SSBZ
0)
The Advanced
RCRA Inspector's
Institute
. n • n i nirri
Swissotel Boston
December 13 -17,1993
Monday
12/13
1:30-2:30
2:45 - 4:30
Welcome and an introduction
Exploring Jnspectiori Paridlflms
u
V
D.
Tuesday
12/14
Wednesday
12/15
a:
o
Thursday
12/16
-------
*
-------
eij
e
1
i
.S
O
"p
1
o-
o
"""
1
^o
e—
ea
£
cd
2
•£
.e
O. rt
T>< ^'
D
II
1 H
w»
S O
(^ ^*
* 1
•c 1
E •§
JD
1 1
>•> O
1 1
irt
w -^-
1 £"
E o
Jg -
«•*
*-* QJ
1 "S
^. &
•o <
§ -
M ^
§ c
M "*"
•j= c
•£ '5
c *5
i |
i 1
i *
** *3
v -o
3 !
LI J2
^ 1
H ^
tii
c
1
ed
H
8
o
*""
*5
1
o"
o
^^
u
S
—^
8
cd
2
IE
.£
1
u-
^S
?*^
8
E
i
i
i
&
o
v> "S
C §i
'M '• -
£ S3
££
c • •
o v
'!•§
a^
£2
« o
1^
o
"5i
X
o
8
o
"B
CO
"^
^*
1
cd
I
.2
o
••" '
1 l
1
^
1
• \
W
73
"cd
E
U
4.»
••3
S
Q
*S
CO
*WH
~*
^mrnt
O
„
, %
| 1
ex fc
g
8i
V)
IE
c
^
ed
x;
4w«
c
I
•a
1 1
S o
1 *
o
E
4>
en
V
f
T3
S
b
"E
(X
V
H
•c
^
V
"3
T3
§
M
15
M
1-H
K
4>
t
O
^
' e
eb
c *^
1 • 1 '
« 2 J
J2 - |
0 » ?
•" T3 •*"
fS 0
1 ^
2" 5 5
s 1 1
"" .J5* o
1 | *
1/2 .2
11 2"
.260
^^ _c ^^
.£
ill
c 0. Fr
S -o 5
£, § «S
8 § .g
s * *3»
5 1 1
^S
i 1 !
8i 1 1
O "3 O *5
'5 « O o
S EP E ?
S ® !> *>
ifc ^ *° "5
^^ Sr ^ *^
C # ^= O
.S .ts « E
•S tn -9 v>
|| S 1
o rs c «"
•S 5 | JS
fi S 8 -
E'"" 2 OH £
^—
'1-8 £ I
§H H ^
V
tn
ed
-------
-------
1 •-
to 2 .X
3 0 «
o <- c
en — O
•s .. oo
O V
^ -g .-
_- O O
111
•o §
S -i
o" 8 «
T"J
3 § 1
"~ >> o
jj to •£
CC O *»»
£ -u '- .
r*.. CC
« -c •"•
w -Si o"
to co —
.2 E 0
- j= ~
c -^
en "E •=
*^3 w O
= CX fc
O M*
5s. 6^
0 8 g
Ete ••"
en 00
.-£ li .E
ro ~ |
"O •— p
"g ! e
c£ *-* <*_!
"8 S. °
N £ JT
"e O t"
W ° 0
CD c >
l_ C 5
o w o
£1 ^3 ""' ^
cC ^ * ^o
d ,_, -^ y.
S' > 5 •£
• "* ' ' v:
1^' t> S *"•
b't s i
11 £ 1
£ jf {f ^
<
^^
".
60
C *j
1 2 1
lag
tn — 0
O 6) c/i
o o
3 on -
1 | !
O* (j 6)
2 1 2
• M 3
— >-. o
« "i -S
eo O *-
t-> "o '~
c>. "« """
g 'c ""-
cd 03 *-•*
.^ E o
"S " "
c *-
•— *- tl)
10 e "S
c O, t>-
1 1 1
"S c> "^
E * "~
*- •— c
'•o - i£
55 lE 1
"^ c O
§S *-
*-• U-r
1 1 1
'c 0 C
In ° 0
S? E S
0 g v
1 £ 1
5 .E O
.« ^5 £
en, ^ 5 ^
O . . fe «
•so «;
u •=; c 55
|1 I |
.f 1 » 1
~g r- t- ^
E
^^
^
00
c **
1 '&
1 2 .8
go*
in — O
•- .. oo
O 6) to
3- 0 0
5 ^> B>
« 13 (X
en in E"
- 'g §
r< § ^
o 5 w
~ T5 -°
0 C T3
03 ^2
^" ^ O
jj "5 «
CO CJ «-
u T3 —
^ .52
rv. CO
cO "C ^"*
| g 0
.« E o
•£ v **
c ^ T!
* ^ *^ V
|||
c ^ ^
^ 1 J5
1 8 .E
ECQ
tn 00
.t; i? .£
^•v "^ *^
15 'f 1
•o "E o
c 5 C
rt «j <4i
1 1 1
1 I I
o o
ss tn "3
1 ^ 1
.-s ^ E
in "T3 tn
> 3 1
u "*
« " M
11 1 1
t-r' ^— • W S
fi2 ^ r
£' « « o
«n -C -= >
^1
O,
00
1 E
i s
• *••
O 4J
s 1
* %
v: in
'^2 "C
0 |
2 1
*""* >^
* "b
^^ Cv
ec O
^ 2
t>. CO
Jf 5J
CO cC
.« E
-C U
.E **
en 'E
•O 4J
g g
S ^
*^^
0 =
«. ' '= 8
S § E
•5 ° g
52^ ^
o S ^
c .-s «?.
G v. T3
IS "^ v^
us
G « 3
?!l §
^^ i
v^j ft^ O
§; p {5
<]-
«
f M
1
co
O
00
in
O
•~ •
"8
CX
a
•o
|
Q
-------
D.
U
1
c
_o
Tfc
^
s
1
1
^
"i
s
"O
s
1
"o
*3
"6
«8
OJ
^C
*^
i
•o
g
1
CA
•C
pj
•^-
I
i"
The Presenter: Did s/he seem co
I
§j
CA
O
5
C '
•g
V
•^
•o
§
•g
*^^
o"
o
*^
«"^
1
CO
e-
7
rt
^
60
.E
"c
'3
£
<*-
o
^"^
Worthiness: Is this module wortl
*
'o
g
t;
i
.2
•""
1
"^
0*
o
1
CO
s
rt
.—
yf^
*^
_c
tA
1
w
§^
1
E
^
"G
• *^
T3
•o
s
1
I Facilities Enforcement
The Module: Was it well organt
E
•o.
o
o
_.
(j
•5
o
CO
8j
•o
s
T3
s
1
"3
1
w
E
V
•£
i
"O
«
rt
S
as
• M
•£
c
• —
£
I
1
i
in
V
£
•O
5
b
U
. >w J
<*••
• IP*
1
ee
S)
tn
o
1
I"
i
«
^™
S
(A
"^
o"
IM^
o
**
^*N
4>
g
CO
5
«9
1 0
£ i
tn c
= -g
^ ^
•O •**
g 5
I 1
S «-
*3 •"
T3 ~
1 o-
et «— '
E 0
O **
J3 **^
*^ , 4
di Cv
K u
£ co
T3 ^
5 ]s
1 c
w 'ec
*S3 C3
•£ "E
E'S
••*
1 -
The Presenter: Did s/he seem co
Worthiness: Is this module wortl
*
/,
•
'
1/3
ed
u
a
1
.£
S
V
c
^M
52
ftj
£
a»
!
i
"o
o
o
u-
o
_w
eB
O
•«
^
1
1
.
O
J=
O
*^
Cw
••
•&" — ^
c — ^5
•B 1 °
•s i ^
Content and Orgi
Presentation
Timeliness and A
erall, on a scale of 1 1
> E
-------
The
board
An Electronic Bulletin Board Dedicated to RCRA Enforcement Personnel
RCRA
Enforcement
Division
a
e
o
1-800-260-8959
(Regions: Please call 202-260-8959)
Operating 24 Hours a day
at 1200 to 9600 Baud per
second.
Operated in EPA Headquarters by EPA personnel
Features:
• File Library of CFRs, FRs, model orders, SEPs, HOTLINE reports,
guidance documents, checklists, rule summaries, proposed rules, etc.
• On-Line databases
• Mail Room to allow the posting of messages or questions to specific
persons, groups, or all callers.
• Late breaking Bulletins from HQ about RCRA and RCRA Enforcement
and a News-Wire of RCRA news stories from across the country
• RCRA Trivia Challenge allowing you to test you knowledge of RCRA
against callers from all over the country.
• Questionaires to keep HQ informed or register for HQ training courses.
Technical Information:
• Accessible through any modem or LAN outfitted with a modem pool.
• Standard communications software settings (Parity=NONE, Data Bits=8, Stop=1).
• Compatible with most any communication software.
• Supports all file transfer protocols including Xmodem, Ymodem, and Zmodem.
• Fully ANSI and VT-100 emulation compatible.
If you have any problems logging onto the REDboard call Jeff Kelly at 202-260-2809
-------
-------
PARTICIPANT'S MANUAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Guide to the Participant's Manual
Welcome and Introduction
Exploring Inspection Paradigms
Waste Minimization/Pollution PreventionNon-
RCRA Interface/Multi-Media Inspections
New Waste Issues
Notifier Initiative
Import/Export Issues
Tribal Lands Inspections
Combustion Inspections
Air Emissions
"Gray Areas" In Solid Waste
Case Development and Support
Federal Fadlities
Inspection Paradigms Revisited
Evaluation Form
Tab
ii
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
-------
-------
GUIDE TO THE PARTICIPANTS MANUAL
The Participant's Manual has been designed to provide you with
important information about topics discussed during the Institute. It is intended
to supplement the oral presentations. The Manual is divided into 15 sections —
one for each session of the course, plus an evaluation form. The Manual is
supplemented by a library of materials that are available to you throughout the
course of the Institute.
-------
-------
-------
-------
ITHE ADVANCED RCRA INSPECTOR'S INSTITUTE
Course Objectives:
Help you become better equipped and prepared to perform
your fobs
Provide new perspectives on your dally work
Encourage you to explore and consider your
"Inspection paradigms'
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: The Advanced RCRA Inspector's Institute
KEY POINTS:
• Over the course of the next four days, you will gain new knowledge of selected
topics to help you become better equipped and prepared to perform your job.
Your experience at this Institute should culminate in your gaining new
perspectives and insights with respect to your day-to-day work, both from
information presented by the instructors, activities in which you will participate,
and discussions you may have with fellow participants. In addition, this Institute
aims to assist you in considering your inspection paradigms, about which you will
hear more later on.
• Through a combination of lectures, exercises, and other activities, we will:
— Identify non-standard facility conditions and processes and suggest
approaches for dealing with them
— Discuss new RCRA regulations and EPA policy in terms of how it will affect
your job requirements
— Discuss and evaluate the different approaches Regions and states take to
situations that they each face
1-1
-------
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: The Advanced RCRA Inspector's Institute (continued)
KEY POINTS:
— Discuss complex issues that may arise only once or twice during your career,
and suggest whom to contact if additional assistance is required
— Identify written and human resources for obtaining more information on
topics covered by the Institute.
• One of the overall goals of this Institute is to help you become more proactive in
conducting your inspections, thinking through the best approach on a case-by-case
basis.
1-2
-------
I GET INVOLVED
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Get Involved
KEY POINTS:
We want you to express yourselves. The style of the course is informal and it is
structured to encourage interaction. You have been handed color-coded
nametags, assigned to corresponding color teams, and been seated at certain
tables to achieve this format. The nametags will assist everyone in getting to
know each other's names, and the colors will facilitate forming groups when the
various activities call for team work. Some activities may require independent
work, but others will require joint efforts. Participants with red nametags should
be seated at tables with red banners, and will comprise the "red team"; those with
blue nametags should be seated at tables with blue banners, and will comprise
the "blue team"; and so on.
This session of the Institute is a pilot, and your active involvement is critical to
assisting EPA in determining the future direction of this training program.
Throughout the course, we want you to participate in exercises, ask questions,
provide feedback, raise new perspectives and insights, and share your ideas.
1-3
-------
I STAY THE COURSE
MODULE 1
MODULE •
MODULE 14
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Stay the Course
KEY POINTS:
This is an ambitious course — covering numerous areas of interest to provide
you with a broad, comprehensive base of knowledge that builds on your previous
experience. To achieve all of the course objectives we reviewed earlier, we will
do our best to stay the course, keep on schedule.
We will begin each day at 8:30 a.m. and with breaks interspersed, we will work
together until lunchtime. We will break for lunch between approximately 12:00
p.m. and 1:00 p.m. You will have a 1-hour lunch break. We will also have
breaks each afternoon.
At the end of each module, we will ask that you take a few moments to complete
that portion of the evaluation form related to the module. At the end of the
Institute, you will be asked to complete and submit the evaluation form. Again,
since this is a pilot, we really want and need your input.
1-4
-------
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Stay the Course (continued)
KEY POINTS:
* Now let's look at the Participant's Manual, which contains materials related to
each of the training modules. Everything you will need for exercises and for
reference during modules is contained in the Manual. We also intend for the
Participant's Manual to serve as a valuable reference after you leave this pilot.
• We have also provided a library, which is located next door. Please feel free to
browse through it before and after module presentations, during breaks, or at the
end of each day. The library contains additional resource materials that you will
find useful, such as copies of guidance documents, reports, and statutes and
regulations, as well as information about how to obtain them. You may also find
the library helpful for certain exercises.
1-5
-------
-------
[EXPLORING INSPECTION PARADIGMS
Identify currant paradigms
Explore varying approaches
Discuss differing expectations
Consider various Interview questions
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: Exploring Inspection Paradigms
KEY POINTS:
• During this presentation, we will explore what is meant by paradigms and
how yours, as an inspector, may be expanded, or even changed. Expanding
your paradigms may enable you to become more effective at conducting
inspections and, in the broader perspective, better protect the environment.
• We will undertake activities during this session — and in later ones — that
enable you to:
— Build upon your baseline approach
— Expand the current framework within which you can conduct an
inspection
— Identify opportunities to improve inspection approaches.
Once again, we need your assistance to make these activities worthwhile.
• Reports issued recently (such as Caldwell and ITF) have indicated that we
could improve upon our enforcement approaches. EPA is responsive to
such suggestions and seeks the aid of its RCRA inspectors in identifying
better methods for determining and enforcing violations. If you are
interested in reviewing these reports, we have included them in our
Institute Library.
II-l
-------
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: Exploring Inspection Paradigms (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• During our discussions we will explore the differences between state and
Federal expectations for inspectors. We will also identify the variety of
questions that the RCRA inspector can ask at various points during the
inspection process to ensure that a thorough inspection has been conducted.
• Through these discussions and exercises, we will identify approaches for
looking at the facility as a whole, including its operations, practices, and
environmental management program.
• We will be conducting several exercises to help identify present inspection
paradigms and use alternative ways of thinking to explore new paradigms for
conducting inspections. We will also view a video to help us understand what
paradigms are, and how they can restrict us if we don't know how to use them
to our advantage. The video is not EPA-specific, but it shows us how to take
the concept of paradigms and apply it to everyday situations. We will take
that information and discuss ways to apply "paradigm thinking" to conducting
inspections.
• Before viewing the video, let's begin with an exercise, based on the baseline
inspection approach, that will help you identify your present inspection
paradigm. Using the form provided, write down, in some detail, your current
pre-inspection, inspection, and post-inspection activities. To help you think
as you list these activities, let me suggest the following questions that you
might consider:
— How do you organize yourself? You may want to list specific activities,
resource tools, etc.
— What inspection methods have you used successfully?
— What conditions or circumstances caused you to
change your inspection approach?
— What advice you would give other inspectors about how to effectively
prepare for, conduct, and follow up an inspection of a facility?
Again, do not limit yourself to these questions.
• When you have finished, place your form in the attached envelope and write
your name on the envelope. We will collect them and return them to you later
in the course.
• As we proceed with this presentation and over the next several days of this
course, you are encouraged to continue to think about how you're presently
conducting inspections and remain receptive to new suggestions and ideas.
II-2
-------
I THE FACILITY AS A WHOLE j
Gather additional information
Whotoiwporaibltfor
4*v*k>ptng Hit
contingency ptan?
Ask questions
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: The Facility as a Whole
KEY POINTS:
Interviewing facility personnel is a critical component of your inspection.
There are several examples of questions that can be asked of facility
managers to learn more about the facility:
— Who talks to the local community about your facility's activities?
Does your management talk to them or is this left to the
environmental staff?
— Who is responsible for developing the contingency plan? What
management level(s) reviews and signs off on the plan? Who decides
when the contingency plan is to be amended?
— Who appoints the emergency coordinator?
— What systems are in place to ensure that the waste analysis plan is
updated?
— Is there a system of accountability for the testing and maintenance of
equipment at the facility? Are operations audited to verify that
procedures for equipment testing and maintenance are being
followed?
— Who decides what is a solid waste? A hazardous waste?
— If problems are identified, what level of management, if any, is
informed and accountable?
11-3
-------
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: The Facility as a Whole (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Do you have additional suggestions for questions that could be asked?
• Asking these questions will help you determine whether the facility is
operating in compliance with applicable laws. Tact is an important factor
when you raise these questions. Demonstrating awareness of your
interviewees and their "business perspective" will help avoid a
confrontational or defensive interview. For instance, you need to recognize
that each level of management will have a different perspective based on their
responsibilities/interests (i.e., Environmental Manager vs. Plant Manager vs.
Vice-President).
• When choosing a strategy or combination of strategies, remember to consider
the purpose of the inspection, the complexity of the facility, and your
knowledge of the type of inspection to be conducted.
* In your Participant's Manual you will find a chart that illustrates the steps
involved in an inspection, the objectives of each step, and the resource tools
needed for each step to assist you when preparing for your inspections. You
may want to add to it as you broaden your inspection paradigms.
-------
I PARADIGM DOS AND DONTS
Do
— Identify present paradigms
— Become • Paradigm Pioneer
Donl
Be blinded by the Paradigm
Effect
Get stuck In Paradigm
Paralysis
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Paradigm Dos and Don'ts
KEY POINTS:
• Only by developing an awareness of our individual paradigms can we start to
look beyond them. Paradigms can and do affect judgments and decision
making, as well as restricting us to looking at the future in traditionally
accepted ways. Therefore, it is necessary to understand and look beyond the
confines of your paradigms. This openness will enable you to seek new
methods to continuously improve your inspection approach.
• By getting stuck within the confines of a single paradigm, you may become
blinded to new and innovative approaches because you have always been
successful doing things the same way. It is important to avoid the "checklist
mentality trap". Therefore, don't get stuck in Paradigm Paralysis by
immediately rejecting a new and different approach because it does not fit your
individual paradigm.
• Try to be a Paradigm Pioneer, and reach out beyond your old paradigms. Talk
to your peers, managers, and even friends about ways you can continually
improve. Even people who are not inspectors may be able to offer insight
from a new and/or different perspective. Be flexible enough to change to a
new paradigm early in its development, even if the available evidence does not
yet completely demonstrate its value.
II-5
-------
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Paradigm Dos and Don'ts (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Throughout the course, you should keep in mind several questions: In what
ways are you paralyzed by your inspection paradigms? How can you expand
your old ways of conducting inspections to be more effective and thorough?
What new approaches can you apply to your individual inspection activities?
* Included in your Participant's Manual is a list of resources you can consult if
you would like to know more about paradigms.
11-6
-------
EXPLORING INSPECTION PARADIGMS
"PERSONAL INSPECTION APPROACH"
PRE-INSPECTION APPROACH:
IN SPECTION APPROACH:
-------
-------
POST-INSPECTION APPROACH:
Please feel free to continue on the back if the space provided is not sufficient
-------
-------
ffi
u
g
g
0-
<
2
O
•
CA
E
N*
&
2
^*
J
w
en
<
PQ
to
i
. "" '
^
' 1
O
i
•M
>
3
D
<,
z
o
1
ft-
tt>
z
.: OJ
H
• *M
w
- :: z •
0
"3
3
C
fl
|
1
C
0
•£
S
• Proper notifi
g
g
•^
£
*— ^
Agenda ("To Do List1
•s
• Focus inspec
g
.2
1
c
"fi
B-
o
•o
C
d
^s ?
*5 O
General industry
information (i.e., fact
sheet), permit summj
sheet, map, process fl
diagram
eP
1
•o
g
«
1
1
•p4
£>
•£
1
C
nj 5S
fc 8
^2:
x-o
.•a" £
? ^
T3 3
S 8
in o
^^ hn
§ C
•0:5
3 §
S K
II
Camera, notebook
8
• Collect evide
o
.g
"53
• •M
Checklist, notebook
1
K
1
^ c
§£
g ^
• Provide evid
enforcement
1
13
0
^^
g
0
Notebook
g
I
M
£
i
• Discuss preli
findings
1
S
w
^
f
S
0
c-
e
00
c,
E
(A
c-
E
(A
a.
E
CA
S
(A
-------
-------
REFERENCE MATERIALS ON THE CONCEPT OF PARADIGMS
Journals
Brown, T. (1992, May). Joel Barker: New thoughts on paradigms. Industry Week. 241,
12-14.
Brown, T. L. (1991, March). Of paradigms—and visions: Joel Barker says they can tell
you a lot about business success—and failure. Industry Week. 240.11.
Buddy, can you spare a paradigm? (1990, November), Training. 2Z, 83-85.
Goldratt, E. (1992, February). Late-night discussions: When is a paradigm shift really a
paradigm shift? Industry Week. 241.63-64.
Huey, J. (1991, September). Nothing is impossible: Paradigm shifting. Fortune. 124.
134-140.
Murray, A.I., & Reshef, Y. (1990, October). American manufacturing unions' stasis: A
paradigmatic perspective. Academy of Management Review. 15.682-693.
Rose, F. (1990, October). A New Age for business?: Introducing management theories
and practices based on new paradigm for viewing the world. Fortune. 122,156-158.
Steele, L.W. (1991, July-August). Needed: New paradigms for R&D. Research
Technology Management. 34.13-21.
Vicere, A.A. & Graham, K.R. (1990). Crafting competitiveness: Toward a new paradigm
for executive development. Human Resource Planning, 13,281-295.
Books
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of ScientificRevolutions. University of Chicago Press:
Chicago, II., 2nd edition, 1970.
Video
Barker, Joel A. Discovering the Future: The Business of Paradigms. ILI Press: Lake
Elmo, Mn., 1985.
-------
-------
MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS I
CERCLA k EPCRA
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: Multi-Media Inspections
KEY POINTS:
* The purpose of our discussion about multi-media inspections is to encourage you,
as inspectors, to investigate and cite RCRA violations that arise from equipment
or operations regulated under other programs, and to provide you with an
understanding of, and the rationale behind, the Agency's drive toward
multi-media inspections. Investigating RCRA interfaces with other statutes is
important for a comprehensive single-media compliance inspection. Your
understanding of where and how RCRA interfaces with other programs should be
part of your current RCRA inspections and will facilitate your future multi-media
inspections.
• This presentation will assist you in delineating the boundaries of RCRA
regulations, which in turn will expand your inspection capabilities. The fact
sheets in your Participant's Manual will serve as reference materials for when you
leave this training. We will refer to these materials again as we proceed through
our discussions.
-------
I ENVIRONMENTAL LEGISLATION MADE SIMPLE
NEPA says
OSHA says
CAA says _
CWA says -
SDWA says
RCRAsays
HMTA says
TSCA says
toll us what you're going to do before you do It
, toll us how you're doing H
do not put anything up the stock
do not put It out the pipe
do not put It In a hole In the ground
do not put It anywhere else
do not even carry It around
H It's such bad news, do not even make It In the
first pli
CERCLA says.. If you put It In the ground In the past dig It up
Congress is proposing to combine all the above Into the
Generalized, Overall Toxic and Chemical Hazards Act, or
GOTCHA!
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Environmental Legislation Made Simple
KEY POINTS:
* To give you a sense of the nature of all of the environmental programs, we
thought we would try to capture it all on one overhead.
III-2
I
-------
GENERAL ISSUES!
Why should wa
took at Interfaces
with other
programs?
OVERHEADS
TITLE: General Issues
KEY POINTS:
When inspectors expand their regulatory knowledge to include how facility
operations/activities, that are regulated in other EPA programs, impact RCRA
compliance, they obtain a more comprehensive view of a facility. This will result
in more effective enforcement and, hopefully, improved compliance. In addition,
this could avoid delays in enforcement action.
A more comprehensive knowledge in turn may also provide a RCRA inspector
with the opportunity to contribute to enforcement actions under other regulatory
programs.
Some exclusions under RCRA exist because a type of waste or operation is
regulated under another program. However, RCRA violations can still occur
(i.e., if the operation generates a RCRA hazardous waste). By examining the
extent of RCRA jurisdiction in relation to other statutes, you can perform
comprehensive single-media inspections, more effectively citing RCRA
violations. Multi-media inspections, which will be discussed later in this
presentation, go beyond the single-media compliance inspection.
In the next few overheads, I will cover only a few of many examples of RCRA
interfaces. I will use several examples to illustrate interface issues that you
should be investigating in your RCRA compliance inspections. The focus of the
examples will be on the regulatory programs of CWA, CAA, and CERCLA.
ra-3
-------
IRCRA INTERFACES—CWAI
OVERHEADS
TITLE: RCRA Interfaces—CWA
KEY POINTS:
* More detailed information is provided in the fact sheets you have in your
Participant's Manual. We wiU refer to these as we proceed.
• Under RCRA regulations, wastewater treatment units (WWTUs) are not required
to obtain a permit or have interim status.
• To qualify for this exclusion, WWTUs must meet three criteria:
— The unit must be part of a wastewater treatment facility subject to regulation
under the CWA
— The unit must manage hazardous wastewater
— Treatment or storage must take place in tanks or tank systems.
