-------
-------
Bffl
-o
6
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
NORTHERN DIVISION
77 WEST JACKSON BOULEVARD
CHICAGO, IL 60604-3590
March 23,1999
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Audit Report No. E1DSD8-05-0036-9100110
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Programs
Significant Non-Complier Enforcement
FROM:
TO:
Anthony C. Carrollo
Divisional Inspector
Northern Divisio:
iral for Audits
David A. Ullrich
Acting Regional Administrator
Region 5
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
Attached is the final report on Region 5's and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (IEPA)
identification and enforcement of significant non-compliers under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act. We found that, overall, Region 5 and IEPA were appropriately identifying
and taking enforcement actions against significant non-compliers. We also found that Region 5
and IEPA need to improve the accuracy of Resource Conservation and Recovery Information
System data.
This audit report contains findings that describe problems the Office of Inspector General has
identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. As such, this audit report represents the
opinion of the OIG. Final determinations on matters in the report will be made by EPA
managers in accordance with established EPA audit resolution procedures. Accordingly, the
findings contained in this audit report do not necessarily represent the final EPA position and are
not binding upon EPA in any enforcement proceedings brought by EPA or the Department of
Justice.
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with EPA Order 2750 you as the action official are required to provide us with a
written response to the audit report, including finalized corrective actions and milestone dates,
within 90 days of the final audit report date. In responding to the draft report, your office
provided draft corrective actions, with milestone dates, for the recommendation. Once finalized,
the action plan with comply with our recommendations.
-------
We have no objections to the further release of this report to the public.
We appreciate the cooperation you, your staff, and the IEPA staff provided during this review.
Should you or your staff have any questions, please contact Kimberly O'Lone, Audit Manager, at
312-886-3186.
Attachment
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
RESULTS IN BRIEF
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an audit of
Region 5's and Illinois Environmental Protection Agency's (IEPA)
identification and enforcement of significant non-compliers under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We
selected this audit because similar OIG reviews indicated that
enforcement of RCRA regulations in other states may not always
be consistent with, or as stringent as, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) enforcement. Region 5's and lEPA's role is to
ensure that facilities are effectively managing hazardous waste.
This management includes reducing the toxicity and amount of
hazardous waste generated to minimize releases into the
environment.
The overall objective was to evaluate significant non-complier
(SNC) identification and enforcement at the state and regional
level. The specific objectives were:
1. Did the classification of the violator and the related
enforcement action comply with the enforcement policy in
effect at the time?
2. Was the classification correctly recorded in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS)?
3. Did EPA or the state ensure that the facility returned to
compliance, and was this adequately documented?
4. If the enforcement was performed under the 1996
enforcement policy, was the action timely?
Overall, Region 5 arid IEPA were appropriately identifying and
taking enforcement actions against SNCs. Specifically, Region 5
and IEPA ensured that the: (1) violator classification and related
enforcement actions complied with policy, (2) SNC classification
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
was usually correctly recorded in RCRIS, and (3) facilities returned
to compliance and that this was adequately documented.
Enforcement actions were not always timely, but in all but one
case the delays were justifiable under EPA's Hazardous Waste
Civil Enforcement Response Policy. Also, as part of its annual
enforcement activities, IEPA has taken the initiative to visit
facilities that are not fully regulated under RCRA. IEPA checks
how these facilities are handling their hazardous waste through a
procedure IEPA calls a compliance assistance survey.
Region 5 and IEPA need to improve the accuracy of RCRIS data
entry. Forty-two percent of the Region 5 files and thirty-six
percent of the IEPA files had some information that did not agree
with the database. RCRIS inaccuracies were due to: (1) inspectors
not submitting documents for entry, (2) documents being filed
prior to entry, and (3) human error. As a result, EPA and IEPA do
not have complete data for determining facilities' compliance
histories and each agency's enforcement activities.
RCRIS also did not accurately reflect lEPA's compliance
assistance survey activities. RCRIS did not reflect: (1) letters to
facilities stating the deficiencies identified and (2) deficiencies
corrected during the surveys. Accurate information helps to show
that IEPA is taking additional measures to ensure that more
facilities are taking the appropriate steps to prevent hazardous
waste releases. Also, to measure the facilities' willingness to
comply, IEPA may want to consider adding a timeframe for return
to compliance in its letters for compliance assistance activities.
RECOMMENDATION
SUGGESTED
IMPROVEMENTS
We recommend that the Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5,
establish specific procedures for data entry to ensure adequate
controls over Regional and state RCRIS input.
Although IEPA is not required to conduct compliance assistance
surveys, we suggest that the Director, IEPA, revise compliance
assistance survey procedures to assure that: (1) information is
11
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
accurately coded in RCRIS, (2) all deficiencies are entered, and (3)
letters to facilities include timeframes for corrective action.
AGENCY ACTIONS
STATE ACTIONS
OIG EVALUATION
In responding (Appendix 1) to our draft report, the Acting
Regional Administrator, Region 5, acknowledged that continuous
improvement is essential in carrying out established procedures for
data entry to ensure adequate controls over Regional and state
RCRIS input. The Acting Regional Administrator provided a draft
fiscal year 1999 Action Plan which includes milestone dates for
RCRIS activities.
In response (Appendix 2) to our suggested improvements, IEPA
has revised its compliance assistance survey procedures to ensure:
(1) activities are more accurately reflected in RCRIS, (2) all
deficiencies are entered in RCRIS, and (3) facilities are provided
with a timeframe for returning to compliance.
