed approximately
monthly under the solid waste program.
Sampling. All special wastes, including all liquid wastes and
sewage sludges on a case-by-case basis are subjected to chemical analysis before
approval for disposal at a landfill site. Analytical requirements are
filled by utilizing independent laboratories. The State is currently
planning to improve lab facilities including hazardous waste analysis
capacity.
Staffing. A total of 60 people are employed with the state's
solid waste department. Two are devoted to hazardous waste program
development. Ten to twelve inspectors are utilized for hazardous waste
inspections, primarily related to waste pesticides.
Problems. Difficulties have been encountered in formulating
an acceptable legislative package due to the short yearly legislative
term. Funding and the complexity of the hazardous waste problem were
also noted.
-------
-19-
HARYLAND^
General Status. Hazardous waste regulations became effective
August > 1977. The State is currently in the notification phase of its
program's development. To date, replies have been received from approxi-
mately 200 transporters and 120 disposal facilities including 20 county
facilities. There will be three categories of hazardous wastes and sites
under tiv- program.
Inspections. No program developed as yet. Inspections will be
permit-specific. Inspections, as envisioned, will not be technically-
oriented (as with NPDES) but rather, management oriented - i.e., compliance
with the manifest system.
Staffing. The state's total enforcement program employs 50 to
60 persons, of which approximately 40 are located in the State's 5 or 6
regions. There is also a Natural Resources Police Department with a staff
of about 100 people. They primarily deal with transporters. An esti-
mated 2 percent of this manpower is expended on examining hazardous waste
transporters.
Remarks. RCRA "Adequacy of Enforcement" criteria for State pro-
grams should: 0) ~"-us on the qualifications of personnel. The State
felt professionals with qualifications in the following areas are necessary:
geology, hydrology, civil/sanitary engineering, soils science, public health,
and chemistry and (2) annual inspections should serve as a minimum standard
with more frequent inspections depending on the type of waste and type and
size of the facility.
The State program is generally being developed "on the run".
Very little planning is or is expected to occur due to lack of time and
resources.
A State permit must be re-issued if the permittee lives up to the
conditions of his permit.
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
General Status. Since 1968/1969, the State has regulated waste
oil conveyers. In 1973, formal hazardous waste regulations were promul-
gated. To date, 115-120 permits have been issued governing hazardous
waste activities, i.e., conveyance, storage, disposal, treatment, and
clearing houses.
Inspections. Permitted activities are inspected annually, as soon
as possible after January. "Problem" facilities are inspected more fre-
quently as needed. A standardized inspection form is utilized. Length
of inspections vary from a half-hour for a small truck to a day for a
larger company or facility.
Sampling. Samples are requested and/or taken only if a viola-
tion is suspected. The State has their own labs.
Staffing. The State's central operation has two people full-
time and four people part-time. The three regional offices provide 1
man-year each for inspectors. Program size is based on available resources.
The State expects to add 3 people with RCRA funds.
Remarks. The State's enabling legislation is basically adequate.
The program, however, is severely restricted by resource constraints.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Staffing. For the solid waste enforcement program, there are
12 persons state-wide, including one field inspector in each of the five
• regions. Each inspector is responsible for approximately 20 facilities
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-21-
MINNESOTA
General Status. "Cradle-to-grave" hazardous waste regulations are
expected to be proposed in January, 1978. Currently, hazardous wastes are
prohibited from being disposed of in sanitary landfills. The State directs
persons with hazardous waste to out-of-state sites. The State does not
expect the necessity for many permits once a program is constituted; only
2 commercial facilities are currently being planned. An incinerator is
currently enjoined from operation.
Inspections. The State's 125 solid waste landfills are inspected
monthly. Inspections take about 2 hours. Travel, in some cases though,
takes up to a day. Over the last four years approximately 190 investi-
gations of suspected violations have been performed.
Sampling. For the solid waste sites, there are quarterly self-
monitoring requirements. Each analysis includes five parameters.
The frequency of monitoring and parameters checked for will probably in-
crease under a hazardous waste program. The State expects to license
labs within 2 years.
a year. No manpower planning has occurred as yet in a hazardous waste
program.
Remarks. (1) The program is limited by resource constraints.
The State would conduct more monitoring efforts if it had the funds.
(2) Lack of hazardous waste experience prevents a more exact estimation
of the magnitude of a hazardous waste program. (3) Monthly inspections
are felt to be adequate.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-22-
MISSISSIPPI
General Status. Regulations are currently being established for
sludges, paper wastes, pesticides and oily wastes. Several landfills
accept hazardous waste under the solid waste permit system. Two land appli
cation operations and one lined landfill specifically accept hazardous
wastes.