• Specifically, under the CWA, the facility must have either a NPDES permit or
discharge to a POTW.
III-4
-------
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: RCRA Interfaces—CWA (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Remember, RCRA limits the exemption to the WWTU (i.e., the tank); the
exemption does not apply to the waste generated from the facility.
• These WWTUs are required to obtain a RCRA Part B permit because their waste
streams are not otherwise regulated under the CWA (i.e., no applicable effluent
guidelines or pretreatment standard specifying zero discharge.)
• For example, any sludges or residues generated from the facility may be defined
as a hazardous waste. Ensure that the generator has identified whether the sludge
is hazardous and how the sludge is managed.
• There are additional limitations to the exclusion. Specifically, the exemption is
not intended to apply to zero discharge WWTUs that are not required to obtain a
NPDES permit.
• Industrial wastewater discharges that are point source discharges subject to
NPDES permitting regulations are excluded from RCRA. The exclusion does not
exclude industrial wastewater while being collected, stored, or treated prior to
discharge.
• A POTW that accepts hazardous waste and complies with a NPDES permit is
considered to have a RCRA permit provided the POTW complies with a few
RCRA regulations, including:
EPA identification number
Manifest system
Biennial reporting.
• Again, please refer to the RCRA/CWA fact sheet. This sheet provides regulatory
citations for the individual requirements.
III-5
-------
! RCRA INTERFACES—CAAI
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: RCRA Interfaces—CAA
KEY POINTS:
• Moving on to the next example, boilers and industrial furnaces (BIFs) that bum
hazardous waste are required to obtain a RCRA Part B permit. These facilities
may also have regulatory requirements under other programs.
• For example, a RCRA inspector may look at the state air permit for a BIF to
determine if:
— Hazardous wastes are fed into the unit
— The proper control technologies are in place
— The facility is monitoring emissions.
• CFCs being recycled under the regulations of CAA are not subject to RCRA.
The exclusion applies only to the CFC refrigerant, not to oils or other waste
removed from the equipment.
• Some air emission control devices at RCRA facilities are regulated under CAA,
but may still generate a hazardous waste.
-------
i RCRA INTERFACES—CERCLA |
RCRA
CERCLA
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: RCRA Interfaces—CERCLA
KEY POINTS:
• Actions taken at CERCLA sites may have to comply with other environmental
regulations, including RCRA. RCRA standards are generally considered to be
applicable or relevant and appropriate at CERCLA sites.
• CERCLA National Priorities List (NPL) sites may be cleaned up under RCRA
corrective action authority.
• A release of a hazardous substance greater than its reportable quantity must be
reported under CERCLA. The notification requirements of RCRA (for
generators and TSDFs) must also be fulfilled.
• Hazardous substances may not be taken to off-site RCRA facilities with
significant violations.
III-7
-------
[ RCRA INTERFACES—EPCRA1
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: RCRA Interfaces—EPCRA
KEY POINTS:
• As another example, the information required on Form R, the Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory Reporting Form (TRI), is a valuable tool in multi-media
enforcement because it focuses simultaneously on chemical releases to all
environmental media. Enforcement programs can use Form R to target
inspection and compliance activities under several EPA programs.
• RCRA inspectors can also benefit from reviewing TRI data by obtaining a better
understanding of the chemicals handled on-site and the facility's management
practices.
• Manufacturing facilities that are required to submit a Form R must report data on
chemicals handled, and releases into the air, water, or land (both on- and off-site).
• Please refer to the blank example Form R, located in your Participant's Manual.
Pan one is facility identification.
• Part two is chemical-specific information. Facilities record releases in Section 5.
* Examples of on-site importable releases include fugitive emissions, surface water
discharges, underground injection, and on-site disposal of RCRA hazardous
waste.
III-8
-------
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: RCRA Interfaces—EPCRA (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• A transfer off-site of a toxic chemical is reportable when it is disposed, recycled,
treated, or used for energy recovery.
• At a later date, take the time to read the completed Form R and take note of the
required data elements.
• Examples of how an inspector can use this information include:
— Off-site transfers—compare with manifests
— On-site disposal—examine which units/wastes are subject to RCRA
— UIC—check if hazardous waste is injected, and look for a no migration
petition
— Air—investigate volatile releases, such as from an air stripper, to determine
if they relate to a RCRA treatment process
— Water—look at the waste water discharges to determine if they are
generating a hazardous waste, and if they are permitted for the discharges.
III-9
-------
IRCRA INTERFACES—TSCA & FIFRA
OVERHEAD #8
TITLE: RCRA Interfaces—TSCA & FIFRA
KEY POINTS:
• Mixed PCB/Hazardous Wastes must be managed under the requirements of both
TSCA and RCRA.
• Mixed PCB/Hazardous Wastes are also subject to the Land Disposal Restrictions.
• Regarding FIFRA, there isn't much interface between it and RCRA. A couple of
issues to think about, however, are:
4-
— FIFRA regulations contain procedures recommended and not recommended
for disposal (40 CFR 165).
— Some FIFRA substances are hazardous wastes under RCRA and must be
disposed of as such.
111-10
-------
I REMEMBER...
KNOWLEDGE + ACTION • ENFORCEMENT
I
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Remember...
KEY POINTS:
Inspectors should investigate RCRA interface issues to expand their regul
knowledge and improve their inspection efforts.
[atory
An understanding of different regulatory programs will enhance an inspector's
capability to define the RCRA jurisdictional limits.
In addition, when RCRA inspectors identify violations of other EPA programs,
they should take the initiative to report the violation to the appropriate
enforcement program. Referrals from cross-program screening will be discussed
in the next section.
Understanding where and how RCRA interfaces with other programs is not only
the foundation for understanding multi-media considerations, but is also an
important part of your current RCRA inspections and the key to the overall goal
of timely and appropriate environmental compliance.
What we have discussed here are issues related to RCRA interfaces. These
interfaces require a solid understanding of other programs to perform
comprehensive single-media inspections. We will next discuss the Agency's
drive toward multi-media enforcement and the various approaches to conducting
multi-media inspections.
Ill-11
-------
MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS!
"Multi-Media
Inspections?
OVERHEAD #10
TITLE: Multi-Media Inspections
KEY POINTS:
* Next, we will look briefly at the background behind and underlying rationale for
multi-media inspections, as well as discuss three different approaches to these
inspections.
• 1 will describe the three multi-media inspection approaches and explain the
planning, conducting, and follow-up requirements of each type of inspection.
You will have the opportunity to ask questions, share insights, and/or raise issues.
* First, let's take a look at the concept of multi-media enforcement and inspections.
111-12
-------
MULTI-MEDIA—WHAT IS IT?
"I know!"
OVERHEAD #11
TITLE: Multi-Media—What Is It?
KEY POINTS:
• At registration, each of you was provided with an index card on which you were
asked to write down a definition of multi-media enforcement and multi-media
inspections. I expected to find numerous definitions among your answers, and I
anticipated that some of your answers would either overlap or conflict with one
another. Let's see what we've got...
• As you can see, many people have different understandings of what multi-media
enforcement is and what constitutes a multi-media inspection. We all know it is
not uncommon for the Regions to vary in their approaches to doing things. For
example, a recent OWPE study, that evaluated the role of RCRA inspectors in
promoting pollution prevention, revealed many Regional differences in
multi-media approaches. The OWPE study found that Regional RCRA programs
have already initiated various innovative methods of cross-program coordination
and multi-media inspections.
111-13
-------
OVERHEAD #11
TITLE: Multi-Media—What Is It? (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• It has become apparent that not only do we have different understandings of
multi-media enforcement and multi-media inspections, but we also define the
three types of multi-media inspections differently. A "Level D" inspection in one
Region may look nothing like one in another Region.
• In order to communicate effectively during this course and the rest of this
Institute, it is important that we all are talking the same language and sharing the
same understandings. Let's examine the three types of multi-media inspections as
defined by NEIC, and we will discuss any differences that exist between your
respective Regions and states.
IH-14
-------
[THREE TYPES OF MULTI-MEDIA INSPECTIONS I
LEVEL C
... screening for potential violations In
other programs during program specific
compliance evaluation
... concurrent and coordinated program
specific compliance evaluations
LEVEL D
... comprehensive facility evaluation
Each level Increases In Its complexity.
OVERHEAD #12
TITLE: Three Types of Multi-Media Inspections
KEY POINTS:
* The three types of multi-media inspections, as defined by the NEIC Multi-Media
Inspection Manual, are:
— Level B: A screening inspection conducted during a program-specific
compliance evaluation
— Level C: A detailed, coordinated compliance evaluation of several targeted
program-specific areas
— Level D: A consolidated, comprehensive facility evaluation.
• We will not be speaking about Level A inspections because, as you know, that
type of inspection is a single-medium compliance inspection, conducted by one
or more inspectors. The objective of a Level A inspection is to determine facility
compliance status with program-specific regulations.
• Level B inspections are single media, not truly multi-media. The objective is to
determine compliance for program-specific regulations, and also to identify
potential violations in other programs for referral. Level B inspections have
limited, focused objectives and are most appropriate for smaller, less complex
facilities that are subject to only a few environmental laws.
111-15
-------
OVERHEAD #12
TITLE: Three Types of Multi-Media Inspections (continued)
KEY POINTS:
— An OWPE study in 1991 revealed that Regions 1,4,7, and 8 were
performing these Level B screening inspections. This type of inspection
requires minimal cross-program training. The inspector must possess a
general understanding of program requirements in order to flag potential
violations and refer these problems to the appropriate program inspector(s).
Typically, an inspector who conducts a Level B inspection uses a 1-2 page
checklist and looks for key indicators of compliance problems (i.e., opaque
smoke).
• Level C inspections involve concurrent and coordinated program-specific
compliance evaluation. The objective of the Level C inspection is to determine
compliance for several targeted program-specific areas, as well as report on
possible npncompliance in other environmental program areas. Level C
multi-media inspections have more compliance issues to address than the Level B
inspection and are more appropriate for intermediate to large facilities that are
subject to a variety of environmental laws.
— The OWPE study found that Regions 2,3,6, 7, and 10 and NEIC are
performing many of these coordinated inspections. In these Regions, staff
responsible for performing Level C inspections typically work in unison
with inspectors from other program offices, but each inspector cites
violations only in his/her particular program.
— This type of inspection is media-specific, and is conducted by a team of
single-media inspectors from different programs. The team, which is
headed by a team leader, conducts either 1) a joint inspection, where the
team staff meet at the facility and simultaneously conduct their respective
program-specific investigations, or 2) a coordinated inspection, where the
team staff agree to conduct their respective program-specific investigations
within the same timeframe, but not necessarily during the same visit.
• Similar to a Level C inspection, a Level D inspection determines compliance for
several targeted program-specific areas and reports on possible noncompliance in
other environmental program areas. Level D inspections look beyond compliance
to identify environmental problems that might otherwise be overlooked. Level D
multi-media inspections are the most thorough, often taking a process approach,
and, consequently, are resource-intensive inspections. Level D inspections may
involve cross-trained inspectors. This type of inspection is appropriate for
intermediate to large complex facilities that are subject to a variety of
environmental laws.
• Region 6 and NEIC are performing consolidated multi-media inspections. For
these inspections, their inspectors are trained to conduct cross-program
inspections and have the authority to cite violations in more than one program.
The Level D inspection team, headed by a team leader, is comprised of staff
thoroughly trained in different program areas. This consolidated inspection
addresses not only compliance in targeted program-specific areas, but also tries to
identify environmental problems that might otherwise be overlooked.
Ill-16
-------
OVERHEAD #12
TITLE: Three Types of Multi-Media Inspections (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• For example, a large industrial facility with multiple process operations may be
regulated under numerous environmental statutes, such as the Clean Water Act
(CWA), Clean Air Act (CAA), Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA), Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and the Federal
Insecticide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The on-site investigation is conducted
during one or more time periods, during which intense concurrent
program-specific compliance evaluations are conducted, often by the same
cross-trained personnel.
111-17
-------
• WHY ARE MULTI-MEDIA
'INSPECTIONS IMPORTANT?
RCRA
CAA
EPA deems multi-media Inspections essential.
OVERHEAD #13
TITLE: Why are Multi-Media Inspections Important?
KEY POINTS:
• If you have not already seen multi-media inspections conducted in your
Region, you will soon. EPA's current initiatives emphasize the need for
multi-media enforcement nationwide.
• Why the drive for multi -media enforcement? There are several reasons for
this direction as you can tell from the list of advantages we just generated:
— Multi-media enforcement is a top Agency priority, demonstrated by
support for it at the highest levels. In 1990, Administrator Reilly
established a goal of taking a multi-media approach to 25% of all
enforcement activities. In a February 19,1991 memorandum,
"Implementation of the Administrator's Multi-Media Enforcement
Goal," Deputy Administrator Habicht clarified the Administrator's goal
of 25% multi-media enforcement. He also explained that multi-media
enforcement is part of the overall "integrated" direction the Agency is
taking, and that the goal is an Agency-wide goal, covering all programs
and all types of actions.
111-18
-------
OVERHEAD #13
TITLE: Why are Multi-Media Inspections Important? (continued)
KEY POINTS:
— Mr. Habicht further explained EPA's move toward multi-media enforcement
as one that is "tempered by an overriding concern that (the Agency's) highest
priority is to protect public health and the environment whether such
protection derives from a multi-media or single-media approach." He
emphasized that "multi -media enforcement is a means, not an end in itself."
— EPA's strategic planning documents and enforcement activities emphasize
multi-media compliance/enforcement and present EPA's vision for
multi-media targeting, inspections, and enforcement actions. These
documents include:
•• Draft Agency-Wide Strategic Plan
•• Enforcement Four Year Strategic Plan
•• Enforcement in the 1990's Project.
— The benefits from using a multi-media approach to enforcement are many.
This movement is intended to further several objectives:
•• Greater environmental protection, risk reduction, and pollution
prevention. This objective could be accomplished by
identifying/preventing cross-media transfers, and ensuring that all
emissions or waste streams are appropriately addressed by a regulatory
authority.
•• Greater deterrence (i.e., greater leverage over violators, larger
penalties, and greater potential for innovative settlements).
Another potential benefit is greater resource efficiency than single program/
single media approaches can accomplish alone, as demonstrated by the
Massachusetts Blackstone Project. The Blackstone Project was a joint pilot
project of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management, for which a
combination of multi-media compliance inspections, enforcement rooted in
waste prevention, and expanded technical assistance was used to improve
environmental protection in the Commonwealth. Notwithstanding the
Blackstone Project, it is uncertain whether any resource efficiencies have
been gained in the Regions from Level C and D inspections.
— As you will learn in the Federal Facilities module, the Enforcement
Management Council selected Federal facilities for a major multi-media
enforcement initiative for FY 93/94. Federal facilities are a highly visible
sector of the regulated community. They are of great environmental
significance and have become an Administration priority. While committed
to improved environmental performance, Federal agencies' compliance rates
have traditionally been lower in all media than those of private facilities.
Federal facilities are, therefore, in need of more comprehensive
environmental compliance evaluations.
UI-19
-------
OVERHEAD #13
TITLE: Why are Multi-Media Inspections Important? (continued)
KEY POINTS:
— The findings of an Agency-wide program evaluation study, conducted
by OPPE's Program Evaluation Division in December 1990, show that
the Agency is overwhelmingly positive about multi-media enforcement
as a general concept. Managers and staff support the idea of resolving
environmental problems at a facility in a holistic manner. The overall
consensus is that multi-media enforcement as an enforcement strategy
makes sense when used appropriately.
111-20
-------
I TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES 1
OVERHEAD #14
TITLE: Training Opportunities
KEY POINTS:
• This handout contains a course description of a NET1 multi-media training
opportunity. The description also includes the name and telephone number of the
person to contact for those of you who arc interested in pursuing training.
• Before we go any further, I think each of us would benefit from learning what is
going on in the states and Regions with respect to multi-media inspections and
training, such as:
— The type and number of multi-media inspections conducted/planned
— The type/extent of training provided
— Problems and successes experienced.
111-21
-------
OVERHEAD #14 W
TITLE: Training Opportunities (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Would anyone like to summarize his/her state/Regional experiences with
multi-media inspections? Our time is limited, so I can only call on one or two
people to share information regarding state/Regional experiences with
multi-media inspections. Anyone?
111-22
-------
PRESENTATION ON
LEVEL B INSPECTIONS:
A SIMPLE SCREENING
EXERCISE
-------
-------
! WHAT IS A LEVEL B INSPECTION? I
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: What Is a Level B Inspection?
KEY POINTS:
• In the next few minutes, I will discuss Level B inspections of the kind that Region
I is conducting. After the presentation, there will be a few minutes for questions.
• Let's begin by defining what we mean by "Level B inspections." These
inspections are similar to single-media inspections. However, for a Level B
inspection, an inspector quickly screens for potential violations in other programs.
The inspector does not need to be completely knowledgeable of the regulatory
requirements in all programs.
-------
*)
(REGION I's LEVEL B SCREENING I
MuKi-media screening Is performed at all facilities and
by all programs
All Inspectors are provided with one day of basic
training on all programs
A multi-media tracking system Identifies Inspections or
enforcement actions that are planned or have been
recently conducted
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Region I's Level B Screening
KEY POINTS:
* Region I no longer performs Level A single-media inspections, for which an
inspector evaluates one media without looking for potential problems in other
media programs. Region I currently performs a Level B inspection at all facilities
in all media programs (unless a Level C or D inspection is conducted).
• All Region I inspectors have been provided with intensive, one-day training,
where 20-30 minutes is devoted to each program. This is an enormous amount of
information to address in one day (additional training may be provided in the
future). Although it appears to be successful in Region 1, other Regions/states
may consider allowing more time for training.
• Prior to conducting an inspection, inspectors review the Region I multi-media
tracking system to determine if any inspections or enforcement actions in other
programs are planned or have been recently conducted. The system contains
information on inspections/enforcement actions since 1990. For older
information, IDEA is also available. However, Region I RCRA inspectors have
found that the information contains primarily RCRA information, and not a great
deal of information on the other programs. If an inspection/enforcement action
was recently conducted, then the inspector will contact the representative in the
other program to learn more about the facility.
-------
[CONDUCTING THE LEVEL B SCREENING
FACILITY MULTI-MEOW SURVEY
IMhrlfci
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Conducting the Level B Screening
KEY POINTS:
• Region 1 has developed a four-page "Facility Multi-Media Survey," which is a
checklist to assist inspectors in identifying potential violations or concerns in
other programs. As you can see, the checklist contains basic questions that serve
as indicators of non-compliance. The checklist identifies general visual clues of
possible noncompliance, as well as program-specific questions.
• Once on-site, an inspector incorporates the screening checklist into the regular
single-media compliance inspection. Typically, it takes an additional 30 minutes
to complete the checklist. This extra time has not been too burdensome for
inspectors in Region 1. It is important to caution that if more time is spent
examining the potential multi-media issues, then it is possible that adequate time
may not be dedicated to performing a comprehensive RCRA compliance
inspection.
• Following the inspection, an inspector merely sends a copy of the checklist to the
appropriate program contacts identified. In practice, checklists are not always
sent, but rather, inspectors contact other inspectors by phone to determine if they
should be concerned about a situation (e.g., asking if RCRA applies in certain
situations).
-------
(BENEFITS/LESSONS LEARNED
f
CWA
RCRA
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Benefits/Lessons Learned
KEY POINTS:
• One obvious benefit of multi-media screening is that all Region I inspectors get
some basic training/understanding of other programs.
* Inspectors have not only learned who to call, but they have had more contact with
other programs by using the checklists. As a result of Region I's initiative to
conduct multi-media screenings, programs talk to each other more now than they
had in the past.
«•
As one example, an inspector from the CAA program was conducting an
industrial source inspection when he noticed a large mound of contaminated soils
on the property. When the inspector questioned the facility manager about the
mound, the facility manager stated that she was waiting to receive a RCRA
permit. Upon the inspector's return to the office, he notified the RCRA program
of his observations at the industrial facility. The inspector was informed that the
RCRA permit was revoked and that the facility was not going to receive a permit.
• In the long-term, a multi-media perspective can improve our understanding of
facilities and, potentially, the quality of our enforcement programs.
f
-------
PRESENTATION ON
LEVEL D INSPECTIONS:
AN EXERCISE IN PLANNING
AND COORDINATION
-------
-------
I WHAT IS A LEVEL D INSPECTION? I
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: What Is A Level D Inspection?
KEY POINTS:
• In the next few minutes, I will discuss the Level D inspections that Region 6 is
conducting. As part of this briefing, I will explain the planning process that is
involved in coordinating these Level D inspections, and I will describe how these
inspections are conducted. I will briefly mention the follow-up process and
conclude by sharing the lessons learned from Region 6's experiences in the field.
After the brief presentation, there will be a few minutes for questions.
-------
I LEVEL D: A TEAM EFFORT I
EPA Programs Involved:
AIR • EPCRA
- SIP
- NSPS • SPCC
- PSD
- NESHAPS • UIC
• ASBESTOS RENO/DEMO
• UST
RCRA
• WETLANDS
NPDES
• SDWA
TSCA Sections 5,6, and 6
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Level D: A Team Effort
KEY POINTS:
• These are the ten programs in Region 6 that have been involved in Level D
inspections. Each of these programs, however, is not always involved in an
inspection. The types of compliance problems that are suspected at a facility
determine which programs will be involved in any given Level D inspection. For
example, at a facility where drinking water wells are present, an inspector from
the SDWA program would be involved in the multi-media inspection. In general,
the programs that are often involved in Level D inspections are RCRA, TSCA,
Air, and NPDES.
• In Region 6, most of the inspectors are single media inspectors. All Region 6
inspectors have been involved in multi-media inspections at least one time in
their career. Few have expertise in more than one program. Those that do have
expertise in more than one program are trained in TSCA. Only one inspector is
cross-trained in three programs: RCRA, Water, and TSCA.
-------
(OVERALL PLANNING PROCESS
• Selection of Target Facilities
• Selection of inspection Team and Team Leader
• Conduct of State and EPA File Reviews
• Inspection Team Planning and Coordination Meetings
• Coordination with State Agencies
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Overall Planning Process
KEY POINTS:
• Over the last two and one-half years, Region 6 has performed 13 Level D inspections,
all of which have been unannounced. Region 6 reviews emissions data from the
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) and compliance data to target facilities for these
multi-media inspections. Facilities with the greatest emissions, and that are significant
noncompliers in more than one program, are targeted for Level D inspections. States
may also recommend certain facilities that have recalcitrant or difficult management.
• Each inspection requires significant planning and coordination efforts. The process for
selecting a team leader has been, simply, one of taking rums. GS-lls to GS-13s can
serve as team leader, and everyone takes a turn at fulfilling this role. The team leader
acts as a facility/inspection team focal point to deal with site access, planning, and
coordination issues.
• The type of facility and the programs impacted by the suspected/existing compliance
problems determine the composition of the inspection team. In general, the inspection
team may consist of: 1) Team Leader (a senior ESD inspector), 2) Site Safety Officer,
3) EPA Program-Specific or Multi-Media Inspectors, 4) State Inspectors, 5) State and
EPA Enforcement Officers, and 6) Sampling Support Personnel.
-------
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Overall Planning Process (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Four to six weeks prior to an inspection, the team leader holds a planning and
coordination meeting. By this time the file reviews have already been conducted,
and the team members have the knowledge of the site and the background to
inform the team leader of their respective needs. In this way, the team leader can
prepare a schedule for conducting the inspection.
• Coordination with state agencies is important because they typically have more
recent and first-hand knowledge of the facility.
-------
[CONDUCTING THE INSPECTION
• Pre-lnspection She Safety Meeting
• Inspection In-Brtoflng
• Combined Inspections of Specific Units
• Nightly Inspection Coordination Meetings
• Inspection OutbrMing
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Conducting the Inspection
KEY POINTS:
• As mentioned earlier, Region 6 has a policy of conducting unannounced
inspections. Prior to departing for the targeted facility, the team leader and
inspection team review the site safety plan to ensure that the inspectors have the
appropriate training and equipment necessary to conduct the inspection.
• When the inspection team arrives at the facility site, the Team Leader and Site
Safety Officer approach the entrance and attempt to enter the facility. They lead
an inspection in-briefing, informing the facility members that other inspectors
will be entering the facility within the next hour.
• Once the inspection in-briefing is concluded, the inspection team may enter the
facility according to the inspection schedule, which the Team Leader prepared
based on the timing and other needs cited by the individual team members. The
schedule allows for single-media inspections of specific units to be conducted
concurrently, only when necessary. The inspection schedule has proven to be a
cost-effective and time-saving tool.
-------
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Conducting the Inspection (continued)
KEY POINTS:
* In conducting the actual inspection, there is little difference between a single-
media inspection and a multi-media inspection. The difference occurs in the
cross-program communications. Region 6 has learned to ensure that each
regulated unit is inspected by all appropriate inspectors at the same time.
• Nightly inspection coordination meetings are held at the end of each day's
inspection. These meetings keep the Team Leader informed of the inspectors'
progress, findings, and any problems. These meetings also offer inspectors an
opportunity to compare notes (e.g., on the flow of wastes/emissions) and identify
inconsistencies or areas of concern that can be addressed the following day.
• The inspection out-briefing is held with the facility manager at the completion of
the inspection. At this closing meeting, each single-media inspector informs the
facility manager of his/her findings.
-------
I BENEFITS OF A REGION 6 INSPECTION
off-gases
Incinerator
waste
stream
-*» air stripper
-s-WWTU
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: Benefits of a Region 6 Inspection
KEY POINTS:
• Here is a real-life example of how cross-program coordination during an
inspection paid off.