Region 5's Action Plan, when finalized and implemented, will
address the recommendation in this report. IBPA's actions address
the suggested improvements in this report.
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
in
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compilers
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i
ABBREVIATIONS vi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology 2
2 SNCs PROPERLY IDENTIFIED AND ENFORCED AGAINST 3
Classification and Enforcement Complied with Policy , 3
SNC Classification Correctly Recorded 4
Ensured and Documented Return to Compliance 5
Enforcement Action Not Always Timely 6
Conclusion 7
3 OTHER MATTERS: RCRJS DATA INACCURATE 8
RCRIS Data Inaccurate 8
Region 5 9
IEPA 10
Compliance Assistance Survey Data Not Accurate in RCRIS 11
Surveys Encourage Proper Waste Handling 11
RCRIS Code Needed For Survey Actions 12
Corrected Deficiencies Not Recorded 13
Letters Should Include Timeframe 13
Conclusion 13
Recommendation 14
Suggested Improvements 14
Agency Actions 14
State Actions 14
OIG Evaluation 15
EXHIBIT
Scope, Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage 16
IV
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
APPENDICES
1 Region 5 Response to Draft Report 19
2 IEPA Response to Draft Report 33
3 Distribution 34
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
ABBREVIATIONS
EPA U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
IEPA Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG Office of Inspector General
Policy Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RCRIS Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
SNC Significant Non-Complier
VI
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compilers
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
PURPOSE
BACKGROUND
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) performed an audit of
significant non-complier (SNC) identification and enforcement
under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). We
selected this area for review because similar OIG reviews in
Regions 1,3, and 10 indicated that state enforcement of RCRA
regulations may not always be consistent with, or as stringent as,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement. Our
overall objective was to evaluate SNC identification and
enforcement at the state and regional level. The specific objectives
were to answer the questions:
1. Did the classification of the violator and the related
enforcement action comply with the enforcement policy in
effect at the time?
2. Was the classification correctly recorded in the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Information System (RCRIS)?
3. Did EPA or the state ensure that the facility returned to
compliance, and was it adequately documented?
4. If the enforcement was performed under the 1996
enforcement policy, was the action timely?
Congress enacted RCRA Subtitle C in 1976 to establish a
framework for managing hazardous waste; waste that is capable of
harming human health or the environment. RCRA mandated that
EPA develop a comprehensive set of regulations for hazardous
waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities.
EPA's current Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response
Policy (Policy), effective April 15,1996, establishes two types of
violators under RCRA: SNCs and Secondary Violators. A facility
1
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
that is found to be in violation but does not meet the SNC
definition is a Secondary Violator. SNCs are:
those facilities which have caused actual
exposure or a substantial likelihood of
exposure to hazardous waste or hazardous
waste constituents; are chronic or
recalcitrant violators; or deviate
substantially from the terms of a permit,
order, agreement or from RCRA statutory or
regulatory requirements.
States play a crucial role in implementing the hazardous waste
program. One aspect of implementation is monitoring facilities to
verify that they comply with regulatory requirements. The primary
method of monitoring is through an inspection. Inspections of
hazardous waste facilities may include formally visiting the
handler, reviewing records, taking samples, and observing
operations.
States also have the authority to assist some facilities, such as
small businesses, in complying with regulations. Facilities that
generate less than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste and
less than 1 kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste are
conditionally exempt from full regulation under Subtitle C. Small
quantity generators which generate between 100 and 1000
kilograms of hazardous waste per month are also exempt from full
regulation. IEPA primarily uses compliance assistance to ensure
these facilities are operating in accordance with the regulations.
SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY
We performed our audit in accordance with the U.S. General
Accounting Office's Government Auditing Standards, 1994
Revision, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States,
and included such tests as we saw necessary to complete the
objectives.
For further details on the audit scope, methodology, and prior audit
coverage, see exhibit 1.
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
CHAPTER 2
SNCs Properly Identified
and Enforced Against
CLASSIFICATION AND
ENFORCEMENT
COMPLIED WITH
POLICY
(OBJECTIVE 1)
Region 5 and IEPA generally identified and took appropriate
enforcement actions against SNCs, for the cases we reviewed.
Overall, (1) violator classification and related enforcement actions
complied with the Policy, (2) classifications were correctly
recorded in RCRIS, and (3) return to compliance was ensured and
adequately documented. Also, the enforcement actions were not
always timely, but in all but one case the delays were justifiable
under the Policy.
Region 5 and IEPA correctly classified violators and took
appropriate enforcement actions for most of the cases in our
sample. These actions ensured that facilities were complying with
RCRA requirements. For example, as a result of lEPA's
enforcement actions, unknown waste was tested to determine if it
was hazardous. The waste could then be properly handled to
minimize releases into the environment.
The 1987 and 1996 Policies explain the requirements for
identifying and providing appropriate enforcement of SNCs. Each
Policy defines classes of violators and prescribes the minimally
acceptable enforcement action. The 1996 Policy contains two
classes of violators: secondary violators and SNCs. The Policy
calls for an informal enforcement action, at a minimum, for a
secondary violator. An informal enforcement response recites the
violations and includes a schedule for returning the facility to full
compliance. The Policy calls for a formal enforcement response
for an SNC. A formal response mandates compliance and seeks
injunctive relief to ensure that the facility will promptly return to
full compliance. Economic sanctions, such as penalties, should be
incorporated into the formal enforcement response, as appropriate.