Inspections. Landfills and treatment facilities are inspected
approximately once monthly.
Sampling. Self-monitoring requirements are variable on a
case-by-case basis. There is an approved list of labs for wastes/sewer
related activities. The State also has laboratory capacity.
Staffing. Current programs includes the services of two people.
Approximately four to five will be required for the future program.
Problems. Difficulties have been experienced in adequate
collection of hazardous wastes, particularly pesticide containers.
Recommendation. None specifically.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-23-
NEBRASKA
General Status. No formal hazardous waste program currently
exists. Hazardous waste management tasks are currently carried out by
two State divisions, water and solid waste. Regulations for treatment
facilities are currently being developed. Enabling legislation will
be required for generators and transporters. A number of landfills
accept hazardous wastes under existing solid waste permits.
Inspections. No hazardous waste inspection program is currently
in existence.
Sampling. Self-monitoring requirements are part of the solid
waste permit system. The State has adequate in-house analytical capability.
Staffing. Two people are actively involved in hazardous waste
planning. Approximately five people will be required for the future pro-
gram.
Problems. None specifically.
Remarks. EPA should formalize specific initial guidelines to
insure uniformity of State programs.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-24-
NEl-J JERSEY
General Status. Regulations are currently being established and
are scheduled for completion this fall. A number of treatement facilities,
reprocessors and storage facilities are separately permitted. Landfills
are not permitted to accept hazardous wastes.
Inspections. Inspection frequency varies on a case-by-case basis
and is generally once monthly for treatment/disposal facilities. Gener-
ators and transporters are not directly inspected.
Sampling. Self-monitoring and State sampling occurs at those
sites which have monitoring wells. Incoming wastes are not sampled for
State analysis. Currently no system of lab registration is utilized in
the State. The State Department of Health has lab facilities.
Staffing. There are currently approximately 35 employees involved
in program evaluation and generator inventory. The future program will
require 15 to 20 full-time personnel.
Problems. A number of difficulties have been encountered
including: reluctance of generators to incur additional costs for disposal,
insufficient number of disposal facilities, inadequate data base, quantity
of record-keeping requirements, and limited State financial resources.
Remarks. None specifically.
-------
-25-
NEl-J YORK
General Status. The State has operated a Scavenger Waste Re-
gistration Program since 1971. Under this program, haulers of septic
tank pumpings, sev/age wastes and certain commercial and industrial wastes
are regulated. At present there are 855 registrations including 61
registrations for the handling of industrial wastes and 79 for waste oils.
A dual-permit system governing disposal sites will become effective
August 28, 1978. Treatment facilities will be permitted at a later date.
At present, there is one treatment facility, 3 secure landfills (2 com-
mercial operations with treatment capability and one publicly owned,
on-site facility), 7 or 8 waste oil/solvent reclaimers, and 24-36 storage
facilities within the State. Only the 3 landfills are currently covered
by a permit. The other operations are controlled via the scavenger pro-
gram, i.e., transporters may only haul to State approved facilities.
Inspections. Inspections are performed by NYSDEC Conservation
Officers, County Health officials, and DEC central and regional office
personnel. The number and frequency of inspections vary according to the
suspected problem or threat posed by an operation, and resource and time
constraints.
Scavengers are road spot-checked by Conservation Officers. Some
counties inspect haulers annually as a prerequisite for re-registration.
The two commercial landfills are inspected weekly. The publicly-
owned site is inspected bimonthly. This disparity in frequency is based
on DEC's belief that the public site is safer since it only handles one
waste stream.
Treatment facilities are inspected every 2 weeks; storage facili-
ties every week to 2 months.
The comprehensiveness of inspections vary according to the size
and complexity of the facility and the inspector's impressions as to the
quality of the operation.
An inspection usually requires one-half man-day.. In addition,
DEC personnel usually spend one day ci year discussing or familiarizing
themselves with the operation of a site with its owner/operator.
Sampling. There are monthly self-monitoring requirements. There
are no set guidelines as to sampling by field inspectors. This usually
varies according to the situation and inspector's impressions of the site.
There are DEC approved labs.
Staffing. Six to seven man-years are expended on field inspections,
This includes all phases of the hazardous waste program -- DEC central and
regional office personnel and county officials. The total State
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-26-
NEW YORK (continued)
enforcement program including inspectors -- requires 12 man-years of effort
annually. Present staffing is based on available resources and experience
as to what they feel is adequate.