• During the nightly inspection coordination meeting, the inspectors identified
inconsistencies in the information collected in the inspection of each of these
units. The following day, the RCRA, Air, and NPDES inspectors reinspected the
units simultaneously. They discovered that the off-gases from an air stripper
were sent to the incinerator, and represented a significant proportion of the air and
feed material supplied to the incinerator. This was initially unreported to the
RCRA inspector during the incinerator inspection.
-------
(FOLLOWING UP THE INSPECTION
Sounds good!
Lets get together
V towrite J
\cxir roportR/
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Following Up the Inspection
KEY POINTS:
• Inspectors on the multi-media team prepare single-media inspection reports and
submit them to the Team Leader and Regional Counsel concurrently.
• The Team Leader then prepares an Executive Summary for the Multi-Media
Inspection Report. This summary is 5 to 18 pages in length and summarizes the
facility description, inspection activities, and findings. Region 6 learned from
experience that it is necessary to compile the Multi-Media Inspection Report
while the enforcement personnel are preparing the case to meet the statutory
timely and appropriate requirements.
-------
[LESSONS LEARNED
LESSONS
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: Lessons Learned
KEY POINTS:
State participation is extremely helpful. Since many programs are delegated to
the states, it is beneficial to have State personnel at the facility. Often, State
representatives have been to the facility more recently, have more complete files,
and have a better historical picture of the site. State personnel may also recognize
more changes at a facility (e.g., closing a unit).
Cross program planning, coordination and communication are essential. Upfront
planning assists the Team Leader in knowing what programs have impact at the
facility. Once an inspection team is formed, understanding the scheduling needs
of the various members is essential to ensuring a timely and cost-effective
approach to conducting the inspection.
Establishment of a Team Leader as the focal point for inspections, enforcement,
state contacts, etc. is critical. The Team Leader is necessary-otherwise, people
would be stumbling over one another.
A phased approach to conducting Level D inspections is preferred. Do not have
everyone at the facility at the same time. Limit the team size and equipment
needed by spreading out the scheduled inspection activities.
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid
Waste and
Emergency Response
November 1992
?/EPA RCRA/Clean Water Act
Interface
A Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Background
The regulation of hazardous wastewater activities can fall under jurisdiction of both the Clean Water Act (CWA)
and RCRA. However, the distinction between the two statutes is relatively clear because, in many instances, RCRA
contains exclusions and conditions that ensure that RCRA jurisdiction ends where CWA jurisdiction begins.
One of the principal provisions of the CWA governs the discharge of treated pollutants from "point sources" to
surface waters. RCRA regulates the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of solid and
ha:utrdous waste. Treatment and disposal practices of RCRA waste are the two practices most likely to be
encompassed by the CWA.
Potential Issues
The following examples highlight specific RCRA
•gulations that interface with CWA.
Wastewater Treatment Unit (WWTU) Exemption
— Under §§264.1(g)(6) and 265.1(c)(10) WWTUs are
exempt from RCRA permitting requirements. To
qualify for this exclusion, a WWTU must meet three
criteria specified in §260.10:
* The unit must be part of a wastewater
treatment facility subject to regulation
under the CWA
• The unit must manage a hazardous
wastewater
• Treatment or storage must take place in
tank or tank system.
Specifically, under the CWA, the facility must
have either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimi-
nation system (NPDES) permit or discharge to a
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW).
Only the WWTU (i.e., the tank) is exempt from
Subtitle C regulation, the exemption does not apply
to the waste. Consequently, all applicable hazard-
ous waste management standards apply to the waste
prior to treatment in the WWTU, and to any residue
venerated bv the treatment of that waste. In other
words, solid waste (e.g., sludges) resulting from the
treatment of a listed hazardous waste in an exempt
WWTU will remain a listed hazardous waste, and
solid waste resulting from the treatment of a charac-
teristic hazardous waste in an exempt unit will re-
main hazardous as long as the solid waste continues
to exhibit a characteristic (§§261.3(c) and (d)). The
generator is responsible for identifying whether the
sludge is hazardous and how the sludge is managed.
There are additional limitations to the exclusion.
Specifically, the exemption is not intended to apply
to zero discharge WWTUs that are not required to
obtain a NPDES permit. These WWTUs are required
to obtain RCRA Part 6 permit because their waste
streams are not otherwise regulated under CWA
(i.e., no applicable effluent guidelines or pretreat-
ment standards specifying zero discharge).
Another exclusion specification was made in the
February 21, 1991 Boiler and Industrial Furnace
(BIF) final rule. In the rule, EPA modified the defini-
tion of "incinerator" in §260.10 so that it specifically
excludes the term "sludge dryer," and added a spe-
cific definition for a "sludge dryer." With this dis-
tinction, if a sludge dryer meets the newly codified
definition, it can be part of an exempt WWTU (pro-
vided, of course, the unit meets the definition of a
tank) instead of being classified as a thermal treat-
ment device which would need a permit under
RCRA.
-------
CWA Pretreatment Standards — On July 24,1990,
EPA promulgated regulations that revised the Gen-
eral Pretreatment and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System regulations in 40 CFR Parts 122
and 403. These revisions were made pursuant to
§§307(b) and 402(b)(8) of the CWA and §3018(b) of
RCRA. Effective August23,1990 specific discharges
were prohibited unless the waste streams were first
treated. Two of these prohibited waste streams meet
the following characteristic hazardous waste defini-
tions:
* Ignitable wastes, including a material
meeting the definition in §261.21(a)(l)
• Reactive wastes, including a material
meeting the definitions in §261.23(a).
Additionally, die new standards prohibit the dis-
charge of oil and grease that will interfere with
POTW operation, as well as the discharge of trucked
wastes, except at designated discharge points.
Along with an existing §403.5(b) prohibition on
materials with a pH lower than 5.0 (a material with
a pH less than or equal to 2.0 is considered a corro-
sive waste under §261.23{a)(l)), these new provi-
sions are requiring new treatment at RCRA facilities.
This treatment must occur in appropriate RCRA
units or RCRA exempt units (e.g., an exempt el-
ementary neutralization unit under §§264. l(g) or
265.1(c)).
Permit by Rule for POTWs — A permit by rule
eliminates the need for facilities to submit a full
Subtitle C permit application when they are permit-
ted under CWA. Specifically, a POTW that accepts
for treatment a hazardous waste and has a NPDES
permit will be considered to have a permit under
RCRA if the following §270.60(c) requirements are
met:
• EPA identification number
• Use of the manifest system
• Maintain an operating record
• Biennial reporting.
A ^TTW accepting hazardous waste for treatment
v ioes not comply with the above mentioned
T: ements must comply with all the Subtitle C
p«. . requirements.
Domestic Sewage Exclusion — If a hazardous waste
stream is managed prior to discharge, it must be
handled as a hazardous waste in, for example, a
§26134 accumulation tank or in a permitted storage
area. This is because, technically, the waste ceases to
be under RCRA jurisdiction at the point where the
industrial wastewatermixes with the sanitary wastes.
Typically, this mixture takes place within the sewer
system and the application of RCRA regulations
would be difficult. Thus, EPA has determined that
a waste falls within the CWA exclusion when if first
enters a sewage system if it will mix with sanitary
sewage prior to storage or treatment by a POTW. A
hazardous waste that never mixes with domestic
sewage cannot qualify under all of the criteria set
forth in §261. 4(a)(l).
If the waste is substantively managed in RCRA units
before discharge, it must be included as part of a
generator's monthly hazardous waste count. Alter-
natively, if a waste is generated from a process unit
and immediately discharged to the sewer, the mate-
rial would not be counted.
Industrial Wastewater Discharge Exclusion — In-
dustrial wastewater discharges that are point source
discharges subject to regulation under §402 (NPDES
permitting) of CWA are not solid waste under
§261.4(a)(2)ofRCRA.
This exclusion applies only to the actual point source
discharge. It does not exclude industrial wastewa-
ters while being collected, stored or treated prior to
discharge. If these wastewaters are hazardous, the
appropriate permitting or generator accumulation
provisions of RCRA Subtitle C apply. Additionally,
the exclusion does not include sludges that are gen-
erated by wastewater treatment. The generator is
responsible for identifying whether the sludge is
hazardous and how it is managed.
\
*
-------
4
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid
Waste and
Emergency Response
November 1992
3EPA RCRA/Clean Air Act Interface
A Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Background
RCRA and the Clean Air Act (CAA) both have regulatory programs to address emissions onto the environment.
The CAA comprises a series of interlocking programs designed to protect health and the public welfare from
emissions polluting the ambient (outdoor) air.
The 1990 amendments to CAA contain several innovative approaches to air regulation. The Act is subdivided into
a number of titles including provisions for attainment and maintenance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS), mobile sources, air toxics, acid rain control, permits, ozone protection, enforcement and other miscella-
neoios provisions.
Potential Issues
r!
I
The following examples highlight RCRA regula-
:»that interface with CAA.
Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) Reclamation Exclusion
— The CAA requires that all ozone depleting emis-
sions from all kinds of refrigeration be reduced to the
lowest level possible through recycling, recovery,
;ind other controls. Specifically, Title VI of CAA
prohibits venting during servicing and disposal of
refrigerants after July 1,1992. To be consistent with
Title VI, and because CFC refrigerants would dis-
play the toxicity characteristic under RCRA, used
CFC refrigerants (from totally enclosed heat transfer
equipment, provided the refrigerant is reclaimed for
farther use—is not subject to regulation as a hazard-
ous waste (§261.4 (b)(12)). Additionally, to qualify
for the exclusion, the persons performing the recla-
mation activities and the equipment they use must
be certified under CAA.
This exclusion is only applicable to the actual CFC
refrigerant, any oils or other waste removed from the
equipment is subject to hazardous waste determina-
tion.
Air Emission Control Devices — Air emission con-
trol devices located at RCRA hazardous waste facili-
ties but regulated under CAA, can generate residues
tliat may be defined as a hazardous waste. For ex-
ample, activated carbon units used as air emission
control devices of gaseous industrial process emis-
sions will not necessarily be regulated under RCRA.
Trapped organics in such columns are not hazard-
ous waste because the gas being treated is not a solid
waste (it is an uncontained gas), and therefore any
condensed organics do not derive from treatment of
a hazardous waste. However, the non gas residues
from these devices could be hazardous wastes if they
are listed or if they display a characteristic.
Stationary Sources — The CAA of 1990 includes a
list of 189 toxic air pollutants of which emissions
must be reduced. EPA must publish a list of source
categories that emit certain levels of these pollutants.
The list of source categories must include:
• "Major sources" - emitting 10 tons per year
of a single air toxic, or 25 tons per year of
any combination of these toxics
• "Area Sources" - smaller sources emitting
less than 10 tons per year of a single air
toxic, or 25 tons per year of any combina-
tion of these toxics.
Several types of facilities regulated under RCRA
Subtitle C may qualify as "major" or "area" sources
of toxic air pollutants subject to CAA. Specific small
businesses that may be regulated under both pro-
grams include dry cleaners, gasoline stations, print-
ers, auto body repair shops, metal finishers, surface
coating and painting operations, and solvent
degreasing operations.
-------
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid
Waste and
Emergency Response
November 1992
&EPA RCRA/CERCLA Interface
A Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Background
RCRA and CERCLA both address hazards in the environment. The primary distinction between them is that
RCRA regulates management of wastes while CERCLA authorizes cleanup responses whenever there is a release of
wastes. However, the programs overlap in two major ways:
• RCRA standards can be considered Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) and
are central to selecting remedies under CERCLA
• RCRA corrective action and CERCLA actions may be evoked under similar circumstances.
Under CERCLA §106, EPA has the authority to abate an imminent or substantial danger to public health or the
environment that results from a hazardous substance release. The authority under RCRA §7003 is essentially the
Sfime, except that RCRA's imminent hazard provision addresses non-hazardous as well as hazardous solid waste
re leases. In an enforcement action, the CERCLA and RCRA imminent hazard provisions may be used in tandem to
strengthen the government's case.
On the whole, the CERCLA response authority has a broader reach than RCRA's corrective action. The RCRA
revisions apply only to RCRA regulated facilities. CERCLA, on the other hand, can be utilized to require response
work by any PRP at any place where there is a release or potential release of a hazardous substance. CERCLA
hiizardous substances include all RCRA hazardous wastes and substances listed by other statutes, such as the Safe
Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Moreover, CERCLA authorizes the use of EPA money or that of third
parties for site cleanup; EPA or the third party can then seek reimbursement from potentially responsible parties
(P'RPs) The RCRA program can only compel the responsible parties to engage in a cleanup and has no fund to expend
on direct cleanup.
The RCRA and Superfund programs follow roughly parallel procedures in responding to releases, although
different labels are applied to the procedures. Both programs have procedures for:
• Discovery of a release
• Examination of available data to determine if an emergency action is warranted
• Short-term measures to abate the immediate adverse effects of a release
• Investigation and formal study of long-term cleanup options
• Formal selection of a remedy.
The major procedural difference between the RCRA and Superfund programs involves ranking. CERCLA
requires that site conditions be analyzed according to the Hazard Ranking System and that only sites placed on the
National Priorities List (NPL) receive any remedial action funding. Currently, no comparable requirement exists in
the RCRA corrective action procedures.
-------
Potential Issues
The following examples highlight specific RCRA
regulations that interface with CERCLA
Listing of RCRA Non-Corrective Action Sites — The
RCRA/CERCLA interface consists of issues regarding
the listing and cleanup of RCRA sites under CERCLA.
The June 10, 1986, Federal Register published the compo-
nents of the Final RCRA Listing Policy to address the
circumstances under which RCRA sites will be placed on
the NFL and be subject to CERCLA. Under that policy,
sites net subject to RCRA Subtitle C corrective action
authorities will continue to be placed on the NPL. En-
compassed by this policy are:
• Sites that ceased activity prior to the Subtitle C
effective date
• Sites that do not manage regulatory hazardous
waste
• Contamination resulting from activities of
hazardous waste handlers not subject to
corrective action, such as generators or
transporters.
The RCRA Subpart S proposed rule, July 27, 1990,
30789, presented much more stringent and far reaching
corrective action measures than currently exist within
the RCRA regulations. The proposed rule also contains
a discussion of its relationship to other programs. The
Agency anticipates that there may be a number of facili-
ties at which substantial CERCLA remedial studies and /
or actual remediation will have been already conducted
by the time a RCRA permit is used (thereby triggering
the Subpart S corrective action requirements). In such
cases, if the remedial work has been conducted accord-
ing to the CERCLA National Contingency Plan (NCP),
EPA would consider that work to be consistent with the
requirements of Subpart S, making additional or differ-
ent studies or cleanup requirements unnecessary. If,
however, the Superfund remedial activities conducted
at a RCRA facility addressed only a portion of the units
or releases at the facility requiring remediation, then the
RCRA permit would need to address any remaining
corrective action required under Subpart S.
Listing of Potential RCRA Corrective Action Sites —
Sites that can be addressed under RCRA Subtitle C
corrective action authority generally will not be placed
on the NPL. However there are circumstances in which
it may be appropriate to use CERCLA authorities to
address facilities at which necessary corrective actions
under RCRA are unlikely to be performed. Specifically,
on June 10, 1986 the Agency identified three types of
facilities that meet these criteria:
• Facilities owned by persons who are bankrupt
• Facilities that have lost RCRA interim status
and for which there are additional indications
that the owner/operator will be unwilling tc
undertake corrective action
• Sites, analyzed on a case-by-case basis, whose
owners/operators have shown an unwilling-
ness to undertake corrective action.
On October 4,1989,the Agency added other categories of
RCRA facilities that may be appropriate for NPL listing,
specifically, facilities that are non- or late-filers for per-
mits, converters (i.e., facilities whose Part A permits
have been withdrawn), protective filers, and sites hold-
ing RCRA permits issues before enactment of HSWA.
The Agency may also use CERCLA, or participate in joint
efforts with States under RCRA, to address situations of
"area-wide" contamination.
Cleanup of NPL Sites Under RCRA — In some in-
stances, sites have been listed on the NPL and later
actions are taken under RCRA corrective action. The
Agencyissuedamemorandumonjulyll,1990, (Qayto,
Wassersug and Mulkey) outlining the requirements for
cleanup of final NPL sites under RCRA. The memo
stated that RCRA authorities may be used at NPL sites,
and that actions taken at an NPL site under RCRA
§3008(h) need not meet NCP requirements for remedy
selection in order to delete the site from the NPL.
RCRA Regulations as CERCLA ARARs — CERCLA
actions may have to comply with other environmental
requirements, including those under RCRA. A require-
ment under other environmental laws may be either
"applicable" or "relevant and appropriate." Applicable
requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of
control, and other substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under
Federal or state law that specifically address a hazardous
substance, pollution, contaminant, remedial action, lo-
cation or other circumstances at a CERCLA site.
Relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) are
RCRA standards that, while not "applicable," address
problems or situations sufficiently similar to those en-
countered at a CERCLA site that their use is well suited
to that site. For a Federal or state regulation that is
determined to be an ARAR, §l21(e)(l) of CERCLA re-
quires a remedial action to comply with the substantive
but not administrative requirements for activities con-
ducted on-site.
CERCLA Off-Site Policy — CERCLA's off-site policy
states that no hazardous substance may be taken to an
off-site RCRA facility if the facility has significant RCRA
violations or other environmental conditions that affect
its satisfactory operation. This policy is discussed in the
November 29,1988, Federal Register (53 FR 48218) and the
document entitled Revised Procedures for Implementing
Off-Site Response Actions (Directive Number 9834.11)
-------
4
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid
Waste and
Emergency Response
November 1992
RCRA/Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act
Interface
A Quick Reference Pact Sheet
Background
Section 313 of the Emergency Planning and
Community Right to Know Act (EPCRA) of 1986
requires EPA to establish an inventory of routine
toxic chemical emissions from certain facilities.
Facilities subject to this reporting requirement are
required to complete a Toxic Release Inventory
Form (Form R) for specified chemicals. Reports
must be submitted to EPA by July 1 of each calendar
ytiar. EPA is required to compile the reports into a
national computerized data base called the Toxic
Release Inventory (TRI). The data available from
TIU is a valuable tool for targeting enforcement
efforts as well as helpful to a RCRA inspector in
iderstanding the facility operations.
The reporting requirement applies to owners
and operators of facilities that have 10 or more full-
time employees, that are in Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39 and that
nr.anufacrure, process, or otherwise use a listed
toxic chemical in excess of specified threshold quan-
tities. These facilities are required to report data on
chemicals handled, and releases into the air, water,
or land (both on and off-site).
Potential Issues
The following examples highlight TRI data that
can benefit a RCRA inspector.
Releases On-Site — Section 5.5 of Form R re-
quires facilities report the amount of a toxic
chemical release to a landfill, land treatment
unit, surface impoundment, or other land dis-
posal unit. Most of the TRI land releases are
considered on-site disposal of hazardous waste,
regulated under RCRA. A RCRA inspector can
use this information to determine if a particular
unit at a facility is, or should be, permitted
under RCRA.
Releases Off-Site — Section 6.2 of Form R
requires facilities report the amount of a toxic
chemicaltransferredtoanoff-sitelocation. These
off-site locations must be identified and classi-
fied as disposal, recycling, waste treatment or
energy recovery facilities. A RCRA inspector
can compare mis information to a facility's RCRA
manifesting records for verification of proper
disposal.
Releases to Water — Section 6.1 of Form R
requires facilities report the amount of toxic
wastewater discharges to POTWs, and section
5.3 requires facilities to report the quantity of a
toxic chemical discharged to receiving streams
or water bodies. A RCRA inspector can look at
these discharges to determine if the facility has
an exempt WWTU or if a RCRA permit is neces-
sary.
Underground Injection — Section 5.4 of Form
R requires facilities to report the amount of a
toxic chemical injected underground. Using
this information, a RCRA inspector can check if
hazardous waste is injected and see if the facil-
ity has a no migration petition.
Releases to the Air — Sections 5.1 and 5.2 of
Form R require facilities to report the amount of
a toxic chemical released into the air (both fugi-
tive and stack emissions). Stack emissions are
releases to air that occur through confined air
streams, such as stacks, vents, and ducts. Fugi-
tive emissions are all releases to air that are not
releases through a confined air stream. An
investigation of the air releases can indicate to a
RCRA inspector if the facility has or should
have a RCRA regulated treatment process.
-------
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Solid
Waste and
Emergency Response
November 1992
RCRA/Toxic Substances Control
Act Interface
A Quick Reference Fact Sheet
Background
The management of polychlorinated
biphenals (PCBs) is regulated under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA). A complex set
of regulations exists under TSCA restricting
PCB use, requiring inspections, reporting and
r«jcordkeeping, establishing labeling and mark-
ing requirements, and outlining disposal crite-
ria. Specifically, §6(e) of TSCA directly banned
the manufacture of new PCBs and prohibited
processing, distribution in commerce, and use
f all PCBs in other than a totally enclosed
'manner, unless specifically excluded by EPA.
PCB waste may also meet the definition of a
RCRA hazardous waste, however, PCBs alone
are not a RCRA hazardous waste. If the PCB
waste is mixed with a RCRA listed hazardous
waste or exhibits a characteristic of a hazardous
waste it would be subject to RCRA as well as
TSCA.
Potential Issues
The following examples highlight RCRA
regulations that interface with TSCA.
Mixed PCB/Hazardous Waste—Waste that
is both a PCB waste regulated under TSCA
and a hazardous waste regulated under
RCRA must be managed in compliance with
both sets of regulations. The one exception
to this can be found at §216.8, which ex-
dudes from RCRA regulations PCB-con-
taining dielectric fluid and electric equip-
ment which fails the toxicity characteristic
for D018 - D043 only.
Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR)—Mixed
PCB /hazardous waste is subject to the LDR
under Part 268. Specifically, §268.42 (a) (1)
requires liquid hazardous waste containing
PCBs at concentrations greater than or equal
to 50 ppm, but less than 500 ppm be inciner-
ated in accordance with the technical re-
quirements of §761.70 or burned in a high
efficiency boiler in accordance with the tech-
nical requirements of §761.60. Liquid haz-
ardous waste containing PCBs at concen-
trations greater than or equal to 500 ppm
must be incinerated in accordance with tech-
nical requirements of §761.70. The incinera-
tor or boiler accepting these wastes must be
permitted under both RCRA and TSCA,
-------
-------
Multi-Media Investigations Workshop
Designed to provide inspectors with 3-day training on multi-media investigation
approaches to determine total environmental compliance and how to use this
information to prepare multi-media enforcement actions. Topics include
investigation techniques, coordinator responsibilities and regulation, and legal
requirements.
Sponsor: National Enforcement Training Institute
Contact: Charlie Murray
Telephone: (303) 236-5111
-------
-------
REGION I
FACILITY MULTI-MEDIA SURVEY
GENERAL INFORMATION Inspector:
Facility Name:
Address:
(STREET)
(CITY)
Date:
Contact:
(STATE)
(ZIP)
Products manufactured and description of facility:
Air: Stationary Source Compliance
1. Observe: Opaque smoke being emitted from a smokestack (dark enough to
obscure anything behind the plume?
If yes - Which process line (be specific, i.e., boiler No. 4)?
2.
3.
4.
Air pollution control equipment out of service?
If yes - When will it be back on line?
Has the facility added any processes or expanded any pre-existing processes in
the since 1980?
If yes - Were state or federal air permits obtained?
Does the facility have any coating operations?
Water-based or solvent-based coatings?
Are all processes lines controlled?
Has the facility undergone any renovations or demolitions during the last 18
months which involved the removal or disturbance of asbestos-containing
materials?
If yes - Approximately how many square feet or linear feet?
Name of contractor: EPA/State notified?
-------
EPCRA (Title III)
1. Has facility had a release of a hazardous substance in excess of the Superfund
reportable quantity?
If yes - To whom was notification of the releases provided?
Was notification oral or written?
2. Does the facility manufacture, process, or use any toxic chemicals in a quantity
greater than 10,000 Ibs per year?
Has the facility submitted any toxic chemical release forms (Form R) to EPA?
FIFRA .
1. Does the facility manufacture, repackage, relabel or store pesticides?
2. If yes, what is the EPA product registration number and establishment
registration number?
RCRA
Storage of Wastes in Containers/Drums/Tanks/Pails/Dumpsters
1. Do you see any of the above containing waste? Who did you speak to
regarding this?
2. Were any of the above containers (drums, pails, etc.) open? Were any of
them in poor condition (leaking, corroded, etc.)? If so, describe waste (i.e.,
liquid, sludge, etc.), indicate markings on containers and the container
location(s).
3. Would any of the above containers be difficult to access? If so, indicated
reason (such as poor aisle space or obstruction of containers).
Potential Improper Disposal of Wastes
1. Is there any evidence of spills/leak, process discharge or dumping to the
ground, pits or lagoons? If so, note location and extent of release.
-------
SPCC
1. How many gallons of oil does the facility store above and below ground?
If the facility stores more than 660 gallons in a single tank or more than
1230 gallons in a number of tanks above ground cr more than 42,000
gallons below ground - Does the facility have a SPCC (Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasure) plan signed by a certified P.E.?
TSCAPCB
1. Does the facility use electrical equipment that contains PCB's?
If yes - What is the connection of PCB's in the equipment?
(Note: Equipment containing less than 50 ppm is considered non-
PCB.)
2. Does the facility store PCB's or PCB-containing electrical equipment on site?
Labels?
3. Is there any evidence of PCB spills or leaking electrical equipment?
TSCA Core
1. Does the facility manufacture or import chemicals of any kind, in any
amount?
2. Does the facility have a working research and development laboratory (i.e.,
more than a simple QC lab)?
3. Has the facility ever submitted a Pre-Manufacturing Notification (PMN)
under TSCA to the EPA?
UST
1.
Observe - Do underground tanks appear to be a potential problem due to the
excessive spillage, cracked or broken fill/vent lines or leaking pumps, joints,
or valves?
If yes for virgin petroleum and chemical tanks - Are the tanks
registered with the state?
