. - -f
'" >-"* "';"-,?? ... " -Jl -'*.
.*.-- " w-'-^l./-ğ- .' -. -- . . -
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
30
:E%EĞA._
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Special Report Number E1DSGO-05-5003-0400011
Follow-up on Report Number 8000855 (Formerly 80355);
EPA's Program to Control Exports of Hazardous Waste
/;' /. . /
Kenneth A. Konz <..,'-' >>
Acting Assistant Inspector General
for Audit
James M. Strock
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Don R. Clay
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Timothy B. Atkeson
Assistant Adminstrator for
International Activities
INTRODUCTION
We have completed a special review under authority of the
Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, to report on Agency
progress on implementing recommendations in a prior audit report,
The specific objectives of our review were to determine whether:
o Agency management took the corrective actions as directed in
their response to audit recommendations;
o Corrective actions were implemented in accordance with the
Agency's action plan and milestone dates; and
o Corrective actions taken were effective in correcting the
deficiencies noted in the audit report.
-------
Our Northern Audit Division conducted all fieldwork from
December 11, 1989 to February 16, 1990. We performed our
fieldwork at EPA's (1) National Enforcement and Investigation
Center's offices in Denver, Colorado; (2) Office of International
Activities (OIA); and (3) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response (OSWER). We interviewed EPA officials and a U.S.
Customs Service official, and reviewed and evaluated policies,
procedures and practices.
This report summarizes our review of the Agency's actions in
resolving the problems we previously identified. We found the
Agency acted responsibly to implement corrective actions which
will better control the export of hazardous waste. In addition,
we have included other actions that the Agency can take to
further strengthen the program to control exports of hazardous
waste. We ask that you provide us, within 90 days, a report on
the actions you have taken to remedy the unresolved issues. If
your proposed actions are not fully implemented, please describe
the actions that are ongoing and provide a timetable for
completion.
Should your staff have any questions, please have them contact
Anthony Carrollo, Divisional Inspector General for Audit,
Northern Division,- on (FTS) 353-2486.
-------
BACKGROUND
EPA has identified the improper management of hazardous waste as
a serious environmental problem in the United States. The
mismanagement of such waste has had tragic consequences. The
Agency has on file hundreds of cases of damage to human health
and the environment that resulted from the indiscriminate dumping
or other improper management of hazardous waste.
Recognizing that improper management of hazardous waste can
extend beyond the- nation's boundaries, EPA promulgated
regulations in February 1930 under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA), which placed certain requirements on
exporters of hazardous waste in light of the special
circumstances involved in international shipments. These
regulations included a requirement that exporters notify EPA
prior to the initial shipment of hazardous waste to each foreign
country in a reporting year. The notification requirement
assisted EPA in tracking exports of hazardous waste. However,
the foreign country was not required to give prior written
consent to EPA before shipment of the waste. Thus, EPA had no
authority to prohibit the export of hazardous waste if the
foreign country objected to its receipt.
Subsequently, Congress became concerned that EPA's regulations
were inadequate to address the present and potential
environmental, health, and foreign problem which occurs when
wastes are exported to nations which do not wish to receive them
or lack sufficient information to manage them properly. Congress
also expressed concern that the failure to effectively regulate
exports could create a loophole for circumvention of Federal
hazardous waste'laws.
Congress acted to strengthen the nation's hazardous waste laws
and, in November 1984, the President signed into law the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). The HSWA
was a major new statute that significantly changed the way this
nation managed hazardous waste including the export of. such
waste.
In August 1986, EPA promulgated final regulations to implement
the HSWA. The final regulations were consistent with the HSWA
requirements. Congress also intended that EPA should work with
the U.S. Customs Service (Customs) to establish an effective
program to monitor and spot check international shipments of
hazardous waste to assure compliance with the statute's
requirements. EPA was to consult with Customs in order to
develop a monitoring and spot-check program.
-------
Various EPA program offices have responsibilities for components
of the hazardous waste export program. The Office of
International Activities (OIA) has responsibility for developing
policies and procedures for the direction of the Agency's
international programs and activities subject to United States
foreign policy. Therefore, OIA has a major responsibility in EPA
and within the Federal government for all aspects of Federal
hazardous waste export policy, including the development of new
regulations and the implementation of export notification and
consent procedures, as required under RCRA.
The Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring (OECM), also
has responsibility for the hazardous waste export program. OECM
staff assisted in drafting the hazardous waste export
regulations. OECM also negotiated agreements with Customs and
the Bureau of Census to better ensure compliance with the
hazardous waste export regulations. Additionally, the office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) has responsibility for
drafting regulations and strategies for administering RCRA.
Results of Previously Issued Report
On March 31, 1988, we issued audit report number 80855 on the
Agency's program to control exports of hazardous waste. Our
report stated that hundreds of tons of exported hazardous waste
were not handled in accordance with the Agency's regulations.
Accordingly, the Agency needed a coordinated effort to ensure
compliance with its hazardous waste export regulations.
We recommended in our audit report that the Agency develop and
implement (1) an enforcement strategy to identify those exporters
in noncompliance with the Agency regulations, (2) a joint
nationwide program with Customs to monitor and spot check
hazardous waste exports, (3) procedures to ensure that exporters
provide complete descriptions of how hazardous wastes will be
handled in receiving countries, and (4) stronger procedures to
notify exporters when a receiving country objects to the export.
In response to our report, the Assistant Administrators for OECM,
OSWER, and OIA's Acting Associate Administrator essentially
agreed with our audit findings and recommendations.
RESULTS OF FOLLOWUP REVIEW
This section of our report summarizes the Agency's corrective
actions to implement our recommendations in the prior audit
report. We found the Agency acted responsibly to implement
corrective actions which will better control the exports of
hazardous waste. In addition, we have included other actions
that the Agency can take to complete its corrective actions.
-------
1. OECM Needed To Complete An Enforcement Strategy
Our report recommended the Agency complete an enforcement
strategy for the hazardous waste export program. We also
recommended the Agency take appropriate enforcement responses to
instances of noncompliance.
The Agency completed an enforcement strategy on March 23, 1983,
to (1) improve the level of compliance by the regulated community
and (2) ensure that appropriate enforcement actions 'are
vigorously pursued. The strategy included procedures for
evaluating (1) notifications of intent to export, (2) manifests
accompanying export shipments, and (3) annual reports to ensure
compliance with regulations and international agreements. The
enforcement strategy also called for referral of violations of
export requirements by NEIC to the appropriate EPA regional
office for enforcement followup.
As a result of the enforcement strategy, NEIC had referred a
number of export violations to the regions for enforcement
actions. Regional officials have taken enforcement actions
ranging from warning letters to administrative orders with
penalties ranging from $5000 to $41,500. Cumulatively, the
regions also issued seven Letters of Warning/Notices of
Violation. These are informal administrative enforcement
actions. These letters and notices set out specific information
needed to correct deficiencies with export requirements. In
addition, there have been six compliance orders issued with
penalties. Three additional enforcement actions are pending for
other manifest, notification, or annual report violations.
NEIC officials have also referred indications of criminal
activity to NEIC's Office of Criminal Investigations for further
investigation.
To improve compliance with the requirement that exporters file an
annual report with EPA, NEIC sent letters requesting annual
reports to about 300 companies that had notified EPA of their
intent to export hazardous wastes to Canada in 1987 and/or 1988.
NEIC reminded these companies that they are required to file an
annual report if they actually exported hazardous wastes. As a
result, the number of annual reports has increased from 70 in
1987 to about 300 in 1988.
The Agency has acted responsibly to implement corrective actions
in response to our recommendation. As a result, the Agency took
enforcement actions, including penalties, for instances of
noncompliance with the export regulations.
-------
2 EPA Needed A Joint Inspection _Proqram
With The U.S. Customs Service
Our report recommended that EPA work closely with Customs to
implement a joint inspection program of hazardous waste exports.
This included training Customs inspectors to inform them of
hazardous waste export regulations and provide them additional
information that would assist Customs in carrying out their
responsibilities.
Our followup review showed the Agency coordinated with Customs to
monitor and spotcheck hazardous waste exports at ports of exit,
In addition, the Agency's activities with Customs included (1)
reinforcing procedures for collecting manifests at ports of exit,
(2) training Customs inspectors, and (3) developing a waste
exporter profile.
NEIC officials initiated a program of border checks of hazardous
waste shipments with Customs in September 1987, in El Paso,
Texas. At the time we completed our review, NEIC and Customs had
conducted spot checks of hazardous waste shipments at 15
locations along the Mexican and Canadian borders.