Remarks. The program's design is determined by: (1) manpower/
resource constraints, (2) lack of legal authorities, i.e., no authority
exists for a manifest system, and (3) engineering judgment and experience.
Enforcement criteria in the form of numerical standards are impractical.
Resources must be applied as individual situations warrant.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-27-
OHIO
General Status. No formal hazardous waste program currently
exists. A legislative package is presently being negotiated.
Inspections. Generators and transporters are not inspected under
hazardous v/aste program. One landfill, twelve deep well injection sites
and two liquid waste treatment facilities are inspected as hazardous waste
disposal sites.
Sampling. Disposal sites have self-monitoring/reporting re-
quirements. A State approved lab certification system is in existence.
Staffing. Approximately five people are utilized in disposal
site inspection, including deep well injection sites. One person is
currently involved in establishing a hazardous waste program. Future person-
nel requirements will be approximately 20.
Problems. State financing of the hazardous waste program will
be a difficulty.
Remarks. Each state should have the prime authority for oper-
ating hazardous waste programs. EPA guidelines will be required to co-
ordinate efforts and to provide uniformity of the various state programs.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-28-
QREGON
General Status. The State has had the legislative authority to
conduct a program since 1971. The program, however, has only been opera-
tional since March, 1976. Only one hazardous waste disposal site (a secure
landfill) has been issued a permit to operate.
The State has the authority to permit treatment facilities,
but lacks the resources to do so.
A manifest system is currently being designed. Transporters
are regulated by the Oregon Public Utility Commission.
Inspections. The one site located in the desert, is inspected
monthly, or whenever the facility incorporates modifications. Prior
approval on a waste by waste basis is necessary before a waste may be
accepted for disposal by the facility. Inspections include a visual in-
spection of the site and equipment; records are also checked. Inspections
take 2 to 3 hours. The site must submit monthly reports.
Generators and treatment facilities are also inspected on an in-
formal basis. The State does not "lean on" these activities too heavily
if they generally seem adequate. Emphasis is on storage. Larger manu-
facturers are inspected 2 or 3 times a year, smaller facilities in-
frequently, if ever.
Sampling. Quarterly self-monitoring is required. The State
twice a year conducts sampling of off-site springs and wells. (Since the
one site is situated in the desert, samples are often unattainable.)
Staffing. Currently, only two persons administer this program.
Expansion is limited by lack of resources. Based upon prior experience,
six additional people are needed to operate a program analogous to RCRA.
Remarks. The program although possessing wide authorities, is
severely limited by lack of resources.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-29-
TEXAS
General Status. The Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act, enacted in
1969, assigned the responsibility for control of industrial solid waste
to the Texas Water Quality Board. There are approximately 200 on-site
and 30 commercial industrial waste disposal sites (10 of which are Class
I sites handling extremely hazardous wastes) currently covered by the
State's permit system. A manifest system has also been operational the
last year and one-half.
Reflecting manpower and budgetary constraints, monthly reports
are required of all Class I off-site disposal facilities and the generators of
the wastes disposed at these sites. Annual reports are required for all
on-site disposers of Class II wastes produced by generators employing 100
or more persons.
Inspections. Facilities are inspected at least annually. Some
are inspected more often on a case-by-case basis. On the average, facilities
are inspected twice annually.
Inspections are spaced out over the year rather than concen-
trated over a specific period. Inspections are usually announced
(Texas feels surprise inspections serve no value because (1) the people
you need to talk to, i.e., owner/operator - may not be there and (2) it's
impossible to clean up a "bad" facility within a short-time frame).
The comprehensiveness of the inspection depends on the inspector's
impressions as to the quality of the operation.
Texas feels the frequency of inspections has no impact on
facility quality, but rather inspections backed up by the application of
sanctions — i.e., court orders, suits, etc.- are the only effective method.
An inspection check list is utilized.
Sampling. Monitoring requirements are site-specific. State
labs are made available to commercial sites. Commercial labs, however, are
not certified by the State.
Staffing. The figure below depicts the structure of the Texas
hazardous waste program. The program is well structured in that functions/
responsibilities for each component are clearly defined.