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Region 5 and IEPA properly classified the violators and took
enforcement action in accordance with the Policy for all but one
case. See table 1,
Table 1: Proper Classification
and Enforcement
Properly Classified
Proper Enforcement Action
Region 5
12
12
IEPA
27
26
For the 12 Region 5 cases reviewed, the Region properly classified
and took related enforcement actions that complied with the Policy
in effect at the time. For IEPA, 26 of the 27 cases complied with
the Policy in effect at the time. While the classification was
correct, IEPA did not take a formal enforcement action for the
remaining case because it involved a paperwork violation that did
not threaten human health or the environment, and the facility was
closing.
SNC CLASSIFICATION
CORRECTLY Region 5 and IEPA usually recorded the proper classification in
RECORDED RCRIS when the facility was an SNC. EPA requires SNCs to be
(OBJECTIVE 2) recorded in RCRIS. EPA uses RCRIS to:
• obtain the data it needs to manage and track the RCRA
enforcement program, and
• review and track the program's progress toward the
Government Performance and Results Act goals.
Therefore, if SNCs are not property designated in RCRIS, it could
lead to erroneous conclusions of RCRA enforcement
accomplishments.
Seven of the twelve Region 5 cases reviewed were SNCs. Four of
the seven cases were correctly designated as SNCs in RCRIS. One
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compilers
case was not entered into RCRIS as required. The other two cases
were recently classified as SNCs, so the RCRIS entries had not
been made prior to our review. Subsequent to our fieldwork,
Region 5 entered all three SNC designations into RCRIS.
For IEPA, 3 of the 27 inspection cases reviewed should have been
recorded as SNCs in RCRIS. While IEPA began to use the new
RCRIS code for SNCs as soon at it was available, RCRIS did not
reflect lEPA's SNC determination for one of the three cases. IEPA
officials corrected this during our review.
ENSURED AND
DOCUMENTED RETURN Region 5 and IEPA ensured and adequately documented return to
TO COMPLIANCE
(OBJECTIVE 3)
compliance for all except two of the facilities that are now
complying with regulations. See table 2. Bringing facilities back
into compliance is needed for the program to effectively reduce
risks to human health and the environment. The Policy provides
guidelines designed to promptly return facilities to compliance
with all applicable RCRA requirements. To document the return to
compliance, both Region 5 and IEPA issue letters to the facilities.
Table 2: Verified and Documented
Return to Compliance
Cases Returned to Compliance
Return to Compliance Verified
Return to Compliance Documented
Region 5
4
4
4
IEPA
22
21
20
For Region 5,4 of the 12 cases reviewed had returned to
compliance, and Region 5 verified and documented the return to
compliance with a letter to the facility.
For IEPA, 22 of the 27 inspection cases reviewed indicated that the
facility had returned to compliance. IEPA verified return to
compliance for 21 cases. For the remaining case, there was no
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
evidence that the facility had returned to compliance. IEPA
officials were following up on this case by requiring the collection
of soil samples. IEPA adequately documented return to
compliance by issuing letters for 20 of the 21 cases. One return to
compliance letter had not been issued since a settlement was being
negotiated with the Attorney General's office.
ENFORCEMENT
ACTION NOT ALWAYS
TIMELY
(OBJECTIVE 4)
Region 5 and IEPA did not always take formal enforcement
actions within the established timeframes. When delays occurred,
however, all but one were justifiable under the Policy. The Policy
establishes a timeframe for taking formal enforcement action.
Untimely enforcement actions create the potential for the
violations to continue to pose a threat to human health and the
environment and do not deter future non-compliance.
The Policy: (1) states that regions and states should meet, to the
extent possible, the standard enforcement response times;
(2) provides for an annual 20 percent exceedence for cases that
involved unique factors; and (3) identifies circumstances that
might prevent an agency from meeting the response times, such as:
potential criminal conduct, cases involving two or more media, or
additional sampling or information requests.
Seven of the twelve Region 5 cases reviewed involved formal
enforcement actions. In one of those seven, Region 5 took a
formal enforcement action within the timeframe established in the
Policy. One case was 17 days late, which we did not consider to
be significant. For the five remaining cases, delays were justifiable
under the Policy.
• Region 5 management decided to try a new approach,
which required revising the documents for two cases to
make them stronger. A novel defense is one factor that
might result in exceeding the response time established in
the Policy.
• Two other cases were multi-media, involving more than
just RCRA violations, and it took longer to get concurrence
Report No. 9100110
-------
CONCLUSION
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
from all EPA programs involved. The Policy states that
cases involving two or more media may exceed the
standard response times.
• One case was delayed because it raised complex questions,
and Region 5 had to make additional information requests.
The Policy recognizes such requests may prevent the
implementing agency from meeting the response time.
For IEPA, formal enforcement action was taken for 3 of the 27
inspection cases. Two of these actions were taken within the
timeframe established in the Policy. The third case involved
criminal conduct, which is recognized in the Policy as requiring
additional time for an enforcement action.
Region 5 and IEPA generally identified and performed appropriate
enforcement against significant non-compliers, thereby effectively
reducing risks to human health and the environment. Region 5 and
IEPA need to continue to ensure that the: (1) violator classification
and related enforcement actions comply with policy, (2) SNC
classification is correctly recorded in RCRIS, (3) return to
compliance is achieved and adequately documented, and (4)
enforcement action is taken timely.
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compilers
CHAPTER 3
Other Matters:
RCRIS Data Inaccurate
RCRIS DATA
INACCURATE
Although Region 5 and IEPA were generally meeting our audit
objectives, we found some other areas that could use improvement.