Are the tanks equipped with a leak detection system?
When was the tank last tested?
-------
If yes for waste tanks - Is the tank equipped with secondary
containment and continuous leak detection monitoring system?
If not - Has the tank had an integrity assessment by an independent
RE?
Does the piping have secondary containment?
If not - Is the piping visually inspected daily?
WATER
1. Observe/Ask - Does the facility use water in its manufacturing processes? _
If yes - Does the facility discharge wastewater into a receiving stream,
municipal sewer system, or a subsurface disposal system?
Which?
Does the facility have a permit for each of these discharges?
Does the facility treat wastewater prior to discharge?
2. Observe - Is the effluent from the wastewater treatment facilities clear and
free of solids?
Does the equipment appear to be clean and well maintained?
Are there any unusual odors?
Is the effluent from the facility currently in compliance with the
limitations established in the discharge permit?
3. Observe/Ask - Does the facility have floor drains?
If yes - What materials are spilled down the floor drains?
Where do the floor drains discharge (treatment facility, the municipal
sewer, or directly to a receiving water)?
UIC
1. Observe/Ask - Is there or has there ever been any discharge from this facility
onto or into the ground other than sanitary waste (i.e., does this facility have
or has it had any wells (dug, drilled or driven), dry wells, leachfields or septic
systems which receive(d) commercial or industrial waste (liquid and/or
solid), cooling water, boiler blowdown water or drainage from roof drains,
floor drains, or parking lot drains)? If yes, give a brief description:
-------
WETLANDS
1. Observe - Are there any wet areas near the facility with wetland-type
vegetation (cattails, rushes, sedges) that have been disturbed by waste disposal,
ditching or filling?
If yes - Did facility obtain a federal section 404 permit or any state or
local permit authorizing the fill?
POLLUTION PREVENTION (Optional)
1. Has the facility ever made process changes specifically to reduce waste
generation, or emissions to any media?
2. Has the facility considered substituting non-toxic materials as inputs for
products that are currently made with hazardous substances?
3. Has the facility ever determined how much it costs to manage its wastes?
4. Does the facility or company have a formal pollution prevention policy or
waste minimization policy?
-------
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION FOR FOLLOW-UP
Forwarded to
Air
EPCRA
FIFRA
RCRA
SPCC
TSCA
UST
WATER
WETLANDS
Contact
Bob O'Meara
Greg Roscoe
Pam Ringhoff
Stan Chin
Steve Macintyre
Greg Roscoe
Bill Torrey
Steve Silva
Matt Schweisberg
Phone
565-3258
565-3744
565-3932
573-5750
860-4364
565-3744
573-9604
565-2489
565-4431
Mail Code
APC
ATC
APP
HRW-CAN3
ATC
HPU-CAN2
wcc
WWP
cc: Larry Brill - WCB -
This is a pre-decisional document protected by the deliberative process privilege.
Conclusions or recommendations are intended solely as preliminary information
for government personnel. This form contains tentative conclusions and staff-level
ecommendations and does not create any rights, substantive or procedural, or
defenses, as they are not binding on the Agency.
-------
NEW WASTE!
ERA'S rulemaktng process
Headquarters support
Enforcement of new rules
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: New Waste
KEY POINTS:
During this module, we will examine the regulatory development process and
discuss some of the issues that arise when new rules bring previously unregulated
wastes or facilities into the RCRA system. We will cover the following:
— EPA's rulemaking process
— Impact of new rules on inspectors and how inspectors can participate in the
rulemaking process
— The types of assistance Headquarters can provide inspectors
— Upcoming EPA rule-making initiatives that may impact inspectors.
ft
rv-i
-------
I THE REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS!
OVERHEADS
TITLE: The Regulatory Development Process
KEY POINTS:
• Rulemaking establishes requirements for implementation of statutes passed by
Congress.
• Regulation writers must correctly interpret the intent of Congress when they
develop a new rule and must coordinate input from a large number of sources
within and from outside EPA.
• A significant portion of EPA's personnel and resources are devoted to
development and enforcement of regulations.
• Inspectors usually see new regulations at the "end of the pipe," after the lengthy
and complex regulatory development process has occurred.
* I am going to explain the regulatory development process and how that process
relates to you as inspectors.
IV-2
-------
RULEMAKING ELEMENTS
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Rulemaking Elements
KEY POINTS:
• Many factors must be considered when developing a new rule.
• The law is the starting point. It determines the subject matter and may establish
requirements for special studies or set schedules for regulatory development.
• Every rule requires a large amount of information about scientific, technical,
economic, and administrative issues to be analyzed.
• EPA rules generate a lot of political interest and action since they affect the public,
the business community, and many special interest groups.
* Development of a rule is a complex multidisciplinary project. Management and
coordination of the staff and resources involved are crucial to success.
• The rule must be developed with implementation in mind. Regions and states can
play an important role in keeping EPA Headquarters informed about specific
implementation issues.
IV-3
-------
PROCESS OVERVIEW!
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Process Overview
KEY POINTS:
The rulemaking process as outlined on this flow chart appears straightforward.
Write a draft rule, have it reviewed, make the necessary changes, and issue the
final rule.
At the initiation of rulemaking, EPA must consider the content of the statute; a
mix of scientific, technical, and administrative information; political issues; and
the impact of the rule on the regulated community.
The rulemaking process can take years in some cases. For example, data
collection and studies may be required to provide EPA with the technical
information needed to support the rule. Each rule undergoes a Regulatory Impact
Analysis to assess its potential impact on the regulated community. Controversial
or complex rules, such as those that may affect another regulatory program,
require extensive communication and coordination between different program
offices.
EPA may solicit comments and information before development of a proposed
rule by publishing an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the Federal
Register. This is an opportunity for the public, including inspectors, to provide
input on a rule before major portions of the rule have been written.
IV-4
-------
START ACTION REQUEST!
jr
Wwt-Actton
I
J
MdBordv
J
OMB
J
J
REPOR
• !•!•••
1 1 • 1 • 1 •
T
O\7ERHEAD #5
TITLE: Start Action Request and Workgroup
KEY POINTS:
* The Start Action Request is a one-page form that initiates work on a rule and
establishes the Agency workgroup. It is prepared by the program office with
primary responsibility for the rule to alert other EPA offices about the rulemaking
and provide the Steering Committee with an opportunity to address inter-office or
cross-program aspects.
• The Steering Committee is a standing group of eleven individuals representing
each Assistant Administrator and the General Counsel. It is the primary
mechanism for coordinating and integrating the Agency's regulatory development
activities.
• The Steering Committee approves Start Action Requests, monitors the progress of
workgroups, and ensures that significant issues are resolved.
• Regions participate in Steering Committee activities through Regional Regulatory
Contacts. These individuals coordinate reviews in the Regions and facilitate
rule-related activities for the Regional Administrators.
rv-5
-------
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: Start Action Request and Workgroup (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Workgroups are staff-level groups whose members are assigned by the Steering
Committee based on technical expertise and cross-program issues.
• Workgroup members meet regularly to develop regulations and supporting
materials, to prepare reports and briefings, and to participate in drafting and
revising the rule. Most workgroup members are EPA HQ staff, however,
representatives of the Regions, states, or other agencies may participate if
appropriate.
• The workgroup's responsibilities include:
— Supporting the lead office in the technical and analytical work
— Identifying policy issues and options, particularly cross-program issues
— Resolving issues or raising them for consideration by upper management
— Providing progress reports, evaluating options, and incorporating comments
on the rule.
• For large complex rules, those defined by the Agency as major or significant, the
workgroup will prepare a development plan stating regulatory options and issues
for review by the Steering Committee before initiating development of the rule.
The identification of a rule as major or significant is determined early in the
regulatory development process by the program office and Steering Committee.
• The development plan explains the need for the regulatory action, identifies goals
and objectives, presents the major regulatory issues and alternatives, and presents
the work plan and resource requirements for developing the regulation.
IV-6
-------
RED BORDER REVIEW
r
J
J
J
J
Draft Rule
11111111 it 1111ii i
II II Ml I I I l< I M I
II IK II III III (I I
II Ml II I M III II I
II III II I I Mil M I
M III II I II III I I I
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Red Border and OMB Review
KEY POINTS:
• Red Border review is the formal mechanism by which EPA senior managers
(Assistant Administrators, Regional Adminstrators, and General Counsel) review
and approve regulations.
• By the time the regulatory package reaches Red Border review, which generally
takes about three weeks, all significant issues should have been identified and
resolved by the workgroup and the Steering Committee.
• The package submitted for Red Border review includes the text of the preamble,
the regulatory language, and a communications strategy. The preamble provides
background and an explanation of the rationale for the rule. The communications
strategy specifies the targeted audience for the rule and a plan for publicizing the
rule once it is issued.
After Red Border review, comments are addressed by the workgroup and the
package is prepared for submittal to OMB for review, which action is required by
Executive Order 12291. That order defines rules as either major or non-major. A
major rule is one that may have a large impact on society in terms of cost (over
$100 million annually) or in terms of effects on an industrial sector, employment,
or international trade.
IV-7
-------
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Red Border and OMB Review (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• The purpose of OMB review is to assure that, within the constraints of their
statutes, agencies choose among alternative regulatory approaches by considering
the costs and benefits associated with each.
• OMB review should be completed within 60 days of submittal by EPA for
proposed major rules and 30 days for the final rule. Proposed and final non-major
rules should be reviewed in 10 days. The review period can be extended and rules
generally do not go forward until all of OMB's concerns and issues have been
resolved.
IV-8
-------
ADMINISTRATOR!
r
J
J
MdBordv
J
J
J
Rotator
J
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: Administrator
KEY POINTS:
Once OMB has reviewed the rulemaking package, it goes to the Adminstrator for
signature.
If the rule is a final rule, it becomes effective on the date the Administrator signs it.
It then goes to the Office of the Federal Register for publication.
IV-9
-------
i FEDERAL REGISTER!
r
OVERHEAD #8
TITLE: Federal Register
KEY POINTS:
J
J
J
J
=""" M
in
•a
s
•§
Publication in the Federal Register provides official notice of the promulgation of
a regulation. Sometimes policies or guidelines are also issued through Federal
Register notices.
Publication of the proposed or final rule in the Federal Register usually occurs
within four days after the final package has been reviewed for consistency with the
Office of Federal Register's requirements for publication. Extremely long rules or
those with a large number of tables or graphics may not be published for a week or
more after submittal for review.
The preamble to the rule, which often contains important information about issues
related to the specific provisions of the rule, is published in the Federal Register.
Because the preamble is not included in the text of the regulation itself, an
individual with a copy of the regulation published in the Code of Federal
Regulations may not have the preamble explaining the rationale for parts of the
regulation.
IV-10
-------
PUBLIC COMMENT I
J
J
J
J
J
OVERHEAD #9
TITLE: Public Comment
KEY POINTS:
The Administrative Procedures Act and several other environmental statutes
require EPA to provide the public with an opportunity to participate in the
development of regulations. These requirements reflect fundamental
Constitutional principles. People have the right to express their preferences with
regard to laws that affect their lives.
An advance notice of proposed rulemaking or proposed rule usually solicits input
from the public and interested parties within a specified time frame after
publication in the Federal Register. Comments can be submitted in writing to
EPA or may be presented at public hearings.
Interested organizations and individuals can provide valuable information to EPA
during the regulation development process. They provide information about how
the regulated community will respond to a rule as well as potential obstacles to
implementation, compliance, and enforcement.
Inspectors can participate at this stage in the rulemaking process by reviewing
regulations and offering suggestions to improve the effectiveness and
enforceability of the final rule.
IV-11
-------
NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING]
OVERHEAD #10
TITLE: Negotiated Rulemaking
KEY POINTS:
• When interested parties participate in the rulemaking process, many issues and
concerns can be addressed before issuance of the final rule, thus reducing the
likelihood of litigation. Because so many groups are affected by environmental
regulation, approximately 80% of EPA regulations are litigated.
• EPA can conduct a negotiated rulemaking to address contentious issues before
publication of a rule. The process includes development of a formal Federal
Advisory Committee of interested parties such as trade associations,
environmental groups, states, local governments, or other federal agencies.
• This participatory process reduces the likelihood of litigation after publication of a
rule, but participation in the process does not limit a group or individual's right to
challenge the final rule through litigation.
• Negotiated rulemaking is most appropriate in circumstances in which a judicial
challenge to the rule is anticipated, complex issues are likely to require significant
and lengthy review, or EPA needs information from the regulated community that
is not readily available.
IV-12
-------
OVERHEAD #10
TITLE: Negotiated Rulemaking (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• EPA may also encourage participation in a traditional nilemaking through the use
of consultations with affected parties, advance public hearings or meetings,
circulation of a strawman draft for comment before the formal nilemaking process,
roundtable discussions to solicit views, or formal policy dialogues to resolve
significant policy issues.
IV-13
-------
FINAL RULE
OVERHEAD #11
TITLE: Final Rule
KEY POINTS:
At the end of the public comment period, the workgroup reconvenes to respond to
comments and prepare the final rulemaking package. All comments received
become part of the public record of the rulemaking and are placed in the public
docket. It is not unusual for a rule to undergo extensive changes at this point in the
regulatory development process.
Issues requiring senior management and cross-program coordination are brought
to the attention of the Steering Committee.
EPA summarizes the comments received and the Agency's response in the notice
for the final rule.
The final rulemaking package proceeds through the same review process as the
proposed rule.
Once the final rule is published in the Federal Register, it is codified in the Code
of Federal Regulations.
IV-14
-------
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS I
r
J
J
J
J
J
OVERHEAD #12
TITLE: Code of Federal Regulations
KEY POINTS:
• The CFR is updated annually to incorporate any changes in regulations.
• It incorporates new and revised regulations as published in the Federal Register.
The CFR contains only the text of the regulation itself. Supplementary
information, such as that provided in the preamble to a rule, guidance documents,
or policy directives is not included in the CFR.
• The CFR is not a static document. Every time a statute is enacted or revised,
dozens or even hundreds of regulations must be written. EPA may have up to 250
regulations in development at any one time. Once a rule is promulgated, it may
require updates or technical clarification.
• Regulations have significant and far-reaching consequences for individuals and
businesses. EPA spends considerable effort to develop regulations that address the
myriad concerns of the public, the government, and the regulated community.
IV-15
-------
! ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT FOR NEW RULES I
• Information
» Enforcement strategy
• Training
• Guidance
OVERHEAD #13
TITLE: Enforcement Support for New Rules
KEY POINTS:
* When a new rule is issued, the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
provides information and support to regional and state enforcement
personnel.
• EPA's first task is to get information out to those affected by the rule. Over
the past few years, EPA has held satellite videoconferences on the wood
preserving and BIF (boilers and industrial furnaces) rules to disseminate
information to large numbers of people. The Office of Solid Waste produces
information on the RCRA program; OWPE produces guidance and training
oriented toward RCRA enforcement. The offices work together to support
effective communication of program priorities.
• OWPE develops an enforcement strategy for each rule. The enforcement
strategy usually includes a general discussion of the rule; regulatory
considerations such as cross-program issues; an approach for communicating
the new requirements to regulators and the regulated community;
identification of the universe affected by the rule; and EPA's planned
enforcement response, including any targeted initiatives.
IV-16
-------
OVERHEAD #13
TITLE: Enforcement Support for New Rules (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Training and guidance documents are also developed to promote consistency
in interpretation of regulatory requirements and to provide tools and
techniques to assist in inspections. For example, checklists are often used by
inspectors to ensure complete coverage of a rule's requirements.
• The RCRA Enforcement Division has a three-tiered approach to training for
new regulations. Upon issuance of a rule, the emphasis is on information
dissemination and outreach through activities such as video conferences.
RED will later send staff to different locations to provide training to
Headquarters, the Regions, and states. Finally, RED develops long-term
training tools such as videos or computer-based programs that can be used to
meet ongoing training needs.
• In your Participant's Manual, you will find a set of regulatory fact sheets
addressing many of the points we have just discussed.
IV-17
-------
-------
THE STEERING COMMITTEE
Purpose: The Steering Committee is a standing group with representation from each Assistant
Administrator and the General Counsel. It is the primary mechanism for coordinating and integrating
the Agency's regulatory development activities. Its key functions are to approve Stan Action
Requests (SARs}; charter and monitor the progress of staff-level workgroups, especially regarding
cross-media or inter-office problem-solving; and ensure, when appropriate, that significant issues are
resolved or elevated to top management. Regions participate In Steering Committee activities through
Regional Regulatory Contacts. These Contacts coordinate reviews in the Regions and facilitate rule-
related activities for the Regional Administrators (RAs).
Participant*:
CHAIR: Thomas Kelly
382-4001
OAR: Robert Brenner
475-7717
OPPE: Dan Fiorino
382-4012
OGC: Gerald Yamada
475-8064
OW:
James Home
382-7818
OE: Winston Haythe
475-8783
ORD: Jay Benforado OARM: Rick Garman
382-7669 382-5000
OPTS: Judy Nelson
382-2890
ORO/SLR: JimWieber
382-4719
OSWER. Margaret Schneider
382-4617
Operation: The Steering Committee meets biweekly (every other Wednesday), with additional
meetings scheduled as necessary. Its regular format is (a) review of Development Plans (b)
consideration of pending Workgroup Reports (c) discussion and disposition of SARs, and (d> other
issues. Upon request, the Chair will schedule a separate meeting to consider a proposed or final
rulemaking package, or arrange for some other form of Steering Committee review. Any office may
submit documents or issues for the agenda through its Steering Committee Representative. Regional
Contacts receive all Steering Committee documents. Typically they are not able to attend meetings,
but Regions can send written comments. Due to time limitations, they may call the Regulation
Development Branch (RDB) in the Office of Standards and Regulations with issues, so that RDB can
present these views at a meeting. After each meeting, the Committee Chair issues a closure memo
that documents outstanding issues, agreements, and action to be taken. RDB provides staff support for
the Committee.
In addition to their role as members of the Steering Committee, these representatives play an
important regulatory management role within their offices. They direct the flow.of documents into and
through the agency's regulatory review systems (including Red Border, and Federal Register
activities); serve as their Assistant Administrator's liaison with OMB under Executive Orders 12291
and 12498; and direct their programs' review of other offices' regulatory development activities.
See Also: Administrator's Memorandum, The Regulatory Development Process: Change in Steering
Committee Emphasis" (October 16, 1986); and "Information Sheet to Guide New Steering Committee
Process* (November 19. 1986). Available from the Regulation Management Branch (382-5475).
Fact Sheet 1 (Rev. 3/91}
Regulation Management Series
-------
START ACTION REQUESTS
Purpose: A Start Action Request (SAR) initiates work on • rule or related action and establishes the
Agency workgroup. It provides brief, descriptive information and should be prepared at the very
outset of an office's effort. Its principal purposes are to alert other Agency offices to the lead office's
intention to develop a rule, and provide the Steering Committee with the opportunity to discuss and plan
for the inter-office or inter-media aspects of the action. In addition, submitting the SAR to the
Steering Committee is the mechanism for: (a) reaching agreement on the necessary review steps (e.g.,
a Development Plan, Workgroup Reports, and an Information Collection Request), and (b) helping all
Agency programs decide at the start of the process whether to designate members to participate on the
workgroup and what skills would best contribute to the rulemaking.
Preparing the Document: The SAR is a one-page form with instructions on the reverse side. It
asks primarily for descriptive information, which should be available to the lead office when It starts
work on the regulation. The most important category of information on the form is Item 4, called
•Description of Action.' The Steering Committee uses this information to determine the significance of
the action for the Agency and for individual offices, the need for a Development Plan or other planning
documents, the composition of the workgroup, and the type of management review that is appropriate.
For these reasons, the description should give information on any likely cross-program effects, issues
or problems. The description should:
o clearly define the problem, including its health and environmental significance;
o indicate the effect of the problem and the intended regulatory action on other
environmental media or programs;
o identify the EPA Regions and other groups that should be involved;
o specify the kind of expertise and level of participation expected from workgroup
members.
Operation: The lead office Steering Commitee Representative approves the SAR, catagorizes it as
either 'discussion* or 'nondiscussion*, and submits 25 copies to the Regulation Development Branch
(ROB) for distribution. 'Discussion* SARs warrant a briefing from the lead office to facilitate approval
and workgroup nominations. 'Nondiscussion* SAR's are considered automatically approved and only
require nomination of workgroup representatives at the meeting. The lead office should submit
'nondiscussion* SARs 15 days prior to the biweekly Steering Committee meeting. Steering Committee
Representatives can decide before the final agenda is set (one week before the meeting) if the SAR
needs a briefing and RDB can reschedule it as a 'discussion* Ham. ' Discussion" SARs need only be
submitted 8 days before the Steering Committee meeting for inclusion in the final agenda. The
Committee approves the SAR. charters a workgroup, designates workgroup members, and determines
what further reviews are appropriate. If the SAR does not provide sufficient information for Steering
Committee Representatives to select their workgroup members, they can give RDB the name or names
after the meeting. RDB will include these names in the closure memo for the meeting. The lead office
then convenes the workgroup.
See Alee: SAR forms, guidelines, and prototypes are available from Steering Committee
Representatives or from the Regulation Development Branch (382-5475).
Fact Sheet 2 (Rev. 5/90)
Regulation Management Series
-------
THE WORKGROUP
Purpose: Workgroups are EPA-wide, staff-level groups formed to develop regulatory actions and
supporting materials. The workgroup's primary responsibilities are to: 1) support the lead office in
its design, technical and analytical work; 2) identify and assess principal policy issues and options.
especially those that are cross-media; 3) resolve issues or elevate them for upper management's
resolution; 4} ensure the quality and completeness of regulatory packages. Workgroup members are
expected to represent the policy positions and perspectives of their management as well as to
contribute their technical and analytic expertise.
Participants: Typically the lead office will place several people on the workgroup to support the
chair and conduct the bulk of the technical, analytical, and drafting work. OGC, OPPE, and often ORO
and OE participate; other program offices-OAR, OPTS, OSWER. and OW-often participate actively
especially when there are significant inter-media issues. OARM and Regional Offices participate less
frequently. If a Steering Committee Representative assigns more than one workgroup member, they
usually designate one persgn as lead to represent their Assistant Administrator's position and
coordinate the efforts of the other members. (If workgroup progress requires that there be a single
lead from other offices, the lead program Steering Committee Representative can ask each office to
designate a lead workgroup member.) Except in special cases, it is difficult for Regions to participate
actively on workgroups. Therefore, the lead office should initiate efforts to solicit Regional office
perspectives, especially those that pertain to implementation issues.
Operation: The workgroup's format operation begins with the approval of the Start Action Request
(SAR) and the chartering of the workgroup by the Steering Committee. The lead office chairs and
convenes workgroup meetings. Other members of the workgroup are assigned by their offices'
Steering Committee Representatives. How the workgroup should operate will vary, depending on the
rulemaking. The workgroup chair should discuss and clarify members' roles and expectations early in
the process to avoid misunderstandings. The workgroup's first responsibility, for major and
significant rules, is to prepare a Development Plan, which the; Steering Committee reviews. For most
rules, the Steering Committee will ask the workgroup to report on its progress through periodic
Workgroup Reports, which the workgroup chair must prepare. To ensure workgroup and Steering
Committee consensus on the agenda of issues for discussion, the workgroup chair should prepare a
comprehensive list of issues (originally part of the Development Plan for major or significant rules)
and revise it as appropriate throughout the rulemaking.
See Also: Fact Sheet #5. 'Workgroup Reports*, available from the Regulation Development Branch
(382-5475).
Fact Sheet 3 (Rev. 5/90)
Regulation Management Series
-------
DEVELOPMENT PLANS
Purpose: The Development Plan sets forth the framework for developing proposed major or
significant Agency rules. Its purpose is to explain the need for the action; identify regulatory goals and
objectives; present the major regulatory issues and alternatives; identify any policies, decision
criteria or other factors that will influence regulatory choices; and present the work plan and resource
requirements for developing the regulation.
The Development Plan is prepared for Steering Committee review. This review is meant to identify the
full range of issues early in the process. The Steering Committee will: (a) raise cross-media or other
issues or alternatives not identified in the Plan; (b) inform the lead office of related activities
underway in the Agency; (c) encourage coordination of Agency resources, experience and policies; and
(d) review the work plan and schedule to decide how the various offices will participate and whether
they can meet the time and resource needs of the lead office.
Preparing the Document: The lead office prepares the document with participation from the
workgroup. The document should include detail commensurate with the complexity and importance of
the rule. To the extent possible - based on previous experience and available data - the plan should
describe the environmental problem and issues, and the alternatives to be considered in addressing
them. It should also address enforcement and implementation issues. In any case, the document should
include a comprehensive list of issues, which the workgroup should amend as necessary throughout the
development process.
Operation: The lead office should submit the Development Plan for Steering Committee review within
60 days of SAR approval (unless the Steering Committee agrees to another date). The lead office
submits the Plan to its Steering Committee Representative, who reviews the document before sending
25 copies to the Steering Committee Chair for distribution. The Steering Committee review period is
two weeks. To get a Plan on an agenda, the Steering Committee member must submit it to the Office of
Regulation Management and Evaluation, Regulation Development Branch by COB (4:00 p.m.) Tuesday, 15
days before the biweekly Wednesday meeting.
Steering Committee members review the package to ensure that ft is complete and identify questions or
issues. The lead program office then briefs the Steering Committee on the plan at the biweekly
meeting. Members will raise any questions or issues at that meeting. After discussion, and resolution
of questions and issues, the Steering Committee approves the Plan, perhaps contingent upon certain
revisions or clarifications. The Committee agrees upon an appropriate schedule for workgroup reports
and other review steps. A closure memo documents the Steering Committee meeting, including issues
raised, decisions made, schedule for workgroup reports, and next steps. The Steering Committee
tracks progress on the rule through workgroup reports.