In addition, to better ensure that Customs implemented manifest
collection procedures at key ports of exit, NEIC staff visited
Customs offices at 17 Mexican and Canadian border locations to
explain manifest requirements. A manifest must accompany all
export shipments of hazardous waste in essentially the same
manner as domestic shipments. EPA regional export coordinators
also visited other ports of exit to explain manifest
requirements. As a result, there was a significant increase in
the number of manifests collected by Customs. Customs collected
400 manifests in 1987, mainly at one port in Vermont. Customs
collected about 4,700 manifests from 12 ports in 1989.
t
NEIC has also revised the Acknowledgment of Consent
(Acknowledgment) letter to include more specific information on
the type and quantity of hazardous waste that the receiving
country agreed to accept from the exporter. The Agency sends the
Acknowledgment letter to the exporter who in turn must attach a
copy to the manifest accompanying the shipment.
Prior to mid-1988, Acknowledgment letters were simple form
letters which referenced the notification but did not contain
waste specific information. Although Acknowledgment letters are
required to be attached to the manifests, they lacked specific
information for Customs inspectors to determine if the actual
hazardous wastes exported agreed with the Acknowledgment letters.
Acknowledgment letters with more detailed information now help
Customs inspectors determine if the actual hazardous waste
exported agrees with the Acknowledgment letter.
-------
To help train Customs inspectors, EPA Region 6 developed a
training course in 1987, and NEIC revised this course in 1933.
NEIC officials advised us that they have given the course to
about 500 inspectors at 20 border locations. The course contains
essential information on hazardous waste export regulations. The
training course also contains a general waste exporter profile
that details the types of (1) wastes being exported, (2) waste
transport vehicles, and (3) waste containers used by exporters.
In addition, information on waste transporters known to use
specific ports of exit and other location specific data are a
part of the course. Further, OWPE revised the RCRA Inspection
Manual, used during training, to include a section on the export
of hazardous waste.
The Agency's corrective actions taken in response to our
recommendations have resulted in a close program of coordination
with Customs. A joint EPA and Customs program to perform
spotchecks of hazardous waste shipments at several border
locations will help ensure that exporters are complying with the
export regulations. In addition, training of Customs inspectors
has improved their performance in helping EPA control hazardous
waste exports. As discussed on pages 8 and 9 of this report, EPA
needs to finalize the draft joint strategy document which details
the responsibilities of EPA and Customs relative to the hazardous
waste export program. Finalizing the joint enforcement strategy
will help ensure that Customs keeps its commitment to assist EPA
in controlling hazardous waste exports.
3. Exporters Should Provide More Complete Descriptions Of How
wastes Will Be Handled In The Receiving Country
Our report recommended that EPA implement a review of
notifications to ensure that exporters provide a more complete
description of the manner in which hazardous waste is to be
handled in the receiving country. We also recommended that for
incomplete notifications the exporter should be notified that a
complete description must be provided in order for EPA to process
the notification.
The Agency has implemented a technical review of notifications of
intent to export, which in part includes a review to ensure that
the exporter provides adequate information on the manner of
handling of the wastes in the receiving country. To help perform
this technical review, NEIC developed a computer data base which
is used to track the administrative processing of notifications.
When the Agency receives a notification, it is assigned a serial
number and entered in the data base. The notification is
reviewed for completeness of required data. If any data are
missing, OIA requires submission of the data. NEIC records
-------
showed that about 10 percent of the 1989 notifications required
contacts with notifiers to obtain required data, including
instances where additional information was needed of how the
waste would be handled in the receiving country.
Additionally, to better ensure that exporters provide complete
descriptions of how exported wastes will be handled in the
receiving country, OIA and NEIC developed a suggested
notification form and sample notifications for the waste
industry. A problem' in the past was a lack of a standard
notification form or instructions for submitting a notification
of intent to export hazardous waste. OIA and NEIC officials
presented their suggested notification form to key waste industry
representatives and the suggested form, according to NEIC
officials, 'has been adopted by the industry.
The Agency's corrective actions taken in response to our
recommendations have resulted in better procedures to ensure that
exporters provide complete information.
4. EPA Needed Stronger Procedures, To Notify Exporters And
Regional Offices Of A Receiving Country's Objection
Our report recommended that OIA strengthen procedures for
notifying exporters when the receiving country objects to an
intended export. Our recommendation included that OIA use
certified mail to notify exporters and contacting the appropriate
regional office.
In response to our recommendation, OIA strengthened its
procedures. OIA notifies the exporter by sending a copy of the
objection to the exporter by certified mail. OIA also keeps a
copy of the objection letter and the Postal Service return
receipt (green) card for certified mail. If the objection
involves more than a minor procedural problem, OIA notifies NEIC
and the EPA regional office where the exporter is located of the .
objection. During the course of our review, we discussed other
refinements to OIA's internal control procedures. OIA officials
stated they would implement these additional refinements to their
procedures.