Region 5 and IEPA could improve the completeness and accuracy
of the hazardous waste database, RCRIS. Forty-two percent of the
Region 5 files and thirty-six percent of the IEPA files reviewed had
some information that did not agree with the database. RCRIS
inaccuracies were the result of: (1) documents not being submitted
for entry, (2) documents being filed prior to entry, and (3) human
error. Data problems result in Region 5, IEPA, and the Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA) having
inaccurate information on facilities' compliance histories and each
agency's enforcement activities. Data problems also result in the
public having access to inaccurate information.
Through compliance assistance surveys, IEPA is encouraging
proper waste handling and bringing more facilities into compliance
than RCRA requires. However, to provide an accurate picture of
the State's enforcement activities, IEPA needs to ensure that
RCRIS reflects: (1) actions taken because of the surveys and (2)
corrected deficiencies. IEPA should also consider adding a
timeframe for action to its letters to facilities.
Region 5's and lEPA's RCRIS data were not always accurate.
RCRIS did not include some information on such things as:
inspections, violations, or facilities' corrections of violations.
RCRIS needs to accurately reflect all enforcement activities to
ensure that EPA and the states have the information they need to
take appropriate future enforcement actions. Accurate information
is also essential for the public to make informed environmental
decisions and for businesses to improve environmental
management practices.
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
The RCRIS database includes information on hazardous waste
generators; transporters; and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities regulated under RCRA Subtitle C. RCRIS is used
interactively at the state and regional level with monthly updates to
the National Oversight database. The national database contains
those data elements which states, EPA regions, and EPA
headquarters have determined to be necessary for RCRA oversight
from a national perspective.
Inaccurate RCRIS data were due to documents not being submitted
for entry, documents being filed prior to entry, and human error.
For example:
• A follow-up compliance assistance survey performed in
September 1997 was not reflected in RCRIS. As a result of
our work, the State's regional inspector submitted the
document to the Springfield office for entry.
• Documentation regarding an inspection and the related
violations was on file, but not in RCRIS.
• A return to compliance date was incorrectly entered as the
date the violation was identified.
If data are missing or inaccurate, Region 5, IEPA, and OECA can
not, for example, properly determine a facility's compliance status
or get an accurate picture of a facility's violation history.
Inaccurate RCRIS information could impact future enforcement. If
RCRIS does not reflect that a violation is a repeat violation, IEPA
may mistakenly take an informal enforcement action when a
formal action may have been more appropriate.
Region 5
Some information in 42 percent (5 of 12) of the Region 5 files
reviewed did not agree with RCRIS. For example:
• A document, dated February 19,1998, indicated that no
RCRA violations were found during a multi-media
inspection at a facility. However, a September 1998
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
ft/tail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
RCRJS printout indicated that RCRA violations were still
pending.
• An enforcement action requesting information was not
entered.
• A September 1998 RCRIS printout showed an incorrect
date for a final compliance order.
Region 5 started correcting the inaccuracies we identified while
our fieldwork was on-going. Region 5 subsequently corrected all
five discrepancies.
IEPA Some information in 36 percent (18 of 50) of the IEPA files
reviewed disagreed with RCRIS data. For example, IEPA did not
enter:
• return to compliance dates for eight facilities. Thus,
although these facilities were now complying with RCRA,
the database showed them as out of compliance.
• follow-up inspections at two facilities, so the database did
not show that these facilities had corrected the problems.
an inspection and the related violations, thereby under-
representing the work IEPA did and making the data
incomplete.
IEPA started correcting the inaccuracies we identified while our
fieldwork was on-going. Of the 18 facilities where some RCRIS
information did not agree with the files, IEPA corrected 14 during
our fieldwork and one was pending. We noted discrepancies but
10
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
did not suggest corrections be made for the remaining three cases
due to specialized circumstances.1
COMPLIANCE
ASSISTANCE SURVEY
DATA NOT ACCURATE
INRCRIS
Surveys Encourage
Proper Waste Handling
RCRIS did not accurately reflect lEPA's compliance assistance
survey activities. IEPA uses compliance assistance surveys to
bring facilities that are not folly regulated under Subtitle C into
compliance. However, RCRIS did not reflect: (1) letters to
facilities stating the deficiencies identified and (2) deficiencies
corrected during the surveys. As a result of our work, Region 5
and IEPA officials established a new RCRIS code that will more
accurately reflect lEPA's actions for compliance assistance
surveys.
IEPA is helping facilities that are not fully regulated effectively
manage hazardous waste. This includes reducing the toxicity and
amount of hazardous waste generated to minimize releases into the
environment. IEPA focuses compliance assistance surveys on
small businesses, such as small or conditionally exempt generators,
that have not previously been inspected since they are not fully
regulated under RCRA. For example, IEPA performed compliance
assistance surveys at a dry cleaner, automotive repair shop,
machine shop, and rock quarry. The surveys focus primarily on
waste handling procedures with some emphasis on pollution
prevention, recycling, and waste minimization. lEPA's goal is to
make more businesses aware of hazardous waste regulations and
help them achieve compliance without the use of penalties or
enforcement. Also, IEPA discontinues a compliance assistance
survey and formally inspects those facilities where a substantial
and imminent danger to public health or the environment is
identified.
One case was one of the first compliance assistance surveys IEPA entered into RCRIS and did not include the
deficiencies identified. Since performing and recording surveys was new, Region 5 and IEPA had not decided how to record
deficiencies. One case was entered as a compliance assistance survey follow-up when the return to compliance was actually
based on a record review. The last case showed a non-financial record review on the same date the significant non-complier
determination was made, but there was no supporting documentation for the review or the determination on file.