See Also: Guidelines and prototype Development Plans are available from Steering Committee
Representatives or the Regulation Development Branch (382-5475).
Fact Sheet 4 (Rev. 5/90)
Regulation Management Series
-------
WORKGROUP REPORTS
Purpose: Workgroup Reports keep the Steering Committee informed about workgroup progress on a
regulatory action. They describe: (a) issues and alternatives being addressed and resolved; (b) any
issues that need to be elevated for resolution; and (c) the status of ongoing work and any anticipated
delays. The Steering Committee's discussion of the Workgroup Report focuses on cross-media or other
issues or alternatives not being considered by the workgroup. Steering Committee concurrence with
the Report is designed to ensure that issues resolved by the workgroup are not raised again at a later
date, and that unresolved issues are dealt with in a timely way.
Preparing the Document: The workgroup chair prepares the Report in consultation with workgroup
members. The document should summarize the status of issues but need not be exhaustive. It should be
sufficiently detailed to allow workgroup members to determine that all issues are included and that
their status is presented accurately. Steering Committee Representatives are expected to confer with
their workgroup member(s). A cumulative or master list of issues (both resolved and unresolved)
should accompany the Report as an attachment. This list should reflect the issues outlined in the
Development Plan, and might not change throughout the workgroup effort unless issues change or new
ones arise. If no Development Plan is prepared, the first Workgroup Report should contain the initial
list of issues to be addressed. Any additional issues arising during the rule's development should be
added to the master list.
Operation: The lead office submits the Report to its Steering Committee Representative, who
reviews the Report before sending it to the Steering Committee Chair for distribution. (Workgroup
members should already have received a copy.) The Steering Committee review period is two weeks.
To get a report on the agenda the Steering Committee Representative must submit 25 copies to the
Office of Regulation Management and Evaluation, Regulation Development Branch by COB (4:00 p.m.)
Tuesday, 15 days before the biweekly Wednesday meeting. At the meeting, the program office briefs
the Steering Committee on the Report Typically the workgroup chair attends the Steering Committee
meeting to participate in the discussion. Alter discussion, the Steering Committee approves the Report
or requests revisions and makes recommendations. If issues must be elevated, Steering Committee
Representatives determine what these issues are and in what forum to raise them. The Steering
Committee Chair issues a closure memo that documents issues raised and decisions made at the
Steering Committee meeting.
See Also: Fact.Sheet «3. The Workgroup', available from the Regulation Development Branch (382-
5475). A Workgroup Report Format and copies of prototype Workgroup Reports are available from
Steering Committee Representatives.
Fact Sheet 5 (Rev. 5/90)
' Regulation Management Series
-------
INFORMATION COLLECTION REQUESTS (ICRs)
Purpot*: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), Agency offices musl prepare an ICR to obtain
OMB clearance for any activity that will involve collecting substantially the tame information from ten
or more non-Federal respondents. ICRs are submitted for review initially to the Information Policy
Branch (IPB), in OPPE, and then to OMB. Offices or workgroups may need to prepare ICRs for:
o information requirements to be included in a rule - e.g., reporting, monitoring, or
record-keeping requirements, and/or
o other information collection activities - e.g., conducting studies or surveys, sending
out application forms, doing audits, etc.
Information requirements in final rules may not be valid and enforceable until OMB clears the
corresponding ICR. In the absence of clearance, enforcement actions taken on the basis of information
so collected may be subject to challenge on grounds of non-compliance with the PRA.
Preparing the Document: An ICR consists of an SF 83 form plus an attached justification
statement In this justification, the following points serve as the focus for both the IPB/OPPE and OMB
reviews:
o the statement of need for - and use of - the information to be collected;
o the plans for managing the information and assuring data quality;
o the calculations of cost to the government and burden on respondents, •specially to
make sure that they are consistent with calculations of economic impact in the
rulemaking package; and
o a detailed explanation of any statistical components in surveys, including the sampling
and analysis plans.
Operation: To address information requirements in rules, the first step should be to use the Start
Action Request to indicate that there may be reporting or record-keeping requirements. These
information requirements may involve ruJemaking issues of interest to other offices. Such issues
should be discussed in the workgroup, and if unresolved should be included in workgroup reports to the
Steering Committee. Once the ICR is ready, the originating office's Information Management
Coordinator submits it to IPB. This should be no later than when the rulemaking package first reaches
formal Agency-wide review (workgroup closure or Red Border review). IPB then reviews the ICR for
information policy issues and responds with any problems within two or three weeks. Any such
problems must be resolved at the latest in conjunction with Red Border review, since IPB must submit
the ICR to OMB on the date that the proposed rule is published. OMB review normally take 60-90 days.
In the case of information requirements in proposed rules, if OMB does not approve the ICR, it must be
resubmitted when the final rule is published. Similarly, If information requirements change from
proposed to final role, a revised ICR must be submitted.
For other information activities, the ICR should be ready to submit four months before the infomation
collection is scheduled to begin - earlier if there may be survey design issues. The program office
should discuss concepts at the workgroup level, and Development Plans should include enough lead time
to allow for preparation, review and clearance of the ICR. Bear in mind that for surveys a pilot or
pretest may be necessary and that - in some cases - the pilot or pretest may need Its own ICR.
See Also: 'Information Collection Request Handbook', available from IPB (382-2706) or the
Information Management Coordinator in your Assistant Administrator's office. For further discussion
of the PRA see 5 CFR Pan 1320.
Fact Sheel 6 (Rev. 3/91) Regulation Management Series
-------
WORKGROUP CLOSURE MEETINGS
Purpose: The workgroup closure meeting is an alternative to Steering Committee review of the
decision package prior to Red Border (Assistant Administrators') review. This closure meeting
provides a forum for confirming that (a) the workgroup has successfully completed its job, resolving
as many issues as possible and clearly defining others, (b) the rulemaking package is ready for AA, RA,
and DA-level review, and (c) Agency and external requirements have been met.
Participant*: The Director of the Regulation Management Division (from Office of Regulation
Management and Evaluation {ORME]). or a representative, chairs the closure meeting. The role of the
ORME chair is to facilitate closure, not to decide substantive issues. Members of the workgroup
participate in the meeting as representatives of their Assistant or Regional Administrators.
Participation in the closure meeting normally is a precondition for an office's participation in the Red
Border Review.
Operation:
1.
2.
3.
See Alto:
5475)
The Steering Committee Representative from the lead office requests a closure meeting
through the appropriate Desk Officer in the Regulation Development Branch of ORME.
The lead office must provide a complete draft rulemaking package to workgroup
members at least ten calendar days before the closure meeting. This draft package
includes materials that normally are expected to be part of the Steering Committee
review-the rule, action memo, preamble, supporting analysis, information clearance
request (ICR). and other relevant materials. A copy of the memo announcing the
closure meeting must be sent simultaneously to all members of the Steering Committee.
The typical format for the meeting is: with the ORME chair presiding, the workgroup
chair gives a brief summary of issues resolved and those still outstanding, and
describes any changes since the lead office distributed the draft package to the
workgroup. Other workgroup members offer their respective Assistant or Regional
Administrators' positions (e.g.. concurrence, concurrence with comment, concurrence
with conditions, or nonconcurrence). If there is more than one workgroup member
from an office, then they should be sure to coordinate their positions before the closure
meeting The ORME chair encourages closure by clearly establishing:
a) matters that should be addressed before Red Border.
b) issues (if any) to be presented in Red Border,
c) participation in, and date for beginning, Red Border review.
Following the closure meeting, ORME will issue a brief summary that certifies a
package for Red Border review or documents other conclusions. This closure memo
defines the conditions, timing, and other aspects of Red Border review. The lead office
and affected parties resolve any problems, either before or during Red Border review,
using the Steering Committee as a forum rf appropriate.
Fact Sheet «3. 'The Workgroup*, available from the Regulation Development Branch (382-
Fact Sheet 7 (Rev. 5/90j
Regulation Management Series
-------
RED BORDER REVIEW
Purpose: Red Border is the formal review mechanism by which senior management (usually
Assistant and Regional Administrators and the General Counsel) reviews and approves regulatory
packages before they are presented to the Administrator or other approving official. The workgroup,
with Steering Committee oversight, should already have defined all significant issues and resolved all
or most of them, so that no new issues or problems arise during Red Border review.
Participants: The Assistant Administrator for the lead office approves the package for Red Border
review by signing the transmittal memo. The review may include only the Assistant Administrator for
OPPE and the General Counsel. However, other Assistant Administrators or Regional Administrators
may participate if their offices were represented on the workgroup (or by approval from the lead
office Steering Committee Representative if they were not). The Steering Committee decides who will
participate when they review the action prior to Red Border.
Preparing the Document: The Red border package should include:
o Action Memorandum
o Preamble and Regulatory Text
o Communications Strategy
o Federalism Review Form (EPA Form 3720-11)
The lead office submits enough copies of the regulatory package for all reviewing offices and regions,
plus two, to the Regulation Development Branch (RDB). If the rule is approved for concurrent Red
Border and OMB review it should also include OMB form SF83 and four additional copies of the preamble
and rule.
Operation: The review period is generally three weeks. The lead Assistant Administrator may
request a shorter Agency review if the rulemaking is under a tight schedule; i.e., court or statutory
deadlines. Any such request must be in writing, and include the reason for expedited review. During
the Red Border review the appropriote RMB desk officer receives written comments from the
reviewing offices and transmits them to the lead office. After Red Border is complete and the lead
office has considered and responded to all comments, it prepares the package for OMB review.
See Also: Fact Sheet «9. *OMB Review Under E.O. 12291* and Fact Sheet f7 'Information .Collection
Requests*, available from the Regulation Development Branch (362-5475).
Fact Sheet 8 (Rev. 5/90)
Regulation Management Series
-------
OMB REVIEW UNDER E.O. 12291
Purpose: Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12291, each proposed and final rule (including some policy
documents and guidelines) which the agency issues must be cent to OMB for review before the
Administrator signs it. The Order defines two categories of rules: major and non-major. Major rules
are those having a very large impact on society, either in terms of costs (over $100m annually), or in
terms of effects on an industrial sector, employment, or international trade. The purpose of OMB
review is to assure that, within the constraints of their statutes, agencies choose among the various
alternatives by considering the costs and benefits associated with each. OMB has exempted certain
high-volume classes of rules with limited impacts (e.g., pesticide tolerances) from E.O. 12291 review.
Participants: The lead office responds to OMB issues or questions on its rule. The Steering
Committee Representative for that office takes the lead in arranging all OMB meetings and in
coordinating the office's response to OMB. The lead program office should include OPPE and OGC in any
meetings with OMB, and confer with other affected offices on the appropriate response before making
substantive changes. OPPE tracks and reports on the status and current issues of rules under OMB
review for senior management.
Operation: Except for the exempted rules - and those in certain special categories (e.g. TSCA 8(a)
Rules) -- all rules are sent to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) before they
are signed by the Administrator or a designated official. OMB review normally follows Red Border
review. If this sequence of review would cause EPA to miss a statutory or court-order deadline, the
Steering Committee may authorize concurrent OMB and Red Border review.
To initiate the E.O 12291 review, the lead office must submit five copies of the preamble and rule along
with a single copy of a SF-83 form signed by their Steering Committee Representative to the Regulation
Development Branch. OPPE clears and signs the SF-83 for submlttal to OMB. For interim final rules
without prior proposals, OGC must also sign the SF-83 (before submittat 4o OPPE) to verify that they
agree that an interim final meets the Agency's responsibilities for notice and comment under the
Administrative Procedures Act
The period for OMB review cited in the Order varies according to the type of action: major rules have
a 60-day review at proposal and 30 days at final; non-major proposed and final rules have a 10-day
review. If OMB does not complete its review within the specified review period the OIRA desk officer
calls the ROB desk officer to extend the review. In virtually all cases, rules do not go forward for final
signature in EPA until the program office addresses OMB concerns and resolves outstanding issues.
Court-ordered deadlines and stringent statutory deadlines may occasionally require that EPA publish a
rule before OMB has finished its analysis and comment After OMB review is completed the lead office
prepares the package for AX (Administrator's Correspondence Control) and the Administrator's
signature. The package includes two copies of the preamble and rule, the signed action memo,
communications strategy, Federal Register typesetting request (EPA Form 2340-15), and request for
reprints, if desired (EPA Form 2340-1). The lead office should deliver the package to RDB for
transmission tc AX. Obtaining the Administrator's signature usually takes a week to ten days.
See Also: Fact Sheet *8. 'Red Border Review*, available from the Regulation Development Branch
(382-5479). Steering Committee Representatives can advise on exemptions from E.O. 12291 review.
Fac! Sneet 9 (Rev. 5/90) Regulation Management Series
-------
FEDERAL REGISTER PUBLICATION
Purpose: The federal Register publication system was established by Congress as a means of
informing the public of regulations that affect them. Publication in the Federal Register has certain
legal effects, including: providing official notice of a document's existence and content; creating a
rebuttable presumption that the text is a true copy of the original document: establishing that the
document was duly issued, prescribed, or promulgated; and providing evidence that is recognized by a
court of law.
Preparing the Document: When preparing a document for Federal Jteoister publication, the lead
office should follow the formal requirements of the Office of the Federal Register (OFR), found in the
Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook. The Feflsr?* Register package should include:
o the signed original of the preamble and regulation plus three copies
o the Federal Register Checklist, signed by the Steering Committee Representative or
other approving official;
o typesetting request (EPA form 2340-15); and
o EPA form 2340-1 if reprints are being ordered
OFR follows strict publication requirements, so even minor problems can delay publication. The most
common problems causing delay are: errors in codification; unclear graphs, charts, and tables; too
few copies; unclear signatures; omitting a typesetting request or Federal Register Checklist
Operation:
Federal
if the package requires the Administrator's signature the lead office must submit the
materials with the package for transmission to AX (See Fact Sheet 9). In any case.
direct all Federal ^Register packages to EPA's Federal Register Officer, Regulation Development Branch
(RDB), Room 409WT, 382-7204. ROB reviews documents for consistency with OFR requirements and
transmits them to OFR for publication. Documents usually appear in the Federal Register within four
days after RDB approves them. However, if a document is particularly long (250 pages or more), and
contains many tables, graphs, and figures, publication will take at lease one week RDB provides a
listing en i-Mall that describes ell documents eent to the federal Register or
published within the pest five days. To access this system simply: 1) sign onto E-Mail. 2}
type PRPOST, when the prompt *>* appears. 3) type FED REG when "category:* appears, and 4) read
or scan the listing.
See Also: Federal Register Document Drafting Handbook, available from the Agency's Supply Store;
Federal Register Checklist, available from Steering Committee Representatives or the Regulation
Development Branch (382-5475).
Fact Sheet 10 (Rev. 5/90)
Regulation Management Series
-------
.- THE REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT
Purpose: The purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 is to reduce the burden of Federal
regulations on small entities - that is, small businesses, government jurisdictions, and private
organizations. The Act applies to all rules subject to the notice and comment procedures of the
Administrative Procedures Act (except grant regulations). It requires agencies to consider adverse
economic effects their regulations will have on small entities, For regulations that will have a
"significant impact on a substantial number* of small entities, agencies must consider alternative
measures by preparing a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (RFA). Agencies are encouraged to consider
establishing exemptions or tiering their regulations, when consistent with their statutory and program
objectives.
Participants: The lead office is responsible for preparing the RFA or certifying thai there are no
significant impacts on small entities. The Regulation Development Branch (RDB) in the Office of
Regulation Management and Evaluation (ORME) oversees EPA's compliance with the Act EPA's Small
Business Ombudsman (in the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization) can advise on small
business issues and the Small Communities Coordinator (Office of Regional Operations, State and Local
Relations) is the Agency lead on issues affecting small communities. The Small Business Administration
(SBA) has overall responsibility for the Act. It reviews the Agency's analyses and certifications. SBA
also reports to Congress on Agency compliance with the Act
Preparing the Document: In defining 'small' entity the Agency may use SBA's definition or, in
consultation with SBA, it may establish its own definition and propose it for public comment, tf the
Agency decides that a rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
it must certify and justify this finding in the rule's preamble at both proposal and promulgation. The
Agency must send a copy of any certification to SBA at proposal or promulgation. If the Agency
determines that a rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
h must prepare an RFA. The RFA should identify all alternatives to the chosen option and describe:
1) objectives/legal basis of the rule;
2) benefits derived from the proposed changes;
3) characteristics of the affected industry and analysis of demographics, cost,
competitive effects, and exemptions or allowances;
4) recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance requirements; and
5) other regulations which may duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule.
The Agency must transmit a copy of the RFA to the SBA at proposal. The RFA may be pan of the
economic impact analysis. The final rule should include: a summary of public comments on the RFA; a
summary of the Agency's assessment of those comments, and any changes made in response to the
comments; a summary of each regulatory alternative; and a justification of the chosen alternative.
Operation: The lead office must submit two copies of the RFA to RDB. RDB will forward one of these
to SBA. The act also requires the agency to improve its outreach to small businesses, government
jurisdictions and private organizations through such means as articles in .trade publications, direct
mailings, and public hearings. All items in the semi-annual Regulatory Agenda must include a finding on
small entity impacts ('yes* or 'no'). The Small Business Ombudsman can participate actively in only a
small number of rules. For rules that will significantly affect small entities, the lead program office
should contact the Ombudsman as early as possible in the rule's development to assure that the office
has time to participate.
See also: 'Guidelines tor Implementing the Regulatory Flexibility Act', copies are available from the
Regulation Development Branch (382-5479).
Fact Sheet 11 (Rev. 5/90)
Regulation Management Series
-------
REGULATORY NEGOTIATION & CONSULTATION
Description: Negotiation and consultation with outside parties are an important part of the
rulemaking process at EPA. Such consultation during the Agency's development of regulations and
policy actions offers several benefits: it brings outside information and perspectives to the Agency's
decisions; it allows representatives of different interests to engage in policy deliberations with each
other and with the Agency; it builds support for .the Agency's decisions and increases the overall
efficiency of EPA'* decision making process. Agency staff can rely on a variety of approaches that
EPA and other agencies have found effective, ranging from highly structured regulatory negotiations to
more informal processes such as policy dialogues, facilitated public meetings, and facilitated
workshops. With all of these approaches, the Agency uses an experienced, neutral facilitator to help
the parties prepare an agenda, define issues, share information, clarify interests, and otherwise
establish a process for achieving their goals.
Operation: Program offices are invited to call on the Regulatory Negotiation Project Staff in the
Regulation Management Division to help decide when to use a consensus-building approach and which one
to use.. The Project Staff can recommend an approach or a combination of approaches suited to an
office's needs. They can also provide criteria for selecting items as candidates for regulatory
negotiation.
The Regulatory Negotiation Staff is trained in facilitating meetings and in training others in the use of
consensus-building approaches. When these activities require contract support, the Staff can direct the
program office lo appropriate experts. The Project has a contract mechanism which program offices
can use to engage this outside support
In the regulation development process, the Start Action Request (Pact Sheet 92) is the appropriate
point at which an office should consider what kinds of consultative approaches to incorporate into the
rulemaking. The workgroup should also consider these approaches in preparing the Development Plan
(Fact Sheet «4). At both stages the Steering Committee reviews the documents and may inquire about
or recommend strategies for consulting with outside groups.
Agency Participation: The Steering Committee participates in the initial consideration of
consensus-building approaches in its review of SARs and Development Plans. When a lead office
participates in a regulatory negotiation, it represents the Agency as a whole in making decisions. In
this capacity, it must keep the workgroup and Agency managers informed of the status of negotiations,
assure that they express ideas and reservations in a timely manner and obtain agreement before
committing the Agency. In addition, formal negotiations will entail briefing senior managers. OMB, and
possibly the Administrator. When a lead office participates in less formal consensus-building
activities, it should keep workgroups informed and raise issues internally if It will be taking any
position that will commit the Agency.
See Also: "Regulatory Negotiation Selection Criteria*, a project description, and a 'Regulatory
Negotiation Overview*, are available from the Regulatory Negotiation Project Staff (382-7565).
Fact Sheet 12 (Rev. 5/90)
Regulation Management Series
-------
REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Purpose: Under Section 2 of Executive Order (E.O.) 12291, each major proposed regulatory action
must be accompanied by a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) when submitted to OMB for review. An
RIA document is written primarily to describe the need for the proposed regulatory changes, and the
benefits and costs of these changes. The RIA contains the full complement of economic information
considered by the Agency as it develops a regulation. Economic information is included into the
regulatory decision, within the constraints of statutes, so that the effects of a proposed regulation on
individuals' economic welfare and the economic behavior of markets, can be considered in conjunction
with other regulatory objectives.
Participants: The lead office is responsible for preparing the RIA document, although other offices
may request to contribute to its preparation.
Preparing the Document: An RIA document should consist of the sections described below. The
extent of detailed analysis and discussion allotted to each section will depend upon which questions are
crucial to guiding the development of the regulation. The RIA should describe the following:
1) the need for and consequences of the proposed action (i.e., the market imperfections,
quantities of pollutants and risks, current controls, and changes in environmental risks);
2) alternative approaches for achieving the environmental objective (e.g., negotiated rules,
market incentives, judicial, state and local mechanisms);
3} the expected and measurable benefits of the regulation (where possible, benefits should be
described in qualitative, quantitative and monetary terms);
4) the estimated economic costs of the regulation (e.g., costs to industry and consumers,
government costs, "social welfare costs*, adjustment costs associated with employment and
changes in other productive resources, and other market conditions and impacts);
5) an evaluation of the benefits and costs (e.g., the relevance of time to the realization of
benefits and costs associated with the regulation, and the economic efficiency of the action as
measured by net economic benefits);
6) the rationale for choosing the proposed regulatory action (including the extent to which
economic information was a factor in the decision); and
7) the statutory authority under which the regulation has been developed.
The RIA is best viewed as a document that organizes information and comprehensively assesses the
effects of alternative actions and the trade-ofls among them. Ideally, the schedule by which the RIA
document is prepared should closely follow the regulatory development process, in order that it can be
of immediate use as regulatory decisions are made.
See also: The Agency has produced a series of documents to assist staff in the preparation of RIAs.
Included among these are 'Guidelines for Preparing Regulatory Impact Analysis', which includes a
series of appendices on specific issues (benefits, costs, discounting, and economic impacts). Copies of
these documents and collateral literature are available from the Economic Analysts and Research
Branch. Office of Policy. Planning and Evaluation (382-3354).
Fad Sheet 13 (Rev. 3/91}
Regulation Management Series
-------
-------
March 18, 1991
ADDITIONAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS
ESTABLISHED BY CONGRESS FOR EPA RULEMAKING
Frequently Congress has added procedural requirements over and above those
found in the Administrative Procedure Act when delegating authority to EPA. In an
effort to ensure ail affected interests are heard and all significant issues are fully
explored, Congress requires the Agency to do more than provide an opportunity to
comment and explain the basis and purpose of a new rule. The following statutes that
EPA administers contain additional procedural requirements.
Safe Drinking Water Act (19741
For most rules:
opportunity for a public hearing
Agency consultation with an advisory committee and the Science Advisory
Board when developing regulations
Toxic Substances Control Act (1976)
For certain rules:
explanation of reasons for a proposed rule
oral hearings required
cross examination and opportunity for parties to rebut on disputed issues
of material fact
review by courts based on a more rigorous standard than roost (substantial
evidence)
Clean Air Act Amendments of (1981)
For certain rules:
establish a more elaborate rulemaking docket
more staggered notice requirements than most other rules
opportunity for oral hearing
opportunity for rebuttal comments
judicial review based solely on information in the rulemaking docket
Clean Water Act Amendment (1981)
For certain rules:
60 day comment period for proposed rule
public hearing if requested within 30 days of publication, as appropriate
review in courts based on a more rigorous standard than most rules (substa-
ntial evidence)
deadlines for effective date of standard
From several perspectives, the process used to develop rules is as important as
the substance of the requirements it establishes. EPA has established a system for
regulation development that attempts to minimize the possibility of procedural error,
ensure ample opportunity for public participation, and guarantee that all substantive
issues are raised and considered carefully.
-------
March 16. 1991
ADDITIONAL LEGAL REQUIREMENTS: STATUTES THAT APPLY
TO RULEMAK1NGS IN ALL AGENCIES
PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT. This statute was enacted in 1980 and has
since been amended. It is intended to minimize the paperwork burden imposed on the
private sector and state and local governments by the federal government and to ensure
that all information that is collected is actually useful. It applies to all rulemakings that
contain information collection requirements. In general, the Act requires that agencies
conduct a paperwork burden analysis and to justify the information in intends to collect.
This must be submitted with the notice of proposed mlemaking to the Office of
Management and Budget for review.
REGULATORY FLEXIBILITY ACT. This legislation mandates that agencies
engaged in rulemaking pay particular attention to the effects of their actions on small
businesses and other small entities. This law also requires an analysis, the results of
which are usually incorporated into the final rule published by the agency. When
appropriate, the agency must demonstrate that it has taken all appropriate steps to
minimize the negative effects that a proposed rule will have on small entities.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT. This statute requires agen
to determine whether the actions they are undertaking will have a significant impact
the environment. In those cases when a rule under development would have a significant
impact, the agency is required to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). The
EIS is prepared in accordance with guidelines established by the Council on
Environmental Quality. These guidelines establish the -types of environmental effects
that must be considered and the process by which the impact statement is prepared.
The results of the EIS are then incorporated into the rule.
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT. This legislation is important to
rulemaking because it places constraints on agencies' communications with the public.
When an agency intends to consult with persons outside the agency prior to or during
the development of a rule, it must take steps to ensure that any such advisory group is
balanced in terms of affected interests. The advisory committee must be "chartered" by
a process that involves publication of a notice in the Federal Register.
-------
IMPORT/EXPORT!
| Relevance of import/export regulations
H Knowledge of regulatory requirements
I Explanations of relevant paperwork
• How to conduct port and border Inspections
| Responses to your questions.