'The Agency's corrective actions taken in response to our
recommendations have resulted in better documentation and
procedures to notify exporter and regional offices of a receiving
country's objection.
ADDITIONAL ACTIONS NEEDED
The following section identifies certain additional actions the
Agency should complete. These additional actions are identified
for the official program office that needs to complete the
action(s).
8
-------
1. OECM Needs To Finalize the Customs/EPA Joint Strategy
The Customs/EPA Joint Strategy (Joint Strategy) had not been
signed and formally agreed to by sa.iior Customs officials, even
though EPA forwarded a draft of the Joint Strategy to Customs in
June 1989 for review. Unless senior Customs officials review and
sign the Joint Strategy, EPA has less assurance of Customs
continued commitment of assistance in controlling hazardous waste
exports. Having a formalized Joint Strategy will better ensure
that Customs will be accountable for its responsibilities and
fulfill its commitment to EPA of assistance in controlling
exports of hazardous waste.
In their March 8, 1988, response to our draft report on EPA's
Program to Control Exports of Hazardous Waste, OECM officials
stated they would develop a Joint Enforcement Strategy with
Customs to address enforcement activities specific to Customs.
EPA's Enforcement Strategy recognized that a separate Joint
Strategy document agreed to by Customs was important to enforcing
the hazardous waste export regulations. The Enforcement Strategy
explained that a separate Joint Strategy document with Customs
would define specific responsibilities for Customs such as in
collecting manifests and participating in a program of
spotchecking hazardous waste export shipments at border
locations.
The Agency acted responsibly to prepare a draft Joint Strategy
document and forwarded a draft to Customs for review in June
1989. However, at the time we completed our followup review,
Customs officials had neither returned the draft with comments
nor had signed the document.
We discussed the status of the Joint Strategy with Customs and
NEIC officials. Customs' National Exodus Program Manager
explained that the Joint Strategy had not been reviewed and
signed by senior Customs officials because of turnover at the
senior management level at Customs.
NEIC officials explained that, although the Joint Strategy had
not been signed by senior Customs officials, the procedures
called for by the strategy were in place, followed, and working
at a lower operational level since November 1988. The Joint
Strategy updates the responsibilities for both Customs and EPA
called for in the December 1986 Memorandum of Understanding.
On March 27, 1990, an OECM official advised us that EPA is
sending a revised draft of the Joint Strategy to Customs. The
OECM official explained that senior Customs officials are now
prepared to review the draft Joint Strategy.
-------
Recommendation
We recommend that the OECM Assistant Administrator initiate and
maintain monthly contact/fol-lowup with Customs to ensure
satisfactory finalization of the Joint Strategy.
2. Regional Reviews By OSWER Will Help
Ensure Export Regulations Are Followed
OSWER reviews of regional RCRA programs did not include steps to
ensure that regional and State RCRA inspections of companies
include checks for compliance with the export regulations.
Consequently, OSWER has less assurance that the inspections
called for in the NEIC Enforcement Strategy were performed by EPA
regions and authorized State RCRA programs.
The NEIC Enforcement Strategy relies on regional and State
inspections of companies that are targeted by EPA's Land Ban
Strategy. The Land Ban Strategy was developed by OSWER's Office
of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) in 1987. The Strategy
defines a national strategy for targeting generators and
treatment, storage and disposal (TSD) facilities. These
generators and TSD facilities handle restricted wastes, hazardous
wastes that cannot be disposed of in or on land unless specific
treatment requirements are met. NEIC's enforcement strategy
explains that these generators and TSD facilities handle a large
volume of wastes currently exported. Accordingly, the
enforcement strategy States that compliance inspections of
facilities targeted by the Land Ban Strategy can identify
facilities that export hazardous wastes but are not in full
compliance with export regulations.
NEIC officials stated that they have not seen any referrals from
State and regional RCRA inspections. OWPE reviews of regional
RCRA programs would assist NEIC officials in determining whether
regional and State RCRA inspections include checks for compliance
with export regulations. Reviews could also alert NEIC to a need
to provide additional training or information to regions and
States.