11
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compilers
For fiscal year 1997, IEPA performed compliance assistance
surveys at 1,868 facilities. Of the total, 1,696, or 91 percent,
either: (1) were in compliance before lEPA's visit, (2) returned to
compliance during the visit, or (3) returned to compliance after the
visit. See chart 1. IEPA plans to conduct follow-up surveys and
additional compliance assistance surveys at the remaining 172 sites
that are still in non-compliance.
Chart 1:
Fiscal Year 1997
Illinois Compliance Assistance Surveys
In Compliance Before Vistt
Returned to Compliance During Visit
Returned to Compliance After Visit
Still Not In Compliance
RCR1S Code Needed
For Survey Actions
IEPA has procedures for recording any problems noted during
compliance assistance surveys and for issuing letters to the
facilities. IEPA has revised its procedures due to internal issues as
well as issues we identified.
OIG, Region 5, and IEPA officials agreed that a RCRIS code
identifying an action that is less than informal enforcement would
be more reflective of IEPA's actual actions for compliance
assistance surveys. Because IEPA is monitoring facilities that are
not fully regulated, IEPA views the problems identified as
deficiencies, not violations. The state records the compliance
assistance survey and any deficiencies in RCRIS. It then issues
letters to the facilities which indicate any concerns noted and
recommended corrective actions. However, it did not record these
letters in RCRIS. Since the goal of compliance assistance is to
achieve compliance without the threat of enforcement, IEPA did
not want RCRIS to reflect the letter as an informal enforcement
12
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compilers
action. However, not recording the action in RCRIS left the
database incomplete. Based on our work, Region 5 and IEPA
established a code, effective December 18, 1998, to reflect actions
taken for compliance assistance surveys.
Corrected Deficiencies
Not Recorded
Letters Should
Include Timeframe
CONCLUSION
IEPA does not record deficiencies corrected during compliance
assistance surveys in RCRIS. This is because IEPA uses the date
of the return to compliance letter, rather than the actual return to
compliance date, to reflect a facility's actions. As a result, Region
5, IEPA, and OECA can not get an accurate history of compliance
for a facility. If a facility is cited for additional problems in the
future, the history of violations is important for determining the
appropriate actions to take.
For the 23 IEPA compliance assistance surveys reviewed, only
4 included a return to compliance timeframe in the letter sent to the
facility. Because these facilities are not fully regulated under
Subtitle C, timeframes are not required. However, IEPA may want
to consider including a timeframe as a way to measure facilities9
willingness to timely return to compliance.
IEPA ensured 15 of the 23 facilities corrected problems and sent
them return to compliance letters. One facility had not returned to
compliance and IEPA had not verified corrections at the other
seven facilities. IEPA committed to follow-up on the status for the
remaining 172 compliance assistance surveys conducted in fiscal
year 1997. This follow-up will show facilities that IEPA is
committed to the compliance assistance approach and that facilities
need to address the problems identified.
Region 5 and IEPA need to improve the accuracy of RCRIS data
entry. Accurate data are essential for determining a facility's
compliance history and each agency's enforcement activities. This
helps to ensure that Region 5 and IEPA are taking appropriate and
timely actions to prevent the release of hazardous waste into the
environment. Entry of compliance assistance survey data also
helps to show that IEPA is taking additional measures to ensure
that more facilities are taking the appropriate steps to prevent
13
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
hazardous waste releases. Accurate data are also essential for the
public's right-to-know, so that citizens and communities can make
informed environmental decisions and businesses will have an
incentive for improving environmental management.
RECOMMENDATION
SUGGESTED
IMPROVEMENTS
AGENCY ACTIONS
STATE ACTIONS
We recommend that the Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5,
establish specific procedures for data entry to ensure adequate
controls over Regional and state RCRIS input.
Because IEPA is not required to conduct compliance assistance
surveys, we are not making formal recommendations. However,
we suggest that the Director, IEPA, revise compliance assistance
survey procedures to ensure that: (1) information is accurately
coded in RCRIS, (2) all deficiencies are input, and (3) letters to
facilities include timeframes for corrective action.
In responding to our draft report, the Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 5, acknowledged that continuous
improvement is essential in carrying out established procedures for
data entry to ensure adequate controls over Regional and state
RCRIS input. The Acting Regional Administrator provided a draft
fiscal year 1999 Action Plan which includes milestone dates for
RCRIS activities. For example, Region 5 is enhancing the
accuracy of RCRIS data through a one-time review of event
records.
In response to our suggested improvements, IEPA has revised its
compliance assistance survey procedures to ensure: (1) activities
are more accurately reflected in RCRIS, (2) all deficiencies are
entered in RCRIS, and (3) facilities are provided with a timeframe
for returning to compliance.
14
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
OIG EVALUATION
Region 5's Action Plan, when finalized and implemented, will
address the recommendation in this report. lEPA's actions address
the suggested improvements in this report.
15
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Exhibit 1
Page 1 of3
Scope, Methodology, and Prior Audit Coverage
SCOPE AND
METHODOLOGY
Our audit focused on lEPA's and Region 5's RCRA programs. We
performed our fieldwork from July 9,1998 to December 29,1998.
We selected IEPA for review based on: (1) RCRIS and Biennial
Reporting System data, (2) Headquarters Office of Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance information on SNCs identified in
Region 5 from 1993 through 1998, (3) sample inspection reports,
(4) Region 5 input, and (5) the centralization of IEPA files.