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: Overview/Purpose
KEY POINTS:
The purpose of this module is to provide you with an understanding of the issues
related to the import and export of hazardous waste, including:
— The relevance of import/export regulations to RCRA inspectors
— Regulatory requirements for the import/export of hazardous waste
— Types of relevant paperwork
— How to conduct port and border inspections
— Responses to the questions you were asked to provide on the index cards
included in your information packet.
V-l
-------
REGULATING IMPORT/EXPORT
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Regulating Import/Export(l)
KEY POINTS:
• RCRA inspectors need to be familiar with import/export regulations because they
may be called upon to conduct import/export inspections at ports, borders, and
facilities.
• For ports and borders, RCRA inspectors work closely with U.S. Customs Service
Inspection and Control (I&C), the Border Patrol, the Port Authority, and the
National Guard.
* At facilities, often the first step is to ask if there is ongoing importing or
exporting activity. Whether the answer is yes or no, if you do not believe it, ask
to check manifests and contractual agreements between facilities. If facility
representatives answer in the negative, and you believe them, continue with the
inspection.
V-2
-------
REGULATING IMPORT/EXPORT!
Transboundary movement of hazardous waste Is regulated by
• RCRA
• Canadian and Mexican Bilateral Agreements
• OECD
• Some States.
Importing Is regulated far less heavily than exporting.
Illegal exporting and Importing do occur but are difficult to
track.
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Regulating Import/Export (2)
KEY POINTS:
• Import of hazardous waste is only minimally regulated through RCRA and
OECD (between OECD countries).
• The U.S. imports more hazardous waste than it exports.
Legal export of hazardous waste from the U.S. exceeds 130,000 tons annually.
• RCRA requirements include completion of manifests (for import and export),
and notification of EPA of intent to export. RCRA does not currently require
environmentally sound management by the country of import.
• OECD requirements are only in effect between countries that are signatories.
The U.S. is a signatory, as is Canada. Mexico is not (currently).
• Only recyclable wastes can be shipped to OECD countries (that is, Basel
countries). However, no clear definition of what constitutes recycling exists.
Non-recyclable materials can be shipped from the U.S. to non-OECD
countries.
• State authorities exist for regulating import and export. For example, both
Texas and California have specific rules and offices that deal with hazardous
waste traffic, and they each have specific notice requirements.
V-3
-------
I IDENTIFYING IMPORT/EXPORT SITUATIONS I
The best way to
determine If Import/
export actually
occurs Is to
ASK.
9
9
9
If there Is a problem,
a potential discrepancy,
or a question, contact
your Regional Import/
Export Coordinator.
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Identifying Import/Export Situations
KEY POINTS:
• To know what to ask a facility representative, you must understand all applicable
requirements.
• Without asking questions and looking at paperwork, it is highly unlikely that
you will identify import/export activity during a facility inspection.
• If you know or suspect that a facility is engaged in import/export, you will want
to review the paper trail to identify the nature of such activity and to ensure
compliance with alt requirements. Import/export files are usually kept separate
from operating files.
* This paper trail can include:
— Notification of Intent to Export (§262.53)
— Manifests
— Exception reports
— EPA Acknowledgment of Consent
— Import Notification of Regional Administrator or State Director (§§ 264.12
and 265.12)
— Shipping Papers
— Annual Reports
— Contracts with foreign consignee.
V-4
-------
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Identifying Import/Export Situations (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• More will be said about each type of document later.
• Each Region has an Import/Export Coordinator. A list of phone numbers is
included in your Participant's Manual.
V-5
-------
REGULATING IMPORT/EXPORT - RCRAI
Export requires paperwork associated
with notification, consent, and manifests.
Manifests, shipping records,
exception reports, and annual
reports must be on file and not
tampered with.
The OECD multilateral agreement
will be codified into 40 CFR §262.50
Only a manifest Is
required for Importing
under 40 CFR § 262.60
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: Regulating Import/Export - RCRA
KEY POINTS:
• During an inspection at a facility that imports waste, the inspector should find a
manifest in the records. There are no other import regulations regarding
manifests (§§ 264.12 and 265.12 apply).
• At an inspection of a facility that exports hazardous waste, the inspector should
review the files for:
— Shipment records that include the Notification of Intent to Export, the
confirmation of delivery, and an annual report, maintained in the files, for
three years after the date the waste was accepted by a transporter (under §
262.57 of RCRA).
— Manifests — a generator must keep a copy of each signed manifest for
three years from the time the waste was exported or until receipt of a
signed copy of the manifest from the designated facility that received the
waste (§262.54 and §263.20(g)). This signed copy must be retained as a
record for at least three years after the date the waste was accepted by the
initial transporter. The manifest requirements are under § 262.54.
V-6
-------
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: Regulating Import/Export - RCRA (continued)
KEY POINTS:
— Acknowledgments of Consent (AOCs) are required to be attached to the
manifests under § 262.53
— Discrepancies in how the above mentioned forms are filled out (e.g.,
missing addresses).
• In addition, there are reports that an inspector should find in the records:
— Exception reports (if necessary)—these must be filed if the exporter 1) does
not receive the manifest on time; 2) does not receive written notification
from the receiving facility on time; or 3) has the waste returned to it.
— Annual reports—reports for the previous calendar year must be filed by an
exporter with EPA by March 1 each year.
V-7
-------
REGULATING IMPORT/EXPORT -
OECD AGREEMENT
Binds the United States.
Only valid between member countries.
Permits the movement of waste destined for recovery operations.
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Regulating Import/Export -- OECD
KEY POINTS:
• OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
• The multi-national agreement on waste establishes a graduated control scheme for
exports and imports of waste recyclables among OECD countries. Currently
there arc 24 signatories.
• Waste recyclables are separated into Green, Amber, and Red categories based on
how hazardous the waste is. Wastes on the Amber and Red lists are subject to
more controls than wastes that are on the Green list.
* Before exporting can occur, there must be a valid contract between facilities, and
the exporter must provide written notification to the competent authorities of the
concerned countries, including any transit countries. The notification may be
forwarded by the authorities of the country of export to the competent authorities
of the country of import and country(ies) of transit.
• Competent authorities in the country of import must transmit an
Acknowledgment of Receipt of Notification to the notifier within three working
days and objections must be lodged within 30 calendar days.
V-8
-------
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Regulating Import/Export - OECD (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Written consent by the country of import and country(ies) of transit is required
for all wastes on the Red list.
• Consents are valid for one year, or as specified by the receiving country.
V-9
-------
1 REGULATING IMPORT/EXPORT
BILATERAL AGREEMENTS
The United States has bilateral
agreements with Canada and Mexico.
The Canadian Agreement Is currently
being revised.
e'
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: Regulating Import/Export - Bilateral Agreements
KEY POINTS:
• The United States' agreements with Canada and Mexico, which are similar, require
that the country of import be notified:
— 30 days in advance of shipment to Canada
— 45 days in advance of shipment to Mexico.
* In both cases the country of import will send an Acknowledgment of Receipt to
EPA.
• In addition, the country of import will send to EPA written consent, written consent
with conditions, or written objections to import:
— In Canada, after 30 days, consent is tacit; that is, the shipment is assumed to be
acceptable if no written notice is received by EPA
— In Mexico, consent must be within 45 days and is never tacit.
* Canada is the only country in the world to which we can send waste for disposal.
• The Canadian agreement is currently being revised.
• Waste may be shipped to Mexico for recycling only.
V-10
-------
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Regulating Import/Export - Bilateral Agreements (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• SEDESOL (formerly SEDUE), the Mexican agency responsible for the
environment, estimates that only 31% of Maquiladora waste is returned to the
United States; all of it is supposed to be. Maquiladora is used as a generic term for
firms that process components imported into Mexico which are then exported,
usually back to the U.S.
• Again, look for paperwork discrepancies in facility records to determine potential
violations of these agreements.
V-ll
-------
IMPORT/EXPORT -
U.S. CUSTOMS SERVICE
Tht U.S hm • Memorandum of
Understanding with Customs, currently
b*kng ravlMd.
U.S. Custom* Smvlo* and EPA woric
together.
EPA
CUSTOMS
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Import/Export - U.S. Customs Service
KEY POINTS:
• Under RCR A regulations, exporters of hazardous waste must provide a copy of a
manifest to U.S. Customs at the point where the hazardous waste leaves the United
State. This is required under § 262.54(h)(i).
• EPA and U.S. Customs both agree to provide information that will allow each to do
its job. EPA participates in Customs border activities and supplies information
about its own activities and leads. Customs collects and supplies manifests to NEIC
for EPA, and participates in activities and provides information, where appropriate.
• EPA inspectors and Customs officials will conduct joint inspections at borders and
ports.
• The MOU between the two agencies is currently under revision. A copy of the
signed MOU is included in the library.
• Customs issued Hazardous Cargo Guidelines, which explain Customs' approach to
inspections. A copy of the Guidelines are located in the library.
V-12
-------
IMPORT/EXPORT COORDINATORS
EPA, Region I
Joan Jouzaitis
617-573-5775
FAX 573-9662
EPA, Region D
Margaret Emile
212-264-1253
FAX 264-7613
EPA, Region IE
Elizabeth Ackerman
215-597-6413
FAX 597-8174
EPA, Region IV
John Lank
404-347-7603
FAX 347-5205
EPA, Region V
Allen Wojtas
312-353-6194
FAX 353-4788
EPA, Region VI
Joseph Schultes
Rose Toner
214-655-2192
FAX 655-6460
EPA, Region VII
Peter Sam
913-551-7642
FAX 551-7521
EPA, Region VIE
Janice Pearson
303-293-1504
FAX 293-1488
EPA, Region IX
Pat Kuefler
415-744-2149
Leif Magnuson
415-744-2141
FAX 744-1044
EPA, Region X
Cheryl Williams
206-553-2137
FAX 553-8509
EPA, NEIC
Jim Vincent
303-236-5120
FAX 236-5116
HQ-CID
Kathy King
202-260-9379
FAX 260-0268
HQ-OE-International
Larry Sperling
202-260-3087
HQ-OE-RCRA
Catherine Smith
202-260-6590
FAX 260-1632
HQ-OGC
Kathy Nam
202-260-2737
FAX 260-7702
HQ-OSW
Angela Cracchiolo
202-260-4779
Denise Wright
202-260-3519
FAX 260-0225
HW-OWPE/RED
Estelle Bulka
202-260-9324
Troy Hartley
202-260-9869
Susan Garcia
202-260-9094
FAX 260-8630
QMS, OWPE/RED
Karen Milne, Acting Chief
202-260-1787
IMPORT/EXPORT STAFF
Bob Small
202-260-9375
Carolyn Sage
202-260-8730
Carolyn Carr
202-260-2810
OIA
Wendy Grieder
202-260-4887
FAX 260-8512
-------
-------
OVERHEAD #8
TITLE: Import/Export - ILS. Customs Service (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Finally, note that summaries of
— RCRA requirements
— OECD requirements
— Bilateral Agreements
— Customs/EPA relations
are included in the Participant's Manual.
V-13
-------
SUMMARY!
Import and export regulations need to be considered when
conducting Inspections at facilities, as well as at ports and
borders.
Regulations and requirements are In place, particularly with
respect to export activities; there are likely to be more In the
future.
Discrepancies may be Identified primarily by asking
questions and looking at paperwork.
Checking for compliance wtth Import and export regulations
Is part of the role of the RCRA Inspector.
Headquarters Is currently developing the RCRA
Import/Export Tracking System to capture data about
import/export.
OVERHEAD #9
TITLE: Summary
KEY POINTS:
Certain types of wastes are more likely to be exported than others. Remember
that K061, F006, and Ni Cd batteries are likely to be exported, so facilities that
generate or handle these should undergo special scrutiny.
There might be more regulations in the future because of OECD's incorporation
into RCRA.
Always ask if a facility imports or exports hazardous waste. Ask to look at
manifests and contractual agreements.
In addition to conducting inspections at facilities where import or export is an
issue, you may be called on to conduct an inspection at a port or border.
Coordinate your port and facility inspections with Headquarters and U.S.
Customs, communicate clearly your plans and goals, and follow all safety
precautions.
V-14
-------
Summary of RCRA Regulations
Import/Export
i
Notification
• A Notification of Intent to Export must be submitted to EPA by the generator 60 days before
the initial shipment (§262.53)
* The Notification may cover activities for up to 12 months.
Consent
* EPA will provide copies of the Notification to the government of a receiving country
and any transit countries. (§262.53(e))
• When a receiving country consents to the receipt of hazardous waste, EPA will
forward an Acknowledgment of Consent to the exporter. (§262.53(0)
• If the receiving country objects, EPA will notify the exporter in writing. (§262.53(0)
• The consent of transit countries is rjoi required under RCRA.
Manifests
• Manifests are required of exporters under §262.54.
• A manifest must identify the name, site address, and EPA ID. number of the receiving facility.
• It must identify the point of departure of the waste from the U.S.
* The Acknowledgment of Consent forwarded from EPA must be attached to the manifest.
Reports
* Exception Reports • An exception report must be filed by the exporter if (1) they did not
receive a copy of the manifest signed by the transporter, including an indication of the place of
departure within 45 days of the date the waste left the exporter's facility; (2) they did not
receive written confirmation from the receiving facility mat the waste was received within 90
days; or (3) the waste was returned to the U.S. (§262.55)
• Annual Report - An annual report must be filed by an exporter with the EPA by March 1 of
each year, summarizing the types, quantities, frequency, and destination of all waste
exported during the previous calendar year. (§262.56)
Record keep ing
• Shipment Records - An exporter must keep the Notification of Intent to Export, the
confirmation of delivery, and the annual report for three years from the date waste was
accepted by a transporter. (§262.57)
• Manifest - A generator must keep a copy of each signed manifest for three years from the time
the waste was exported or until receipt of a signed copy of the manifest from the designated
facility that received the waste. This signed copy must be retained as a record for at least three
years from the date the waste was accepted by the initial transporter. (§262.57)
Relevance to Inspectors
• Check to see that manifests, shipping records, exception reports, and annual reports
arc on file and have not been tampered with.
-------
Imports
Any importer mast have in its files a manifest for any imported waste, including the name and
address of the exporter and the EPA I.D. Number of the exporter.
A U.S. importer must sign and date each manifest, and obtain the signature of the initial
transporter. (§264.71)
An importer must notify the Regional Administrator in writing at least 4 weeks in advance of
the date waste is expected to arrive. Nonce of subsequent shipments from the same foreign
source is not necessary. (§264.12)
An importer must inform a generator in writing that its facility has appropriate permits
for, and will accept, the waste the generator is shipping. (§264.12(b))
Records
• An importer must retain the written acceptance notice as pan of its facility operating record.
Relevance to Inspectors
* Imports are not closely regulated and may be difficult to detect
-------
Mexican Bilateral Agreement Requirements
Notification
* The competeiit authority of the country of import must be notified at least 45 days in
advance of shipment of waste.
• The notification may cover the individual shipment or multiple shipments, and
it is valid for up to 12 months.
• The notification roust contain the following information:
• Exporter name, address, phone number, and identification number;
- Waste description, waste identification number, and shipping
- description;
- Estimated frequency and time period of shipments;
- Estimated total quantity;
-Point of entry;
- Means of transportation (mode and type of container);
- Description of the treatment or storage; and
Name and site address of the receiving facility.
Acknowledgment
* Acknowledgment of Receipt is returned from the country of import
» Consent, partial consent, or objection must be made within 45 days from the
date of Acknowledgment of Receipt.
* There is na tacit consent
Canadian Bilateral Agreement Requirements
Notification
• Country of import must be notified 30 days in advance of shipment
* Notice may cover an individual shipment or multiple shipments, and is valid
for up to 12 months.
* The notification must contain the following:
- Exporter name, address, phone number, and identification number,
- Waste description, waste identification number, classification and shipping name;
- Estimated frequency;
- Estimated total quantity;
- Point of entry;
- Transporter name and address;
- Means of transportation (mode and type of containers)
- Description of the manner of treatment, storage, or disposal;
- Name and address of receiving facility; and
- Approximate date of first shipment.
Acknowledgment
• Country of import will send an Acknowledgment of Receipt
• Country of import will return a written consent, partial consent, or objection within 30 days.
* After 30 days, consent becomes tacit.
Relevance to Inspectors
• The Mexican and Canadian Bilateral Agreements are similar in many respects. Their
differences are highlighted in boldface.
• Most violations will relate to the required paperwork, or lack thereof.
-------
General
OECD Agreement Requirements
* The OECD agrbement establishes a graduated control scheme (Green, Amber, and
Red) for exports and imports of waste recyclables among OECD countries.
* Waste recyclables on the Green list are subject to all existing controls
normally applied in commercial transactions and any applicable international
agreements on transportation.
• Hazardous wastes on the Amber and Red lists are subject to additional procedural
controls, regarding notification and consent, tracking documents, and contracts.
• The OECD Agreement permits the movement of wastes destined for
recovery operations only.
* The transit of wastes through non-member countries by OECD countries is
subject to all applicable international and national laws and regulations.
Notification
* There must be a valid contract between facilities, starting with the notifier (generator)
and ending with the recovery facility, in order for export activity to be sanctioned
* The exporter must provide written notification to the competent authorities of the
concerned countries. These include any transit countries. The notification may
be forwarded by the authorities of the country of export to the competent
authorities of the other countries of import.
Acknowledgment
• Competent authorities in the country of import must transmit an Acknowledgment
of Receipt of Notification to the notifier (either the exporter or the forwarding
government authority) within three days.
• Objections must be lodged within 30 days after the Acknowledgment of
Receipt is sent
• Written consent by both the country of import and the country(ies) of transit
is required for all wastes in the Red tier.
• Consents are valid for one year.
Relevance to Inspectors
• The United States is bound by the OECD Agreement
• Acknowledgments will be required from transit countries as well as import
countries.
OECD Countries: Australk France
Yugoslavia participates In OECD woifcas* "special status" country
-------
Customs/EPA Relations
The legislative history accompanying Section 3017 of RCRA provides that EPA
"should work'with the U.S. Customs Service to establish an effective program to
monitor and spot check international shipments of hazardous waste to assure compliance"
with hazardous waste export requirements.
Exporter Responsibilities
• Exporters of hazardous waste must provide a copy of hazardous waste manifests
to U.S. Customs at the point where the hazardous waste leaves the United States.
EPA Responsibilities
EPA agrees, subject to available resources, to:
• Develop procedures for Customs to identify hazardous wastes and notify EPA
when shipments of hazardous waste do not comply with Section 3017;
• Notify appropriate Customs officials when they should conduct "for cause"
inspections
of suspect shipments; ._ , . .. . ••.»..••
• Promptly respond to requests by Customs for assistance in inspecting, seizing, detaining,
or otherwise handling known or suspected non-complying shipments; and
• Take the lead on investigating non-compliance with Section 3017 and bring
enforcement actions where appropriate.
Customs Responsibilities
U.S. Customs agrees, subject to available resources, to:
• Collect all manifests that transporters deliver to U.S. Customs officials;
• Periodically transmit all manifests to the National Enforcement Investigation Center;
• Inspect, seize, detain, or otherwise handle non-complying shipments;
• Issue a compliance circular to its officials that describes requirements
applicable to exports of hazardous waste;
• Participate in enforcement actions where appropriate; and
• Where appropriate, provide information, briefings, and training to its officials,
which will inform and prepare them to apply the hazardous waste export requirements.
-------
-------
DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
One Winter Street Boston,Massachusetts 02108
Ptaaaaprmtoftypa. (Form daaignad 'or usa on ante (12-oflCh) lypawniar.)
1
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANIFEST
Ganaraior's US EPA ID No.
MAD OOP 604 447
Manitat Document No.
1 96442
r's Nama and Mailing Addraas •
aidlaw Environmental Services (North East), Inc.
221 Sutton Street, North Andover, MA 01845
a*ianuor'»ptaf»( 508 > 683-1002
.6, US EPA 10 Numbjf
1 NYD 980 773 675
US EPA 10 NumOar
1
OMtgnmad Faohty Nama and Sita Addraa* 10. US EPA 10 Numoaf
iaxiLaidlaw Environmental Services (Mercier), Inc.
129'4 Boul St. Marguerite
VIlie Mercier. Quebec Canada JOL 1KO
11.
a7"
US DOT Da
ng ffnppar Shipping Mama. Hum* Class ma ID Mvmtar;
RQ Waste Combustible Liquid, n.o.s./NA 1993
Combustible Liquid(Ethanol, IsopropanpL)
w 0 1 c*" o i 0
;j
.'P
5 iaae
2 Paga 1
. i
Ol 1-
in(ormat«n m tna anaoaa »raas
» not raquiraO by faoarai uw.
Ifta/lliaat DootfDanl Nuffitoar
MAG588681
B. 8wa>Qan.!D
300 Canal St. .Lawrence, MA
F. Tmaponafa nona (
NOTREOUmEO
H.
• «x» 614) 691-9610
12. Comamar*
Mo. |Typa
)
TT
Ouanfltv
4000
14.
Unit
Wl/Vol
WaaW'No.
P002P003
F005D011
D001D007
waiter waste with ketones
b This is a non-PCE Liquid,
aid »t»Tiiaiif alcohol.
15. Spaaal Handling Instructions and Additional Information Driver's 5IG:
P. o.» 96442 - Restricted Waste Notification
In case of emergency contact: DJPOTRAC 1-800-53
Att Iched
r lh*o*m aHomo flwwrco iv^r MnvaMctwon vid Mlvct VM bvti •
HMtMMMOM
JeffRoetzel
J Data
Monm Da
GS
bA
COPY>
FACILITY
M
•H
O
«9
n
n
-«
IH
z
x»
•H
IH
O
z
C/1
^
:• ^
17. Tranationar 1 AOnoartadQamant o< Raoaipl of Matanan
Oatt
18 Tianaiiorta* 2 Acunooiaagamant of Racaipt ol Malanai
I
Data
Montfi Oty Year
1 1,1,
19. Dacfapaney tnoicauon Space
f
ft . JON 1992
20
Ownar or Oparaior. Otrtificauon 1: FACILITY HAILS TO DESTINATION STATE
-------
48-14-1 (3/89)— 71
PIMM prinl or type. Do not Staple
n«nu—iou Are Writing Through Eight Copies
(See Revej*fr4Ude for Instructions)
STATE OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES REGULATION
HAZARDOUS WASTE MANIFEST
P.O. Box 12820, Albany. New York 1221?
OMB NO zoMMxaa
EiamislKtt
§
§
£
5
|
•
1
"n
"c
*
O
1
3»
z*
•
c
2
*
•«
a
?
;
e
6
N
i
ft
A
T
O
ft
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS 1 orator's us EPA NO. &£££•, NO
WASTE MANIFEST Ntv|ninini9l7l?l«»n I5IRJ I ! ! i
3 Generator s Namt and Mailing Address CNETDA SILVERSMITHS
EAST SENECA. STREET
SHERRILL, NY 13461
4. Generators Pnon* I 31 cl 3g1_ Oil C
S. Transporter 1 (Company Name) 6 US EPA ID NumLer
SERVICES RauTTaTUPQ mxnamrx |N!Y!Dt9(£)0'7.6:2 1 4iQ
7. Transport*' 2 iCorrspar.y .'Jame* C US EPA ^Number'
1 1 I 1 1 1 ! • : i
9. Designated Facility Name and Site Address 10. US EPA ID Numb*'
STABLE* CANADA INC.
760 BLVD INDUSTRIAL
BLAINVILLE, QUEBEC/ CANADA |C|D|D|9 |8 |0;7>5|6|4 ,1|5
2 Page i
o!
information m the shaded areat
is not required by Feairal Law
A Slate Manifest Document No.
NYB 168P75 7.
B. Generator'* ID
^Jfrf***'
C. State Transporter's ID
0 Trartpcr:
c. s Phone (514 J43O-14Qfi
c Stait Ti^nsparter's ID
F. Transporter's Phone { |
G State Facility's ID
M. Facility's
<514'
Pnoie
430-9230
j t2 Container , 13. 14.
it. US DOT Description (inducing Proper Sr-ippmg Name. Hazard Class and ID Number) i Tou< Unit
tic 1 TIT- i n-iinn-v Altntnl
* BQ HAZARDOUS HASTE SOLID, N.O.S. (F006)
OFM-E (copper, zinc, nickel) NA9189
0 ! 0 1 1
b.
i
1 I ,
•
ctMrS^i
i
< !• i
/ifov? P
1 i
^•SeclLC^^a ^^^ . ; i
„ -//!„ /fi» '^ ' *&C
W.llsfa k \*A - «\
— -=^'y9< ~ 1 fl*, ^ i tv I *1
J. Additional Descriptions tor Mai«riaJ«nisieo>«t5o«e\ .« I ( w 'AjS? HanciirSif
K2SP; c^L_ \?i o»cf^ ;r
» i t T— r-—- • \Cfj tX^V'l a A'
* ^*
6 ; f ; d iS&^j
15 Specia Hi -•!••: «•!. i" -,r ir.c Aar-:- .#• .r-.Tijrmation "^"' ~"
TO D2788 TOTAL DRY WEIGHT "7* s OOe (SUFERFUND TAX)
24 HOUR EMEHGENCV TFTJTPrfT^ NUMBER {315)3fi]-311l? "Nr> PFT
ic r^dJPO&Tr'iC'^ r*rr ~i- I^ATI/^*-
W
^.
.required
:i**t '••>•• --;• • . . • . . -rtf-*- * :* f-sw eeneiiicn »c-- ••«p>4:- ••••.-..
ie6«.. ••>-."•;• "" .->
j
\ I i I
1.