TEXAS WATER QUALITY BOARD
Field Operations Control Operations Administrative Ooerations Hearinas Enforc
12
District
Offices
;
En- Technical
force-
ment
Support
Services
1
1
i I
i i
i i
Solid ' '
Waste
Branch
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-30-
TEXAS (continued)
The 12 District Offices perform the inspections. The staff of these
offices varies from 3 to 30 people. These offices perform inspections
in other media areas. Therefore, only a percentage of their time is
expended on hazardous wastes. Their function is to simply observe and
report their findings. They write citations for minor violations; more
significant violations are referred to central operations.
Enforcement Support has 6 persons at the central (Austin) office.
Their function is to weigh suspected violations against standards to de-
termine if: (1) the violation is significant, and (2) adequate data is
available to support decisions.
The Solid Waste Branch writes permits, reviews permit applications,
and writes regulations.
The Hearings Brqnch acts as an impartial administrator of hearings
on permits and violations. Hearing findings are reported and forwarded
to the Enforcement Branch. This Branch also reviews permit applications
for completeness.
The Enforcement Branch has in-house legal-capabilities available
for enforcement actions.
The total industrial waste management program (to include hazardous
wastes) of the TWQB was budgeted in 1977 for 33 persons. Twenty-three
people are assigned to central operations, the remaining 13 to the field
operations. Ten people are assigned to enforcement aspects of the
program. This represents the attorneys in the Hearing and Enforcement
Divisions.
Remarks. Criteria for the application of enforcement mechanisms
have been developed through experience. The intent is to make the
enforcement program a flexible one.
Inspectors must have specific qualifications.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-31-
HASHIHGTON
General Status. Legislation covering generators, transporters and
disposers of "extremely hazardous waste" are currently in effect. In-house
regulations and an environmental assessment have been prepared and are pre-
sently subject to the public hearing process. A waste exchange agency has
been formed. A number of landfills accept hazardous wastes under local
health authority jurisdiction.
Inspections. No specific hazardous waste inspections are completed
for generators, or transporters. Two waste disposal facilities are in-
spected at the regional level.
Sampling. Self-monitoring provisions on a case-by-case basis
are required under the solid waste program. No lab approved procedure
is currently implemented for hazardous waste.
Staffing. Approximately 1-2 people are currently involved in
hazardous waste inspection. A total of five people are currently active
in the hazardous waste program formulation. Future requirements will be
12 to 20 people.
Problems. Difficulties encountered include obtaining adequate
legislation at the State level and limited financial resources.
Remarks. EPA criteria should be performance oriented rather
than specific goal oriented.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-32-
National Pollutant D1scharge_E1_jmination System (NPDES)-
New York State, within Lhe jurisdiction of EPA Reaion II, has
been granted the authority to administer its own NPDES system. Before
being granted this authority, the EPA, specifically EPA Region II, con-
ducted a review of the NYS program, including its enforcement components,
to determine its consistency with requisite state program elements as
stated in 40 CFR 124. Review criteria requires: (1) that the State has
the necessary authorities; and (2) that the State has "sufficient" man-
power and resources available to carry out the program. This requires a
clear delineation by the State of staff responsibilities and the qualifica-
tions needed to adequately accomplish those responsibilities.
By mutual agreement EPA Region II personnel continue to perform,
to some extent, monitoring/inspection activities within New York State.
The parameters used by the Region to determine inspection/enforcement
manpower needs include:
(1) 22 workdays per permit. This includes sampling
and analytical functions, report writing, and
enforcement hearings.
(2) Major facilities are inspected annually; minor
facilities, as time permits.
(3) Two people are usually assigned to the inspection
of a small facility, 4 people to a larger facility.
(4) An inspection requires 2 days. (Samples are
24-hour, flow-rated composites. One sample
is taken from each influent and effluent).
-------
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
STATE/AGENCY
Kentucky Department
of Natural Resources
and Environmental
Protection
Kansas Dept. of Health
and Environment
Florida Dept. of
Environmental Regulation
Nebraska Dept. of
Environmental Control
Mississippi State
Board of Health
Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
Washington Dept.
of Ecology
New Jersey Dept. of
Environmental Pro-
tection
Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency
Massachusetts Div. of
Water Pollution Control
Oregon Department
of Environmental
Quality
-34-
LIST OF CONTACTS
CONTACT
Carl Patterson
John Goetz
Paul Beam
Santandor
Borros
David Lee
Donald E. Day
Tom Cook
Dr. Ron
Buchanan
Gary Pulford
Steve DeGabriele
Illinois Environmental Mike Rapp
Protection Agency
Fred S. Bromfeld
Kew York State Department Paul Co'.sn terms n
of Environmental
Conservation
California Department
of Health
Maryland Department
of Natural Resources
James Stahler
William Chicca
and others
POSITION
Director of
Hazardous Waste
Environmental
Engineer
Senior Groundwater
Geologist
Hazardous Waste
Project Director
Public Health
Engineer
TELEPHONE Mo.