We discussed this issue with OWPE officials. They explained that
they are responsible for performing reviews of regional RCRA
programs. OWPE officials stated they finished their last round
of reviews during 1988. However, they postponed reviews in 1989
because they were waiting for the appointment of a new Assistant
Administrator. They intend to begin the review of regional
programs in 1990. Officials stated, pending concurrence of the
Assistant Administrator, that they would include in their
regional reviews certain steps that would determine if Regions
and authorized State RCRA inspectors are checking for
noncompliance with export regulations. Officials further stated
that if the reviews are not revised to include the steps, they
10
-------
would ensure that some other mechanism would be developed and
used to follow-up with regions concerning this issue. OWPE's
planned actions will assist NEIC in assessing the success of the
Enforcement Strategy and implementing any changes if necessary.
Recommendation
We. recommend that the OSWER Assistant Administrator conduct
regional reviews with steps to determine whether regional and
State RCRA inspections of companies include checks for .compliance
with the hazardous waste export regulations.
3. Region 1'sAttendance at OSWER Training Will
Help Ensure Compliance with Export Regulations
Region 1 and States in Region 1 sent few employees to OWPE
sponsored training on the hazardous waste export regulations and
inspection procedures. Our review of OWPE's attendance lists for
the training course showed that over 200 persons from nine
regions, thirty States, and six other organizations attended the
four training sessions (02/89, 05/89, 09/89, and 12/89) that were
jointly conducted by NEIC and OWPE. The training was held at the
RCRA Inspector Institute in Denver during 1989.
The attendance records show that of the 33 States that attended
training, Connecticut and Massachusetts were not among them. A
NEIC official stated that Connecticut and Massachusetts have
90 percent of the hazardous waste export activity. Also, only
three employees from Region 1 attended OWPE export of hazardous
waste training. The number of Region 1 employees is low when
compared to other regions with less activity and workload. For
example, Region 8 with far less export activity sent seven
employees. Region 1 and the.States of Connecticut and Massachu-
setts need to send employees to OWPE's training, Without proper
training, there is less assurance that regional and State
employees will detect noncompliance with the hazardous waste
export regulations.
We discussed this issue with OWPE officials. They agreed that
Region 1 and the States of Connecticut and Massachusetts should
attend the training. They stated that they invite and encourage
all regions and States to attend the training, and will continue
to do so, but they cannot compel their attendance. OWPE uses a
mailing list of 1500 persons that includes inspectors, regions
and States to notify them 2 to 3 months prior to the scheduled
training. OWPE confirmed that Region 1 and Connecticut and
Massachusetts were on the mailing list. Additionally, OWPE
announces this training in its EPA Newsletter/ the "RCRA
Inspector News".
We contacted Region 1 officials to determine why (1) they did not
send more employees to the training and (2) the States of
Connecticut and Massachusetts did not attend the training.
11
-------
Region 1 did not send more employees to the training because the
course covers all of RCRA and was designed primarily for new
employees. The three persons that attended the training were new
employees. Also, they believed it would not be cost-effective to
send experienced employees to the training when 'only about 25 to
30 minutes are spent on the portion concerning exports of
hazardous waste. Region 1 officials stated that a modified
training course developed by NEIC/OWPE covering only exports of
hazardous waste would be useful to both the region and the
States.
Region 1 officials were unaware that the States of Connecticut
and Massachusetts had not attended the training. They believed
the reason the States did not attend the training was because of
funding problems and a lack of out-of-State travel funds.
Region 1's hazardous waste export coordinator advised us that
Region 1 will be conducting an enforcement training session
during April 1990, and intends to invite its States. The
coordinator stated he would add a section to the agenda to cover
the Agency's hazardous waste export program.
Recommendation
We recommend that the OSWER Assistant Administrator emphasize the
importance of OWPE's training on hazardous waste exports to
Region 1, Connecticut and Massachusetts officials. If Region 1
develops an addendum to its enforcement training session, the
Assistant Administrator should, through oversight or by providing
Headquarters representatives for the session, ensure it is
consistent with OWPE's training regarding exports of hazardous
waste.
12
-------
DISTRIBUTION
The Inspector General (A-109)
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources
Management (PM-208)
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring (LE-133)
Assistant Administrator for International Activities (A-106)
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (WH-562A)
Comptroller (PM-225)
Resources Management Staff (PM-208)
Agency Followup Official, Attn: Director, Resources Management
Division (PM-225)
Audit Followup Coordinator, Attn: Program Operations Support
Staff (PM-225)
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations (A-101)
Regional Administrators
Director, National Enforcement Investigations Center
13
------- |