Wl'tf* fjp
EPA
EDJLJ
STATIi
EPA
STATE
EPA
*
STATE •
»
EPA
STATE
i
boces lor Wastes Listed Abg
IL ' . 1
lii_i e l_
1
1 d
3:
. Sect.3fi.55_|h)_f str"
. .-.->• -.. :-.it3> ci-'f"*
-t'. !: -.-it-.r'-.,*- -i .
Mo Uay -tear ,
T PrtmeO'TypeC M3me
, Signature
Mo 0i«»! r>rei"
i
-------
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
One Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Job i: 71-53110
PledfJBjBril
A 10 No. Manifest
MAlDiOi4l7lOl7l5l7l3l4l7°|T|Tlffi4
Information in the shaded areas
hi net required by Federal taw.
3. Generator'i Name and Mading Address
Geochem. Inc. d/b/a Jet-Line of Lowell
263 Howard Street, Lowell. MA 01852
4. Genemor-*Phonal 508) 9S7~7294 ->' i
A. StM* Manlfaat Document Number, «t
HA«'
B. State Gen:jD
S. Tranepomr 1. Company Nam*
Jet-Line Services. Inc.
US &AIO Number
tMiAiD.Oi6i2il.7i9i8i9iO
7. Tnraporur 2 Company Name
B. US&AIDNumbor
I i i i i i i i 'i i
617 344-2510 T
3
30
a
9. Designated Fedfcty Name end Site Addrew
Etablez Canada. Inc.
160 Industrie! Blvd. Blainvffle
Quebec Canada J7C 3V4 - I
10.
US B>AIO Number
>v.782-Z539
12.
No. Type
13.
• Total
Quantity
M.
Unit
Wt/Vol
• EQ. EasardouB Waate Solid, n.o.a. (F006)
C)RM-E £
.'•-'OlOll
ClM
B.Q, HaurdouB Waste Solid, n.o.s. XF006) i -rl
CRM-B hf.;!;-;ilA»189 .-;/' /i*** *"'*T - :^7
OtOll
006
I I
I I I I
•T,
I 1
J. AOttional DMcripiioR*hit Materials Ua»d Abevt tincfecfr AAywca/acaM inrfWa^codb./ *-*^~-;^. -.-
^- ->r? . - •«. - - - •*.*:- • . . . - - .•.--..t**Jt'-...•» --•^«l. pae««l. martiad. and
of consent.
ill am > ivW eiMntK^tnvMoc. i ewnty mat I rwvi * fa^ttm n Mac* »
ant •• I haw tfaiannviad to b» acanomiea*T erancabU
i u «• wti«h mmnwM I«M era*«n and lutura thnui m human (warm «id tka trrann-
anp.m»and»»acitma>««»»n»Ma«ieaiiMmii»a«fioati«ata>»aiii»nmmandit««ti
Data
Robert E. Poltraa
T7 Ttan»pon«' 1 AOnowladQamarn at-Racatpt et Matanalt
Data
niad/7,
18 Tianaacna' 2 AcAtnowiadgamant rt Racatpt d MafltSalll — J
Mantfi O»r
I I I I I
19. Diicrapancv Indication Spaca
,C Facikty Own*' or Oparato*: Cartification of rSat Of
a^d bv ttu»rnaru1: FACILITY HAILS TO DESTINATION STATE
-------
v»,rf«»f—PRESS HARD • YOU ARE WRITING THROUGH EIGHT COPIES. SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR DIRECTIONS
f&T
^•_
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION OF HAZARDOUS WASTE
One Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
primoftyp* md«»ion»(Horu»«er»IH« I12-»flchl typ«wm«f
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANIFEST
1.G*n*morUSEPAIONo.
HiAinininnioi3t5i9i7ii
3* HvMMlND* A MVKQ tt^tt WWHWQ AflflfWttl
ROCHE BROS.
.PHOENIX AVE.. LOWELL, MA 01652
508 >454-9135
USEPAIONumtaf
JMIAIDI9I8IHfll9l2lSlSl7
SUFFOLK SERVICES. INC
•. US 9A10 Number
1 I I I I I I t t I I
USEFAIDNumtaf
md Sin AMftM
CANADA, .INC.
60 BOUL. INDUSTRIAL
t'AJwwTi i r nurnrr PAMAHA I7r TUA
MI v ini q i B i n t T I s I
HAZARDOUS WASTE SOLID, NOS ORM-E, NA9189
0007} (DOOB) .(CONTAINS LEAD)(CONTAINS CHROMIUM)
y exported
ander Custams supervision
nnMiaii POINT OF EXIT HIGHGATE SPRINGS, VT
EMERGENCY RESPONSE:
Ban-Spin (617)286-004^1 AFTER Spin (508)865-3692 or (617)946-3366
Month D»y Vi •/•
MieiiM e* Mm«ri«U
17. Trmmoncf 1 Jefcnewtod
/> v- / S*fr
18. Tranuonw 2
B»m«nt of *•**& cf Mm«
! IS. DiMwoancvindtutionSpaet
-------
DNR*
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT
OF NATURAL RESOURCES
*k»§»t D«nt or lyoe
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
ATT. D PIS. D REJ. D PR.D
F«lu>« le III* if
tKIWfi Mt»«« MCL 0>
ACI IX. P» IW*
10 c
I
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS 1 I Generator's US EPA 10 No.
WASTE MANIFEST
Manif
yeneretor's
end Mailing Address
est
i
R
5
Generator's «K>n, (
». iransponar I Company Name"
LAIDLAW CARRIERS INC.
o^ -,««
,842-4100
230 N. HOPKINS
GRAND HAVEN MI - 49417
T. iransponar 2 Company Name
-B-
£
JjiD ,9 ,8
US EWk ID fcumber
0,6,1,9,9,3,6
ft
6££19
&UftU'C«..
CI
9 Designated Facility Name an'd Site Address
FftLCONBRIDGE LTD.
FJDD CREEK DIV. P.O. BOX 2002
TUMINS ONT P4N 7K1
4^^i
u?
umber
10.
11. US DOT Description (including Proper Shipping Name. Hxztra Class, and
MM ID NUMBER).
lQ3t5|6
^TftoS
c.
FOUNDRY SAND R.Q. HAZARDOUS HASTE SOLID
N.O.S., ORM-E
JIO3Z 3
5 Received |
Additional Descriptions tor Materials Listetf
IUNDRY SAND FOR RECYCLING OF COPP
CONFORMS TO THE TERMS OF THE
EMERGENCY ft 616-842-4100 GRAND HAVEN
AND
Conisi
FemAppreoed QMS No 20SO-O01* CxaketS-30
5 P.9« i
of
information in the tnadcd area-
is noi required by fcderj
A. State Manifest Document Number
MI 2420324
B. Stata Qanarator'a ID
C. Stata Transporter's ID
D. Transporter's Phone ^ifi_gm_ng^t
E. Stata Transporter's ID
0. State Facility's ID
H. Facility's Phone
705-267-2161
_NS.
0,1
U.
liners
Tjffie
C.M
a;
rr
Tola)
Ousniity
PI°P
Unit
MAW
P
LB
1. Waste
No-
^OjOje
K. Handling Codes lor Wastes
Usted Above
LEDGEMENT OF CONSENT.
J_L
m
H
a/ /
b/ /
c/ /
Y
•
A
N
S
f
o
*
T
f
*
1
1
POKT OF EXIT SAULT ST MARIE DRIVERS SIGNATURE -^L*x-£-<^^>S^«-~_
proper sntppmg name ana are classified, packed, marked, and labeled, and
according to applicable iniemai-_ £, 2^**£*s —
1 7. Transporter 1 Acfcnow<*dgemant of Receipt of Material* / /
Pfinted/Typed Nam*
EVERTT BERGSMA
SI«J*M** // A
IB Transporter 2 Acknowtadgemeni or Receipt of Material! /
Printad/typad Name
»•«»/> D»r Ytf
3J6l3IOl9l2
Date
ICAIA Dty Ye»r
3I6I3IOJQI?
Date
Signature <• 1113, l
9'90
Ml
-------
pnntoriypa (form otnqnuo (or oaa on elaa (12-pncti) lypan ntar)
S-JO-9J
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANIFEST
t Generator S US EPA ID No
Information in" the shaded area*
is not required by Federal law
A. Slate UanMeat D
US EPA 10 Number
>AArl«i4iJ
US EPA ID Number
.4444AJ
US EPA ID Number
Transporter's Phone
TranaponefalD T»
. Transporter's Phone
State Fadtt/«K>
Total
Quantity
Stopping Name. Mazanf Clatf antf/OMumber;
11. US DOT Deecnption (Including P
F009
•41880
RQ HAZARDOUS WASTE SOLID, N.O.S.. ORM-E,
i NA9189 (CONTAINS HYDROXIDE SALTS, ZINC AND
K. HandHngCodeatorW
HYDROXIDE SALTS D-81
tor Materials Uetod Above
MASTEMATER TREATMENT SLUDQE; 1SS HATER,
6000PFM ZIMC, 120PFM CHROME
3. Generator's Name and Mailing Address
inniB EUcnieB K MM, u. K u,
d. Um, CMBQU B3K§ —~
4. Generator's Phone (
5. Transporter 1 Company Name
ncMCTAi cicrrPTC a
7. Transporter 2 Company Name
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
108 CENTER DR.
DEL RIO. TX 78840
ESS)
9. Designated Facility Name and Site Address
ENVIR06AFE SERVICES OF IDAHO
HIOHNAY 78 - MISSILE BASE ROAD
i
IS. Special Handling Instructions and Additional Information
HEAR RUBBER _
FRANK FERREIRA
BOOTS. GLOVES. RESPIRATOR. GOGGLES MHEN HANDLING; EMERGENCY CONTACT:
RAJ512)774-3$ei: EMERGENCY GUIDE NO. 31
16.OENEHXTOM1
mil m* ewwrai v M* eonngnmni *•
m«rMd •>« 1 0111111. and wt •» tf IMPMS « prop*1 eonMen tar Import by n^Mey
n l am • two* ouinwy gmraur I eartfy Mi I tav* • aragram « ptact « i*duca ma vobma ana *MMy af Maw eanantad to Via «apa«
•conomcaiy araeicatt* and mat i haw aaianad ma pracncatta maitmt oi raaimant atoraga or aapoMi euirarmy araiiaeu to ma »ftcn
KMvn mraai to human haalm and ma a»»»ui»i»iil. OH. * I em • anal quantity ganaranr. I haw mada a eaod IMA aHert to mrvnia my
lha but watM managamant mamer}«ial • avatttta to ma and mat I can anpm
mmnuat iht preseni ana
ganaralon ano
17 Transporter i Acknowledgement of Receipt o< Materials
Pnnted/Typea Name
16. Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt of Matenats
Month O»y nar
Pnntedrryped Name
Signature
Month Day reer
MINI
19 Discrepancy Indication Space
20 Fealty Owner or Operator Certification o( receipt ol hazardous
Printed/Typed Name
Stvtf f IS REV E l»BUMASTtP CWw o< AMCMCAN LAKLMARK CO CHCACO «. 6064C
TRANSPORTER -1
-------
&•• ImtTUcttons on back of poo* 6.
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANIFEST
1. CWMCMn UB iM D No.
ri AI nr ni ni T Q' i
J
ManfMt Oaeumn ito.
R1 f»l Ql
TPr
ECS Retiring Ma"1B**1"" . /Tecate Electromecancia
705 Reed St.Santa Clara, 95050/ *«0. Box 57
"#88-4386 / Tecate, CA. 92080
Tecate Electroaecancla
ECS Refinlne
lf> non»qiM»« Adam
ECS Refilling
705 Reed St. Santa Clara 95050
Ci Ai Pi Ql Ql 3t 9i fit 3i S
KlPAONuiCwf F
A,D, 0,0,3,9,6,3,5,9, 2J
ii-woort
RQ Hazardous Waste, solid n.o.s. ORM-E NA 9189
Mo.
OiO
l I
DiM
t 18 i3
tiit
U.IM
W-£~>^<~ ,?""«,
l^;?^V:.*»i5'W:
v-*:yi*k|£||^
I > i
I < I I
Hear gloves, eye protection and dust mask
u.
Of tnfc com^vrwnt ov fipy one) ood^tf•If <
ond ^^v In CM Mt^vctt ^ piiDO^'^A^B"BdfOf Iv^Pipon'^vNQ^ioy ooco^ono voc
hp*»»»0
mMtodef
I t fff* O ^PQ* OUOrt'V p**»^^o». I C*rt^f Ihtf I flO^W Q
•eonontetfr piortieqb^ end Iht* i ho» t*i*e«*d »M poettoebt*
««M« to hwron ivtfb CTM »<• •TNtamw*: OR. f I «n a »nd o»
iiiarupamor^mBttiodihgioqtamtOBwgKlttMllconfOort
to !*<• d»9'»» I tax* dotwmtood to bo
(• WniCf) ff'onnttBM •!• p*W0fl> ORB •
moa»ouuitnyi»q<«90imtf>uiiond»iioet«»a»
lOlS
o
r
i
i
F
A
C
1
I
f
T
A
rs
h , RecejVed |)
fi^_wv ^^Jb loT7 lO^f^.-l.
<3
i I i 1 <
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS UNE.
Io PO Bo» 3000. Soaameoto. CA
-------
ate print or type (form a*tign*d lot uft on flat tl2-pilch/ typfwraot.l
OREGON ACCIDENT RESPONSE CENTER
forni Approved OM0
(-8Uj4S2-0311
1 Etp**t »-30-91
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANIFEST
Generator * US EPA I
iifitl I 2 P»0«
•>ocumen, .40 I .
Ot
I information in the shaded areas
is not required fey Federal
tew
Bbco total Pihlshing
7851
4 rjJtiidbMOndak PC ¥*Jk «M
toviro
1700 Airport l»y South
98321
I i I I I
Ch«m-S«curtty Systems, Inc.
8t«r Route)
Arlington, OfMon 97812 - •-••:•
0|fl|D|0|t|9|4|S|2 3I6I3
USTtr"rttfTjitrnn(tncftmhujrnpurTfi»»rnTjffiirri MmrdCtou. mdIOHtanbur)
IDS (MM-E M* 9109
b J 81398 OOK HA2
tlon West* Profile Sh*«l Humberts)
•31
c.
d
>. GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION: I hereby declare that the contents ol this eonttgnment are lo«y and accurately described above bv
proper snipping name and are classified, packed, marked, and labeled, and are m all respects m proper condition lor transport by highway
according to applicable international and national government regulations
If I am a large Quantity generator. I certify thai I have e program in place to reduce (he volume and MJncrty ol watte generated to the degree I nave determined to be
economically practicable and that I have selected the practicable method o» treatment, storage, or disposal currently available to me which minimizes the present and
future threat to human health and the environment. OK. rl I am a small quantity generator, l^eve made a good taith effort tgvninimyji my waste generation and select
the best waste management method that is available to me and that t can affrf
Naai*
Month
7Tran«ponef 1 Actnooiriadevniam of Haeaipl o< Maiariais
^ / f f
/,//•" // t
'(tjf\Kt fc (A'J
I Transporter 2 Acknowledgement of Receipt Of Materials
Month Ott*.
Manx
Month Otr Vtit
1 ! J 1
i Discrepancy indication Space
MciiM* Owne' or Operator Cartilicaiion of receipt ol hazardous maieoais covered bv this manilest except as noted in item 19
N*me i S<9"'iu" Month Otr
' I . I ' I I
> §700-22 (R*» •'•«> Previous eaitiorts are oosowie
TRANSPORTER
-------
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS
/ASTE MANIFEST
1. Ganerotor'i US EPA ID No.
.WAD-988467254
_ Monilett
Sora
erotor'i Nam* and Mailing Addret^
1DERSON NEWALTA ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CORPORATION
12851 No. 5 Road, Richmond, B.C. V7A 4E9
4. Gererotor't Phone ( )
I. S*
i Troinporter I Compony Nome
Anderson Newalta Environmental
«. US EPA ID Number
| WAD 988467254 . .
7. Troiuporter 2 Company Nam*
US EPA ID Number
E. State Tfanspbrtec'i»'
9. 0*ugnot«d FocMity Nome and Srtt Addr«u
ENVIROSAFE SERVICES OF IDAHO INC.
10.5 miles N.W. of Grandview, Idaho
83624
10.
US EPA 10 Nwmb*r
G.
| .1DD73114654
H.
11. US DOT OncnptKin (Including Prop»r Shipping Hunt. Hmrt OMJL »nd ID Numt»r)
HM .
12.
13.
Total
Quantity
14.
Unit
W/Vol
' HAZARDOUS--WASTE SOLID N.O.S.
DRIVE NA 9189 (tWC: EP TOXICITY)
DM
44
14.5
8 NON HAZARDOUS WASTE
."«!»• • f-
I" »*»•, *!T.: :<••
» v«j-- •?»•..» •
ws f. ••- <
;joe »•>- • .-•
%i rv/3'
••«•«:! '• '
il DetcnptKou for Materials lifted Above
JASTE METAL HYDROXIDE SLUDGE WOOD WASTE CONTAMINATED WITH foe
''ESII PCN 10280 B)PQS is 1% Copper
ESII PCN I27AF
i far Wo
IS. Spociol Handling InMrucfioni and Additional Information
16. GENERATOR'S CERTIFICATION: I hereby aeaar* mot m* cemenn e< mil cvmiaiimeM «.• Wly end eccvreiely diKiibed ebeve by p re per iMpping name ond are i
marted, and lobeled. end era in ell retpecn in preper cundnien lor mampon by highway accarding te eppkcoble intametienel end mitienel BuiiiiimiiiiBl iag^n»»eni
Hlene
enditiot
Oft, it lemotMW
wtiich mtr»mri«i tfc« pn»«nt ond h»tuf» l*if«ot ad« o good aneg»i««n1 »i»lhad Ihet« • i ailabli la m» ond thoi I can
Phm*d/T|rpod Nome
n Trtfj AI i Cfj t /-vn KAK&i
Signotwr*
17 Ttodipon*r 1 Ackngwl*dgem*nt ot R*c*ip1 of Moi»noli
Pnniod/Typed Nomt
RAY BRENflAT! C*P bohalf of .A
18 Tranipon*' 2 Ac>nowledg«meni of ReceiD* of w
Stgnatur
MenMi Oer Veer
I no I ?n I on
Printed/Typed Nam*
!S.gnotur»
19. Discrepancy Indication Space
DttP
oc li*v Owner or Operator: Certification ol i
IreredaM"'* rnomUit eicept Ol noted in Hem 19.
Fnn'ed Typed Name
S.g
^sr
Montr. Dor f*O'
TRANSPORTER #1
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
office of
ASTE AND EMf MCf NCV Nf S'ONSi
May 19,1992
BY FAX: 504-77S3057
Mr. Glen E. Hasse
Vice President
Schuylkill Metais Corpora
P.O. Box 74040
Baton Rouge, LA 70874
Dear Mr. Hasse:
Please find enclosed the Acknowledgement of Consent for Schuylkill Metais
Corporation, Baton Rouge, Louisiana to export 250 Tons of Nickel/Cadmium batteries
(EPA hazardous waste numbers D006) to S.N.A.M, CEDEX, FRANCE You will also find
enclosed, special instructions for the export of hazardous waste.
If you have any questions, please give me a call at 202-260-9324.
Sincerely,
Estelle A_ Bulka
RCRA Enforcement Division
Enclosures
-------
-------
Please be advised of the following special RCRA requirements for export shipments of hazardous
waste. These requirements are found at 40 Code of Federal Regulations, Pan 262, Subpart E - Exports of
Hazardous Waste.
1 If the major terms of the original notice should change, you must renotify EPA. Please send your
^notification to: EPA, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, RCRA Enforcement Division (OS-520), 401
M Street, S.W.. Washington, D.C. 20460, 'Attention: Notification to Export" prominently displayed on the
front of the envelope. ($262.53(c))
2 The hazardous waste manifest for each shipment must Identify the point of departure from the
United States In item 15. (§262.54{c))
3 The foUowIng stalamer* rnust be axkied to to
in Item 16 of the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Form: "and conforms to the terms Of the
attached EPA Acknowledgement of Consent"; (f262.54(d))
4 A copy of this Acknowledgement of Consent must be attached to the U.S. hazardous waste manifest
tt-iat accompanies each shipment of hazardous waste. (i26Z54(h))
5. You must provide the transporter with an additional copy of the manifest for delivery to the U.S.
Customs official at the point the hazardous waste leaves the United States In accordance with $263.20(g)(4).
(5262.54(1))
6. You must fie an exception report with the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement. RCRA
Enforcement Division (OS-520), Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, S.W.. Washington, D.C.
20460. if you have not received a copy of the manifest signed by the transporter stating the date and place
of departure from the U.S. within forty five (45) days from the date k was accepted by the Initial transporter.
if within ninety (90) days from the date the waste was accepted by the Initial transporter, the primary
.exporter has not received written confirmation from the consignee that the hazardous waste was received;
'and the waste to returned to the United States. (§262.55)
7. You must fle an annual report by March 1 of each year with the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement RCRA Enforcement Division (OS-520), Environmental Protection Agency. 401 M Street, S.W..
Washington, D.C. 20460. ($262£6)
All shipments of hazardous waste must conform to all applicable state and Federal hazardous waste
regulations and transportation requirements, as well as these specific export requirements.
Any questions you may have concerning this Acknowledgement of Consent or other export
requirements may be directed to Ms. Estette A. Bulka, EPA, Office of Waste Programs Enforcement
(telephone number 202-260-9324) or to Mr. Jim Vincent, EPA. National Enforcement Investigations Center
(telephone number 303-236-5120).
-------
-------
UNCLASSIFIED
01 PARIS 12809 0615262
OES-09
Ac-oo
~01
H-01
NSCE-OO
SS-01
ACDA-15
DINT-05
IHRE-00
NSF-02
STR-20
; AID-01
DODE-00
INR-01
01C-02
TRSE-00
AHAO-01
DOEE-00
10-19
OMB- 01
T-01
?P3fi3
CEQ-01
EB-01
L-03
PM-01
USIE-00
C 061527Z
CIAE-00
EUR- 01
ADS- 00
PRS-01
EPAE-00
/3S
COKE- 00
E-01
N5AE-00
SP-01
/090W
5615272 MAY 92
AMEMBASSY PARIS
SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6369
ZLAS PARIS 12809
I OES/ENV; PLEASE PASS TO EPA/OIA - GRIEDER
). 12356: H/A
55: SENV, ETRD, KSCA, FR
JJECT: approval of hazardous waste export,
mylkill metals corporation - snare
:: (a) paria 10052, (b) state 106135
On may 6, 1992, embassy received mfa diplomatic
.e no. 1132 De/env, dated april 28, 1992, giving
-~>-<»l french government consent to shipments of
te from achuylkill metals corporation to le
Substantive portions of the note, in embassy
unclassified
unclassified
ie 02 paris 12809 061S2fiz
>nslation, follow:
• ministry of foreign affairs presents its
ipliments to the embassy of the united states of
;rica and, referring to the embassy note no. 188 Of
-il 28, 1992, relative to the export of hazardous
;te destined for the snam treatment facility at
.nt-quentin fallavier in isere (schuylkill metals
poration - baton rouge epa id no. D006), has the
tor to confirm that the relevant french authorities
•e no objection to the aforementioned operation.
•en their nature (cadmium-nickel batteries) and
her" -3f treatment (recycling of cadmium, iron and t
-------
tftese 'waVtes are* subject to the simplified
sgime of title ii of decree no. 90-267 Of march 23,
390, concarning importation, exportation and transit
: hazardous wastes: the initial holder of the wastes
; required to address an "import declaration for
istes of nonferrous metals destined for re-use,
.'generation and recycling" to the prefect of the
•partment in which the receiving facility is located,
this case the prefect of isere, and to accompany the
ste with a document containing the information
eaented in the declaration.
us, the importation into franee of wastes destined
r treatment by the snam facility in saint-quentin
llavier does not require written authorization from
unclassified
unclasaified
?e 03 paris 12809 0615262
; prefect.
! quote.
Copies of the french note and translation are being
:ed to epa/oia. The original will follow by mail.
ley
May 19,1992
This document will serve as the EPA Acknowkdfement of Consent for SCHUYLKILL
METALS CORPORATION, BATON ROUGE, LOUISIANA to export 250 TONS OF
NICKELCADMUM BATTERIES (EPA HAZARDOUS WASTE NUMBER DOOtf) to
S.N.A.M., CEDEX, FRANCE. This Consent is VALID for the period of APRIL 28,
TO APRIL 27, 1993. Please be adrtoed thai a copy of this
ipany
•5 J
with the U.S. Customs Service, when the material leaves the jurisdiction of the United
States. y*oit"V
-------
PTA-3
m?"RT BUTTON HQ
CHARGE : ErA
RR EUEHEPA
OF F.UEHME 4* ~ '-> r, 1 •' " J < .44 J
INR UIJI.HJIJ T.ZH
R ISJSi'iir FEB Sc
FM AMEMBA55Y MEXICO
TO SECSTATE UASHDC 3634
BT
UNCLAS MEXICO
PLEASE PH'T. TG EPA/OTA. T AT^E^ON/? . mPREA AND UFNC1Y
HRETJ
DEFT FOR ARA/MEX-PAUL STORING. OES/ENV-MINNIE ROJO ""
E.O. 1E3S?,: N/A
MX
SUBJECT: SEOUE APPROVED DATA CHANGES FOR 5
IMPORTERS OF HAIARDOI.J5 WASTE /
EPA riL.E NO J-4/16&?;
gTATE"3ftfe55£i MEXICO P430P
SCIENCE OFFICE HA5 RECETVED A LFTTER FROM SEDUE
AUTHORIZING QUANTITY AND TIME PERIOD CHANCES FOR 5
(FIVE* IMPORTERS OF HAZARDOUS WAETF TO ZII4C NAC1QUAL.
MEXICO.