502-564-6716
913-862-9360
904-488-9915
402-471-2186
601-354-6616
Chief,Office of 614-466-8934
Land Pollution Control
Chief, Hazardous
Waste Management
Chief, Hazardous
Waste Program
Chief, Sanitary
Landfills Section
Senior Sanitary
Engineer, Hazardous
Waste Section
206-753-2849
609-292-8609
612-296-7319
617-727-3367
Manager, Hazardous 217-782-6760
Waste Unit
Supervisor, Hazar- 503-229-5913
dous Waste Section
Senior Sanitary 518-457-6605
Engineer, Division
of Solid Waste Manage-
ment
Consultant, Waste
Management Unit
Chief, Industrial
and Hazardous
Substances Section
916-322-2337
301-269-2230
-------
-35-
I
I
I Texas Water Jay Snow Acting Director 512-475-6625
Quality Board and others Solid Waste Branch
EPA Region II Richard Tish Attorney, Water 212-264-4877
I (regarding NPDES) Enforcement Branch
Dr. Richard Branch Chief, 201-321-6685
I Spear Surveillance and
Analysis
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-36-
APPENDIX C:
RATIONALE FOR GUIDANCE
CRITERIA
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-37-
Rationale For Criteria
The information contained in this appendix provides the specific
rationale/supporting data utilized in developing the criteria as presented
in the Guidance section. It should be noted that due to the limited
availability of data and due to the range of data that v/ere obtained,
in certain instances no standard was readily observable; and some degree of
professional judgment was employed to formalize specific criteria.
In addition, data from certain states were considered more
reliable due to the advanced status of those particular state programs.
These states included Kansas, New Jersey, New York, Maryland, Texas and
California.
The specific rationale will be keyed to Tables 3, 4 and 5 in the
Guidance section of this report. The available data are presented in the
text and in tabular form in the Data Summary section and in Appendix A.
Rationales for the criteria developed in Table 3 are as follows:
For the recommended inspection frequency for generators, two states currently
sample this type of facility with inspections ranging from twice per year
at the most to once every two years. For transporter inspections,
several states spot-check transporters at treatment/storage/disposal
facilities. For treatment/storage/disposal facilities half of the states
surveyed have monthly inspections. Inspection frequency ranged from weekly
to annually depending on the size and type of facility.
Rationales for the criteria developed in Table 4 are as follows:
For the types of waste indicated for sampling under the sample category
column, the rationales utilized for selecting these waste points are
based specifically upon RCRA legislation and current state sampling programs.
Sampling analytical techniques are indicated as variable for each facility
category since only a limited number of analyses would be required at any
particular site and no one list of analytical procedures could be appli-
cable to a variety of facilities. To keep sampling costs at a minimum,
analyses must be selected specifically for each site or type of site.
For the recommended state sampling frequency for generators,
states have yet to implement sampling programs. Generally speaking, the
state sample per year was fait to be tiie iiiinimLcn acceptable given the
constraints of the available resources to sample the large number of
generators. Self-monitoring frequency of two times per year was felt to
be the minimum acceptable rate without placing an undue burden on manufac-
turing enterprises. However, the range of self-monitoring required should
vary widely depending on the type of facility and the variability of
waste output.
Transporter sampling frequency will also vary widely and should
be utilized as a check of the manifest system. Self-monitoring has not
been proposed by any of the states and need not be required since the
manifest system has been designed to adequately identify in-transit
hazardous wastes.
-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
State sampling frequencies for treatment/storage/disposal sites
generally varies on a case-by-case basis with respect to most current
state programs. Three states currently require quarterly self-monitoring
and one state monthly self-monitoring.
Rationales for the criteria developed in Table 5 are based upon
the data shown in Table 2. Current inspection manpower per inspection
per facility averaged approximately four days for the surveyed states.
Total personnel required was approximately double the inspection manpower
requirements.
The manpower-mix developed in Table 6 was derived in part from
data available from the Texas program, as follows: engineering
disciplines, 27 percent; hydrologist, 12 percent; geologist, 6 percent;
biologist, 6 percent; chemist, 6 percent; administrative personnel,
9 percent; management personnel, 4 percent; and attorneys, 30 percent.
------- |