RCRIS tracks Subtitle C facility-specific data related to hazardous
waste generators, transporters, and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities. The Biennial Reporting System tracks large quantity
generators' and treatment, storage, and disposal facilities'
hazardous waste activity reports. Although we used data from the
RCRIS and Biennial Reporting systems, we did not evaluate the
adequacy of the controls over the systems.
To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed applicable policies and
guidance and interviewed IEPA and Region 5 officials. We used
the following EPA guidance as criteria to evaluate enforcement
activities:
Enforcement Response Policy, December, 1987.
• Hazardous Waste Civil Enforcement Response Policy,
March 15, 1996.
To evaluate enforcement activities for IEPA and Region 5, we
randomly selected 10 percent, or 51 facilities, from a RCRIS list of
512 IEPA facilities where violations were identified during
calendar years 1995, 1996, or 1997. Because IEPA and Region 5
both inspected some facilities, file reviews focused on the agency
that performed the most recent enforcement activity at a facility.
16
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Exhibit 1
Page 2 of3
The sample consisted of 48 facilities IEPA monitored and three
facilities Region 5 monitored.
Our final sample of IEPA cases consisted of 50 (48+3-1) facilities.
In addition to the 48 facilities we selected randomly, we
judgementally selected three additional facilities from an SNC list
generated from the State's internal tracking system. We did this to
ensure that we reviewed some facilities that IEPA identified as
SNCs. We deleted one case from our sample because the facility,
selected from lEPA's list, violated only state regulations. Of our
final sample of 50, IEPA inspected 27 facilities and our
conclusions are discussed in Chapter 2. IEPA performed
compliance assistance activities at the remaining 23 facilities and
our findings are discussed in Chapter 3.
Our final sample of Region 5 cases consisted of 12 (3+12-3)
facilities. In addition to our original random sample of 3 facilities,
we randomly selected 12 facilities from 31 facilities listed in the
RCRIS printout where Region 5 performed the most recent
enforcement activity. We selected the additional facilities to
ensure an adequate review of Region 5 activities. However, we
later deleted three cases because they were not applicable to the
objectives of our review.2
During the audit, IEPA and Region 5 corrected several RCRIS
inaccuracies that we identified. Chapter 3 contains information
regarding the types of problems identified and the corrective
actions taken.
2 One case was a review of documentation and subsequent referral for Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act violations. The second case showed a pending violation for a multi-media inspection, but no
RCRA violations were identified. The third case was a joint inspection where Region 5 officials accompanied IEPA on an
inspection.
17
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compilers
Exhibit 1
Page 3 of 3
PRIOR AUDIT
COVERAGE
In March 1998, the OIG issued a report regarding EPA Region 10
and the Washington Department of Ecology's SNC Enforcement
(Report No. 8100093). The audit found that Region 10 needed to:
(1) ensure that the State's enforcement program is consistent with
EPA policy and (2) include deadlines in informal enforcement
actions. The audit also found that the State did not always: (1)
document return to compliance or (2) perform follow-up
inspections, where appropriate. The OIG is currently performing
similar work in Regions 1 and 3 which also identified problems
with SNC enforcement.
18
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Pagel of 14
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
MAR 0 3 1999
Draft Report for the Audit of Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Programs
David A. Ullrich
Acting Regional Administrator
Anthony C. Carrollo
Divisional Inspector General for Audits
Northern Division
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the draft
report, attached to your January 28, 1999 memorandum on the same
subject.
The Waste Pesticides and Toxics Division (WPTD) reviewed the
report and acknowledges the conclusion on page 7 that Region 5
"generally identified and performed appropriate enforcement of
significant non-compilers, thereby effectively reducing risks to
human health and the environment." WPTD also acknowledges that
continuous improvement is essential in carrying out established
procedures for data entry to ensure adequate controls over
Regional and State RCRIS input. To that end, I have attached a
copy of our draft RCRIS Action Plan for FY99.
If you wish to discuss these comments or any other aspect of our
review of the draft report, please contact me at your earliest
convenience.
David A. Ullrich
Attachment
Note: The original response was signed by David A. Ullrich.
19
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mai! code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compilers
Appendix 1
Page 2 of 14
U.S. EPA REGION 5
RCRIS ACTION PLAN FOR FY99
Category 1: One-time basic RCRIS maintenance actions.
Desired Results: These activities will enhance the accuracy and completeness of
our RCRIS records for tracking programmatic activities and for
Internet presentation of data records to the regulated community
and the public.
Category 2: Ongoing basic RCRIS review and maintenance actions.
Desired Results: These activities will ensure that RCRA program offices and
States are reviewing and updating specific RCRIS records on a
periodic basis throughout the year.
Category 3: Transitional activities for moving RCRIS to the new web based RCRA
INFO platform and development of our revised data management
tracking and reports menu system.
Desired Results: Provide streamlined data entry and retrievals of detailed
programmatic activities for both federal and State RCRA
programs. Easy access and sharing of data are keys to
maintaining a strong working relationship with our State
partners.
20
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compilers
Appendix 1
Page 3 of 14
U.S. EPA REGION 5
RCRIS ACTION PLAN FOR FY99
Category 1: One-time basic RCRIS maintenance actions.
Desired Results: These activities will enhance the accuracy and completeness of our RCRIS
records for tracking programmatic activities and for Internet
presentation of data records to the regulated community and the public.
Key Activity
A. Review and assess the accuracy of
all CA210 event records (referred to a
non-RCRA authority, 96 total for
Region 5) and all permit module
process file "SF" operating status
codes (referred to CERCLA or other
authority, 32 total for Region 5).
Necessary data changes will be
forwarded to die appropriate RCRIS
Module Specialist for follow-up data
entry.
B. Review and assess the accuracy of
all CA999 event records (CA process
terminated, 122 total for Region 5).
Necessary data changes will be
forwarded to the RCRIS CA Module
Specialist for follow-up data entry.
Responsible
Individual(s)
CA Program
Staff and
RCRIS Module
Specialist
CA Program
Staff and
RCRIS Module
Specialist
Due
Date
Status
This will be a
coordinated effort
between IMS and our
CA program sections.
RCRIS reports pulled
by IMS staff will be
reviewed by CA
program staff. Section
chiefs are scheduled to
meet 12. 11. 98 to
finalize actions.
This will be a
coordinated effort
between IMS and our
CA program sections.
RCRIS reports pulled
by IMS staff will be
reviewed by CA
program staff. Section
chiefs are scheduled to
meet 12. 11. 98 to
finalize actions.
21
U.S. EPA Headquarters Library
Mail code 3201
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20460
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 4 of 14
Key Activity
C. Prepare and send letters to Illinois
and Wisconsin regarding current
RCRIS IOR table settings for
corrective action, procedures used for
CA data entry, and ongoing universe
maintenance in RCRIS. Also, conduct
follow-up discussions with all States
to remind them of the availability of
RCRIS fields to record voluntary State
CA activities and provided additional
CA data entry training for State
offices as needed.
*
D. Review and update RCRIS SNC
indicators for EPA lead evaluations
and enforcement actions. Coordinate
review and updates for State lead
evaluations and enforcement actions
with individual State offices.
Responsible
Individuat(s)
RCRIS IMS
State
Coordinators
RCRIS Module
Specialist and
Enforcement
Program
RCRIS
Specialist
Due
Date
01.31.99
1.31.99
Status
Illinois and Wisconsin
may be ready to take or
CA data management
activities later this
year. The individual
State Coordinators will
prepare and send letters
to these two States.
State Coordinators will
also work with CA
program staff to
coordinate and plan
any additional training
need by our States.
This project was
discussed with all
States at the November
RCRIS/BRS
conference in Chicago.
Follow-up coordination
will be performed until
this project is
completed.
22
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compilers
Appendix 1
Page 5 of 14
Key Activity
E. Review all final closure records in
RCRIS to ensure that all closed
process units have up-to-date process
status codes and complete closure
event records. Document any needed
adjustments in process status codes or
event records, as agreed on with State
offices, for data entry into RCRIS.
F. FII handler information reviews
and data updates.
G. Establish an updated record of
locational reference tables used in our
R5 EJ GIS mapping system. Identify
any current locations data gaps in
these tables and update as needed.
Facilities which are currently not
included, but having recent
enforcement/CA/BRS activities will
be added.
H. Other special maintenance projects
as they are brought to the attention of
the RCRIS team. A good example of
this was the recent Sector Facility
Indexing Project launched by the
OECA office in headquarters.
Responsible
Individual(s)
IMS State
Coordinators
RCRIS Team
RCRIS Team
Due
Date
3.15.99
4.1.99
Ongoing
Status
IMS State Coordinators
will review
comprehensive permit
module reports to
identify questionable
records. Necessary
updates will be made
after discussions with
State offices. Accurate
closure records will
ensure that RCRIS
TSD universes for
permitting,
enforcement and CA
are correct.
Updates will ensure
that all significant
facilities are presented
in EJ GIS mapping
products.
4
23
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 6 of 14
U.S. EPA REGION 5
RCRIS ACTION PLAN FOR FY99
Category 2: Ongoing basic RCRIS review and maintenance actions.
Desired Results: These activities will ensure that RCRA program offices and States are
involved in reviewing and updating specific RCRIS records on a periodic
basts throughout the year.
Key Activity
A. Run selected RCRIS reports
showing recent programmatic
activities and data assessment
reports for distribute to program
office contacts for review and
feedback.
B. Perform monthly RCRIS
databases merges and
programmatic universe calculations
to maintain current RCRIS records
in the Merge and National
Oversight RCRIS databases.
C. Coordinate data entry into
appropriate RCRIS databases as
updates are received from program
offices and the regulated
community.
Responsible
Individuals)
RCRIS Module
Specialists
RCRIS DBA
RCRIS Module
Specialists
Due
Date
As
shown on
the
attached
reports
schedule.
Monthly
as shown
in the
attached
merge
cycle
calendar
Ongoing
Status
Permitting and CA
program PAR reports,
RECAP enforcement
activity reports, other
specific programmatic
activities tracking
reports, and data
assessment reports will
be distributed.
Ongoing
Ongoing
24
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 7 of 14
Key Activity
D. Run new RCRIS data
assessment reports as they are
developed and become available to
review CM&E, permitting and CA
data records.
E. Hold conference calls with State
contacts twice a month to review
current HW data management
issues. Plan visits to State offices
and necessary training.
F. Enter CA725 and CA750
environmental indicator event
records and status codes as they are
received from program staff.
Responsible
Individuals)
RCRIS Team
IMS State
Coordinators
RCRIS CA
Module
Specialist
Due
Date
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Status
As new reports become
available additional data
assessments will be
performed.
Visits to State offices
and necessary training
will vary from State to
State.
Ongoing.
25
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 8 of 14
U.S. EPA REGION 5
RCRIS ACTION PLAN FOR FY99
Category 3: Transitional activities for moving RCRIS to the new web based RCRA INFO
platform and development of our revised data management tracking and reports
menu system.
Desired Results: Provide streamlined data entry and retrievals of detailed programmatic
activities for both federal and State RCRA programs. Easy access and
sharing of data are keys to maintaining a strong working relationship with
our State partners.
Key Activity
A. Host a meeting with Region
S States to review and discuss
the WIN business systems
design team high level design
proposal for an alternative
platform for RCRJS and to plan
our regional transition
activities.
B. Integrate the new GPRA
baseline universes for CA,
permitting and post-closure into
the Region 5 RCRIS reports
and menu system to facilitate
report retrievals for these new
universes.
Responsible
Individual(s)
RCRIS Team
RCRIS Team
Due
Date
Status
Completed on November 16
& 17, 1998.
Completed November 16,
1998.
26
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 9 of 14
Key Activity
C. Facilitate the development
of RCRA INFO management
tracking reports and revisions to
existing RCRIS reports for R5
and State RCRA program
offices.
D. Plan and prepare follow-up
actions for ensuring that all
RCRA INFO CA events are
linked to correct areas and
authorities before conversion.
E. Revise R5 RCRIS reports
and menu system as necessary
when national changes/updates
are completed.
F. Address training needs of R5
and State personnel on Oracle
and other software to be used in
support of RCRA INFO.
Responsible
Individual(s)
RCRIS Team
RCRIS Team
RCRIS Module
Specialists/
RCRIS Team
RCRIS Team
Due
Date
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Status
Coordination with permitting,
enforcement, and CA
program managers is ongoing.
We are working closely with
the business systems design
team on this issue.
Ongoing.
Ongoing
27
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compilers
Appendix 1
Page 10 of 14
o>
o>
State One Liner:
1) Alpha Sort
2) Numeric Sort
3) City Sort
1
.
sets of ail 6 st
Alpha Sort
Numeric Sort
City
AB and
D and
Joe
Karl
28
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 11 of 14
o>
o>
I
o
s
0)
0)
t
o
CL
O
CO
en
o
a:
o
•c
o
8
Q.
O
o
111
lss
£
UJ o
!.S
i
29
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Com pliers
Appendix 1
Page 12 of 14
1*5
O)
>
i
"5
•o
0
0
CO
CO
5
t:
o
Q.
Q)
o:
CO
a:
o
^
0.
§
E
o
a.
fl
i
1
i
i
1
co
|
I
z
i
o
i
i
i
1
s
i
a
3
Quarterly
1 5th o( the month
(March. July. Septem
December)
0
€ S
if
!«!
Ill
L
o |
Jj
III
il*
o a* £
O a. *
o
•g
"jj
n
.2 .5
~ a
1.1
i
I
z
3
(AS needed basis
1 ^
03 6. S
III
If
11
|i.
l|
-g 2
if
30
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 13 of 14
o
o>
1
o
CO
15
CD
£
r
o
Q.
CO
o:
o
or
•0
&
U
0)
u
Stat
al
and Region
module spe
si
to
si
31
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 1
Page 14 of 14
0>
>-
I
_0>
3
•o
O
o
CO
15
>
CO
w
CO
I
UJ
I
;£
{M
wil
Quart
By the 15th of
Iff
III
32
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 2
Page 1 of 1
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1021 North Grand Avenue East. P.O. Box 19276, Springfield, flfmois 62794-9276 4t*9^M*MMMF
217/782-3397 RECEIVED
MAR 1 5 1999
March 10, 1999 „,.,,„,
OmCB Or REGIONAL AOUINISTBATOB
Mr. David Ullrich, Acting Regional Administrator
United States Environmental Protection Agency (Region 5)
77 West Jackson Boulevard
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590
Dear Mr. Ullrich:
With this letter, the Illinois EPA is transmitting comments in response to the Draft Report for the
Audit of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Programs. The report, dated January 28,
1999, is based on an August 1998 audit of Region 5's and Illinois EPA's RCRA compliance
programs. The audit was conducted by Region 5's Office of Inspector General (OIG).
I have been informed by Illinois EPA personnel directly involved in the audit process that OIG
personnel that conducted the audit should be commended for the thorough and professional
manner in which the audit was performed. Several valuable recommendations have been
identified in the draft report and, as you will see in our comments, the Illinois EPA has acted on
all the recommendations identified through the revision of our Compliance Assistance Survey
(CAS) procedures (see second enclosure).
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions or concerns relating to the
enclosed comments.
Sincerely,
Thomas V. Skinner
Director
ENCLOSURES
cc: Howard Levin, Audit Liaison (Region 5)
Printed on Recycled Paper
Note: The original response was signed by Thomas 7. Skinner and enclosures are not included.
33
Report No. 9100110
-------
Identification and Enforcement of
RCRA Significant Non-Compliers
Appendix 3
Page 1 of 1
DISTRIBUTION
Region 5
Regional Administrator (R-19J)
Audit Followup Coordinator (MFA-10J)
Library (PL-12J)
Headquarters
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (2201)
Associate Administrator for Regional Operations (1501)
Agency Followup Official (3101)
Attn: Assistant Administrator, OARM
Agency Followup Coordinator (3304)
Attn: Director, RMD
Headquarters Library (3404)
Office of Inspector General
Inspector General (2410)
GAO - Issue Area Planner
34
Report No. 9100110
-------
DATE DUE
100
DEMCO, INC. 38-2931
-------
------- |