2. AN INFORMAL TRANSLATION OF THE LETTER FOLLOWS;
(STAKT INFORMAL TRANSLATION)
OFFICIAL. NOTICE NO ail.ntiiMiaa DATED JANUARY f> ,
HN BEHALF OF ZINC NACIOUAL. 5. A. LOCATED IN MONTERREY,
NUEVO LEON. WE COMMUNICATE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION.
riNC NACIONAL. HAS- PRO1-1 TOED REAL. DATA FOR FIVE (SJ OF
ITS SUPPLIERS OF ~INC DUST , WHICH WERE ORIGINALLY
ESTIMATED THIS NOTIFICATION IS GIVEN IN OROER TO
EXPEDIENTLY COMPLETE THE RECORDS FOR THIS COMPANY AND
THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATTACHED PLEASE FIND THE LIST OF SUPPLIERS WITH THE .
TOTALS THEY HAVE BEEtt AUTHORISED TO IMPORT
(COMPLIMENTARY CLOSING)
ARD RENE ALTAMIRANO PERf.T (SIGNED)
UNCLASSIFIED
UNCLAS MEXICO
-------
LitJCI A:,
MKXICO
fTHE ATTACHED LIST CONTAINED THE FOLLOW ING
5LIPPL IER5 /
1
SHEFFIELD STEEL CDRP
P.O. BOX ??JE
SAND SPRINGS, OKLAHOMA 74063
TEI..FPHOMF
QUANTITY
PERIOD
*,?3<>«i TONS
JANUARY ft. J99E
THROUGH J ANUARY B,
STRfUNRHAM BOLT CO., INC.
ILLINOIS 5TEFL DIV15ICWQ
RR 1 - BOX )64
BOURPONNAI5, ILLINOIS
TELEPHONE =
QUANTITY *
PERTOD
(815) S37-3I31
lO.OnO TONS
JANUARY I, 1995
THROUGH DECEMBER 3t. . 1993
BTPMIblRHAM BOLT CO., INC
SOUTHERN UNITED 5TEFL. CHRP.
r?3«>J HUNTSVILLE ROAD
BURMINGHAM. ALABAMA 352'.'H
TEL.EPHOME
QUANTITY
PERIOD
7,5oO TON?
JANUARY 1,
THROUGH DECFMSEP 31
SALMON BAY STEEL. TORF
S2«»ll - I34TH SOUTH
»:EWT.
TELEPHONE =
DUANTTTY .
PERIOD
(2u*>) B72-610O
J J . «:«><•) TON?
JANUARY 1, 1*QC
THROUGH DECEMBER 21
SSfrj
S BIRMINGHAM STEEL CORP
MI55t55IPPf STEEL DIVISION
P 0. BOX 57P<>
JACK'SOW, MISSISSIPPI 3f,613
TELEPHONE
PUAUT7TY
PERIOD
S.UIMI TONS;
J ANUARY 1 .
THROUGH DECKMFFn
J'i'Sc
(FND INFORMAL TRANSLATION)
r.t J = AALOMZO )
UNCLAS
MEXICO O396
at
(A
-------
MR )
En\rois multiples: Nombre d'envois
totsile de: L ou ^.
.& etre transportes pour te.
(AMU)
.d'une quantity
,, Methy/ethyl,Ketone
•IBM
9
I 1 1 I I I I
I I 1 I \ M
1 I J 1 I I I
I 1 I I
Mill
Mill
ERP2-1201I
Emergercy Telflktane (519) 864-1201
Consignee will ocnply with TDG tegulations 4.20.1 1(1) (a) (ii)A and I
4.9 (1) (a) Cb) (c) (i) (U) (d) .
Tnmpert Cmdt tor
Copto 1 (Mandw) • Tiwitports Carate, «rweJ InKt p«e*ncW (BPQ
Trwwperu
-------
-------
Environment
Canada
Conservation ana
Protection
Environ nemen
Canada
Conservation ei
Proieciior
Ottawa (Ontario)
K1A OH3
08-SEP-1992
Ae«v 'fifntci
12.1-001
Ms. Lisa Warner {OS-520)
Policy and Regional Operations Branch
RCRA Enforcements Division
U.S.E.P.A.
401 M Street S.W.
Washington, DC 20460
Dear Ms. Lisa Warner (OS-520),
In accordance with Article 3 (a & b) of the Canada/United States
Agreement Concerning the Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste,
enclosed please find copies of export notifications.
E'.C* Exporter Name
«••*•*» M»4»*PdM«P«VJMMM»*tf»*»
S2-OS55.001-.003 Safety-Kleen Corp.
92-0556.001 Safety-Kleen Corp.
92-0557.001-.002 Safety-Kleen Corp.
92-0558.001 Safety-Kleen Corp.
92-0559.001 Safety-Kleen Corp.
92-0560.001 Safety-Kleen Corp.
92-0561.001 Safety-Kleen Corp.
92-0562.001 Hazco Environmental Servi
92-0564.001 Laidlaw Environmental Ser
9:2-0565.001 Laidlaw Environmental Ser
92-0566.001 Prisa Systems Inc.
9:2-0567.001 Norsk Hydro Canada Inc.
Yours Sincerely,
Origin
SaskatoonTSK
Saskatoon,SK
Saskatoon,SK
Edmonton.AB
Edmonton.AB
Edmonton.AB
Saskatoon,SK
Calgary,AB
Thorold.ON
Corunna,ON
Burnaby,BC
Becancour.PQ
Destination
Hebron,OH
Reedhey,CA
Elgin,IL
Dolton.IL
Reedhey,CA
Elgin,IL
Dolton,IL
Grandview,ID
Model City,NY
Canton,MI
Newark,CA
Palmerton.PA
Adair
Waste, Clerk
Jsste Management Branch
- 1 -
Canada
recycled paper
papier recycle
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
September 15, 1992
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
i EPA Notice No.: 297/92
MS. MARY GERDING j
ROSS INCINERATION SERVICES, INC
36790 GILES ROAD
GRAFTON, OH 44044 |
EPA I.D. No.: OHD048415665 j
!
Dear MS. GERDING: !
I
This is to acknowledge receipt of your notice, dated June
18, 1992, of intent to export hazardous waste to Canada as
required by Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 262,
Subpart E, Section 262.53 promulgated pursuant to the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In accordance with the
U.S.-Canada Bilateral Agreement on the Transboundary Movement of
Hazardous Waste, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
forwarded your notice to the Government of Canada and Canada has
no objection to your shipment(s) pf hazardous waste.
This letter constitutes the EPA Acknowledgment of Consent
for the export of the following hazardous waste as specified in
your notice:
Haste Description: FLY ,
INCINERATION. EPA Wast
USH FILTER CAKE FROM HAZ WASTE
Code:
DOOl, 2-43, F001-12,19, 24[, 37-39 ,KXXX,PXXX,UXXX. DOT
Shipping Name: HAZARDOUS WASTE, SOLID, NOS; DOT Hazard
Class: ORM-E; DOT I.D. NO-: NA9189. Total Volume to be
Exported: 2,500 TONS. Estimated Frequency: 180 loads
per YEAR.
i
The notice of intent to export for which this consent letter
is issued listed multiple EPA waste codes too numerous to include
in the waste description above. |For convenience, EPA has used
DXXX, FXXX, PXXX, KXXX and/or UXXX as abbreviations for these
multiple codes. Please be advised that these abbreviations are
not valid EPA waste codes for use! on any other hazardous waste
documents. All manifests and EPA; annual reports must display all
waste codes applicable to the actual waste shipped. Only wastes
with EPA codes included in the notice of intent to export and
specifically consented to by Canada may be exported.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
You way ship this waste to the following consign**:
STABLEX CANADA, INC.
760 INDUSTRIAL BLVD.
BLAINVILLE, QUEBEC
CANADA J7C 3V4
EPA X.D. No.: NYD980756415
Shipments may occur during the period from July 21, 1992 to
July 21, 1993.
You are also reminded of the following special RCRA require-
ments for export shipment* of hasardous waste. Specific details
of these requirements are contained in Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, Part 262, Subpart E.
1. If the major terms of the original notice of intent to export
on which this consent is based should change, you aust rsaotify
EPA. Please send your renotification to: EPA, Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement, RCRA Enforcement Division (OS-520), 401 H
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460, with "ATTENTION: NOTIFICA-
TION TO EXPORT" prominently displayed on the front of the enve-
lope. (262.53(c))
2. The Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Form for each shipment
must identify the point of departure from the United States in
Item IS, Special Handling Instructions. (262.54(c))
3. The following statement must be added to the end of the first
sentence of the certification set forth in Item 16 of the Uniform
Hazardous Waste Manifest Form: "and conforms to the terms of the
attached EPA Acknowledgment of Consent". (262.54 (d))
4. A copy of this Acknowledgment of Consent must be attached to
the U.S. hazardous waste manifest that accompanies each shipment
of hazardous waste. (262.54(h))
5. You must provide the waste transporter with an additional
copy of the U.S. hazardous waste manifest accompanying the
shipment for delivery to a U.S. Customs official at the point the
hazardous waste leaves the United States in accordance with
263.20(g)(4)-and (262.54(1)).
6. You must file an exception report with the EPA, Office of
Waste Programs Enforcement, RCRA Enforcement Division (OS-520),
401 K Street, S.w,, Washington, DC 20460, Attn: NOTIFICATION TO
EXPORT, if you have not received a copy of the manifest signed by
the transporter stating the date and place of departure from the
U.S. within forty five (45) days from the date it was accepted by
the initial transporter; if within ninety (90) days from the date
the waste was accepted by the initial transporter, the primary
exporter has not received written confirmation from the consignee
that the hazardous waste was received; or if the waste is re-
turned to the United States. (262.55).
-------
7. You must file an annual report by March 1 of each year with
the EPA, Office'of Waste Program* Enforcement, RCRA Enforcement
Division (OS-520), 401 H Street, S.W., Washington, DC 20460,
Attn: NOTIFICATION TO EXPORT, summarizing all hazardous waste
shipments exported during the previous calendar year. The report
must include all items listed in 262.56.
All shipments of hazardous waste must conform to all appli-
cable State and Federal hazardous waste regulations and transpor-
tation requirements as well as these specific export require-
ments .
Any questions you may have concerning this Acknowledgment of
Consent or other export requirements may be directed to Mr. Bob
Small, EPA Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (Phone 202/260-
£375) or to Mr. Jim Vincent, EPA National Enforcement Investiga-
'- ' ---.. /nu^.^ •»/•»•» /?1«_*1 5m .
i:ions Center (Phone 303/236-5120).
Sincer
Karen L. Milne, Acting Chief
Policy Analysis and Coordination Section
RCRA Enforcement Division (OS-520)
c:c: Jim Vincent, EPA/NEIC
-------
-------
UNIFORM HAZARDOUS
WASTE MANIFEST
3. Gonorolor'i Norn* and Moiling Addrou
ICI Autocolor
1300 Castlefield Avenue
M6B-1GB
7. Tr*mp«fl*r 2 CMit
Northeast Chemica
3301 Monroe Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113
I Gonorotor't US EPA 10 No.
Mo«it«l1
DociMnoiwNo.
rvn -n -A -i
2.
N21121S
7B7,2411
SAME
5. Trwnponor t Compony NOIM *. US EPA 10 Numbor
Frank's Vacuum Truck Service. Inc. IN YD-9-B-2 -7 -9-2 -B -1 -4
(73.6
US If A 0 Nm»b«f
C. Stow
Prank's Vacuum Truck Sgrvic»i Inc. h -Y -D 9 <& -2 -7 -9 -26-14
(716) 284-2
10.
US EPA 10 Ni>mb«>
|0.H.D.9.8.0.6.6.1.5.7.1
(216) 961-6618
12.
N/H Waste Latex Paint
00-1
o37.rj
8
13. Spoool Ho*dlmg Intirvciioro ond Addnwrail ln<
i. Additenol DcicnpMMit for Mo
In case of emergency call Network (416) 2
reference 3823-90-5050
16. GENIIATOTS CXITIRUTrON:
tl I ••• • iot«« **••«•, §•"*'•»•'. *
oHwd
2T
"TT^
17
AcknovlodffoAOflf of tocoipl •) M0Mtiah
lo-friz-zl
1 1 Tro«ipon«r
< Rx*ipi ol Matcnalt
X7
17. Discrepancy Indkonon Spec*
Rejected returned to generator on transporter 2. 09-12-91
naa a flastvoint of 125*: is an ii
iron R. Bfaynan NBC
1 of prior acdm Co LBft
•• Op«foior
«ion ol foc*
19.
-------
-------
HB2BRDOUS UJflSTE TRRNSPORTFR/EHPQRTFR CHECKLIST
Rev.3'
Date: Time: Inspected By:
DWIFQRMATOOW EPAID*.
Transporter Name/Location
DOT License. #s
Plate # ;___ State Driver's Name,
Destination: [JStablex []Other,
Truck Type: [ ] Bulk Solids [ ] Bulk Liquid [ J Drums Tot. Qty Units
Placarding: Hazard Class UN/NA # Other:.
Are containers labeled/marked properly? [JYes [JNo Container condition [] Good []Poor
Commenta/DIacrepenetes:
MAMFOT WromflATION Manifest f
Manifest of Date Additional copy for US. Customs? I JYes [ ]No
Generator Name .... - -
EPA ID f City State ZIP
Ha) Waste Codes' ]( J[ ]Qty _ G T P (cirde units)
Description _ _ : _
1 1b) Waste Cod** [ ][ ]I ]Qty _ G T P (circle units)
Description ___
1 1C) Waste Codes! II H I Qty _ 6 T P (circle units)
Description _
11d) Waste Codes [ ][ ]J ]Qty _ G T P (circle unte)
Description _
ITEM 1 5. Does manifest identify the point of departure from the U.S.? (] Yes [ ] No
ITEM 1 6. Does certification language include ". . . and conforms to the
terms of the attached EPA Acknowledgement of Consent "? [ ] Yes [ ] No
Is Acknowledgement of -Consent (AOC) attached to manifest? [j Yes jj No
Is LDR Notification attached to manifest? [j Yes [j No
©F CONSENT (AGO oMFORiuAirooM
List AOC Waste Codes: [ ][ ][ ][ ][ It ][ ][ ]
[ II ]( H ]( II U II 1
[ II ]( H ]( 11 H II 1
AOC expiration date : _ Do AOC waste codes agree w/manifest? { ] Yes [ ] No
Commanta/Dlacrepenelaa:
-------
-------
State of California
Department of Toxic Substances Control
INSPECTOR'S CHECKLIST for
TRANSPORTER COMPLIANCE EVALUATION INSPECTION
Inspection No.
Date
Transporter; Company Name
EPA/State ID No.(*)__
Waste Handled: RCRA
Non-RCRA
Transporter No.,
Both
Inspection Site: Name
Address
EPA/State ID No.
Type of Facility.
Inspection Type: Transporter-Only CEI7
Transporter Component of Larger CEI? (specify):
Generator TSDF Other
Purpose; Enforcement Proceeding.
Other (explain) __
complaint.
Routine.
Inspector:.
Region.
subject
INDEX TO TRANSPORTER CHECKLIST
Page Subject
Applicability Key 2
General Requirements 4
Registration/Insurance. .4
Vehicle certification...5
HW Discharges 6
Operation/Manifesting.....8
Hater Transport 11
Rail Transport 12
Small Quantity
Reclamation. 14
Instructions to Inspector; This checklist should be used along with
the statutes and regulations. Each question is followed by a
citation of the relevant state or federal section(s), in brackets.
Before answering each question, you should refer to end understand
the section(s) cited. Citations are of 22 CCR, unless otherwise
specified. Usually, an equivalent 40 CFR section exists which has a
number consistent with the 22 CCR numbering format (except lacking
the first two digits, M66H), so that its citation is not needed.
Relevant federal sections not correspondingly numbered are cited,
following a slash: 166263.18/263.12]. A dash (-) before or after a
'slash denotes there is no corresponding State or federal section,
respectively. Relevant Health and Safety Code sections are cited
using the acronym "HSC".
Transp Chklet (Rev 7-18-91) P9
-------
L, T
7 NQ . D15
. '
KEY TO CHECKLIST APPLICABILITY
This checklist is for inspections of hazardous waste transporters
operating in California, vith certain exceptions. The questions on
this page are for keying puposes, to help you determine if this
checklist applies to the transporter being inspected, or if other
checklists may also apply. A "no" answer to a question in this
"applicability*1 part does not necessarily indicate a violation.
Yes
No
Comment
1. Has consent been obtained from an
authorised company representative
before conducting the inspection?
[DHS Management Memo (MM) 91-4R/-}
2. If consent has been refused, has a
warrant first been served on the
company? (KM 91-4R/-J
3. Is hazardous waste (HW) transported
within or through California, and does
it require a manifest under HSC 25160?
(66263.10 (a)]
If NO, this checklist does not apply.
4. Is any HW transported other than
on-site at a generator's facility or
on-site at a permitted/interim status
(P/I) TSDF? [66263.10 (b))
If NO, this checklist does not apply,
5. Does the transporter handle only
RCRA HW from a 100-1000 kg/mo.
generator according to a reclamation
agreement? (-/262.20(e)]
If YES, then the "Operation/Manifesting Procedures" section of
this checklist does not apply. In its place, complete the
"Small Quantity Reclamation" section, page 14.
6. Is the transporter a rail or water
(bulk shipment} transporter?
If YES, then some parts of the "Operation/Manifesting
Procedures" section may not apply, and additional special
provisions in the "Water Transport" (p. 11) or "Rail
Transport" (p. 12) sections do apply.
Transp ChXlst (Rev 7-18-91) Pg 2
-------
Yes
No
Comment
7. Is the transporter operating under
a variance?
If YES, some parts of this checklist nay not apply. The
inspector should use a copy of the variance with this
checklist to check compliance with the special variance
provisions and with the applicable regulations.
B. Is the transportation only of an
exempt recyclable material?
[HSC 25143/261.6]
If YES, parts of this this checklist may not apply. See the
referenced sections.
'.). Is the transportation only of used
oil under the modified manifesting
procedure provided by HSC 25250.8?
[HSC 25250.8/-]
If YES, parts of the "Operation/Manifesting Procedures'1 section
of this checklist do not apply. See the referenced sections.
10. Does the transporter ship HW to
California from abroad, or mix HW of
different DOT shipping descriptions by
placing them in a single container?
J66263.10(C) (1),(2)3 .
If YES, then the transporter is also a generator and must also
comply with Chapter 12, 22 CCR standards (see also "Generator
Checklist").
11. Does the transporter perform
mixing, repackaging, bulk transfer
or storage in excess of 144 hours of
manifested HW?
[66263.18; HSC 25123.3/263.12]
If YES, then the transfer facility is required to be a
permitted/interim status TSDF (see also "Facility Checklist"}
Trans? Chklst (Rev 7-18-91) Pg 3
-------
S. TRQu-Er TujRS
""£_ MO .61 9-33S-21"7-
."38
Note; in following parts of this checklist, the questions are
designed to determine compliance with the section(s) cited, and a
"no" answer would indicate a violation of the section(s) cited.
TRANSPORTERS: GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR OPERATION
This section must be completed for all transporters of HW.
Yes No
Transporter/Vehicle Registration
12. Is the transporter registered with
the Department and have an EPA/State
ID No., or if not, is he operating
under emergency authorization?
[66263.11, 66263.17, 66263.30(b)/-)
13. Zs each vehicle used to transport
HW registered to the transporter or
under his control pursuant to a lease?
[66263.ll(a)(2)/-]
Insurance Requirements
14. Does each vehicle have adequate
insurance coverage for the type of HW
transported, as specified by the
following table: [6*263.ll(a)(3);
KSC 25169(a),{b)/49 CFR Part 387)
Vehicle Type/commodity Transported
(a) All HW, except as specified in (b) below,
transported by highway vehicles with a gross
weight rating of less than 10,000 Ibs
Comments
Combined Single
Limit Coverage
$600,000
(b) Waste petroleum or petroleum products
transported in tank or vacuum-type trucks
or trailers, by highway, rail, vessel or
air, regardless of vehicle size
.$1,200,000
(c) For highway vehicles, rail vehicles,
vessels or aircraft with a gross weight
rating of 10,000 Ibs. or more:
(1} Oil listed in 49 CFR 172.101; hazardous
materials and hazardous substances defined
in 49 CFR 171.8 and listed in 49 CFR 172*101,
but not mentioned in (3) below
(2) Hazardous waste as defined in HSC 23117
and 22 CCR, but not mentioned in (3) below.,
$1,000,000
$1,000,000
Transp Chklet (Rev 7-18-91) Pg 4
-------
um 5
-us ,2 1-:0? NC .015
(3) Hazardous substances, as defined In 49 CFR
171.8, or liquified compressed gas or compressed
gas, transported in cargo tanks, portable tanks,
or hopper-type vehicles with capacities in
excess of 3,500 water gallons $5,000,000
Yes
CommentB
15. Is a copy of the insurance policy
kttpt at the transporter's principal
place of business?
[€.6263.11(a)(3)(A)/-]
Highway Vehicle/Container Certification
16. Has each vehicle, or container
over 118.9 gallons, used to transport
HW inspected by the CHP?
[ۥ6263.23(d) ; HSC 25163(e),
HSC 25191/-3
17. Did such vehicles/containers
display a current Certificate of
ompliance? [HSC 2S169.1(b),
5168.3(a), 25191(C)(I)/-}
IS. Is the certificate of Compliance
displayed on the front right-hand side
of the load-carrying portion of the
vehicle? [66263.14/-]
19. Is the transporter displaying the
Certificate of Compliance registered
With DHS? [66263.14(b)/-]
Vehicle/Container Condition
20. Are the vehicles/containers in
sound condition and designed to
contain HW? [66263.13(f)/-)
21. Are the vehicles/containers
designed/constructed, and the contents
eo limited, that no HW is released
during normal transportation
conditions? [66263.16(a)/49CFR 173.24]
22. Are the vehicles/containers free
of. leaks and are all discharge
openings securely closed during
transportation? [66263.I6(b)/-]
Transp ChKlet (Rev 7-18-91) Pg 5
-------
C. T
Yes
No
Comments
23. Does the transporter use covered
containers for HW that are subject
to volatilization or wind dispersal?
[66263.23(C}/-3
Vehicle/Container Marking
24. Is the firm name or trademark on
each side of the vehicle or container
and is it legible from SO feet?
[66263.23(«)/-]
25. Does the transporter comply with
applicable CKP and/or DOT regulations
regarding containers, packing, labels,
vehicle placards, shipping papers,
loading, shipping certificates and
incident reporting? (66263.23(a)/-]
Reporting Requirements
26. Did the transporter report to the
Department within -30 days any:
a. Change in majority ownership,
name or location?
[66263.15(a)(I)/-]
b. Change in ownership or control of
a certified vehicle/container?
(66263.15(a>(2)/-)
c. Vehicle involvement in a spill or
accident which may have rendered the
vehicle in non-compliance?
[66263.15(a)(3)/-]
d. Loss of liability coverage?
C66263.15(b)/-J
Hazardous waste Discharges
27. if a HW discharge occurred during
transportation, did the transporter
take appropriate immediate action to
protect human health and the
environment (e.g., notify local
authorities, dike the discharge area)?
[66263.30(a)}
Transp ChklBt (Rev 7-18-91) Pg 6
-------
Yes No
Comments
28. Did the transporter who discharged
hazardous waste [66263.30 (c)J:
a. Notify the National Response
Center (800-424-8802) if required by
49 CFR 171.15? and:
b. Report in writing (if required by
49 CPR 171.16) to the DOT, Office of
Hazardous Materials Regulations?
29. Did the transporter clean up the
HW discharge or take all other action
as required by Federal, State or local
officials to prevent a hazard to human
health and the environment?
[66263.313
Transporter Compliance with Inspection: Does the transporter:
30. Allow the inspection of records?
[66263.13(a)(3)/-3
31. Not interfere with the gathering
of evidence? [HSC 25195(c)/-]
32. Not impede a DHS representative's
enforcement activities?
[HSC 25195(a)/-3
33. Not possess altered or concealed
records? [HSC 25191(a)(2)/-]
34. Not make false statements or
representations on a manifest or any
document required by Ch 6.5, Div. 20
of the HSC?-[HSC 25191(a)(I)/-)
35. Not withhold information regarding
danger to public health or safety?
[HSC 2519l(a)<4)/-)
Transp Chklst (Rev 7-18-91} Pg 7
-------
(66263.20(8)] __
Transport of HW: Does the transporter:
39. Not transport, or authorize the
transport of, any HW without a
manifest (and AOC, if applicable)?
[66263.20(C),(d); HSC 25160(d)(l),
25162(e)(l), 25191(c)<2)] _
Transfer Facilities; Does the transporter:
40. Not store manifested HW at a
non-permitted transfer facility for
more than 144 hours?
[66263.18; HSC 25123.3/-J _
41. Not perform nixing, repackaging
or bulk transfer of HW at a
non-permitted transfer facility?
{66263.18/-J _
Transp Chklst (Rev 7-18-91) Pg 8
-------
Yes
Comments
Delivery of HV); Does th« transporter:
42. Not transfer custody of HW
to an unregistered transporter?
[HSC 25163
-------
. UJK i
Yes
No
Comments
TransportOut of State/Country.:
47. For HW transported out-of-state,
did the transporter submit a copy of
the manifest completed by the
generator, transporter and facility
operator within 15 days to DBS?
[66263.20(f)/-)
48. Did the transporter vho trans-
ported HW out of the U.S.:
I66263.20(j»
a. Indicate on the manifest the date
the HW left the U.S.?
and
b. Sign the manifest and keep one
copy?
and
c. Return a signed copy to the
generator ?
and
d. For RCRA HW, give a copy of the
manifest to the U.S. Customs
official at the point of departure
from the U.S. ?
RecordKeepinq
49. Does the transporter Keep a copy
of the manifest signed by himself, the
generator and the designated facility
or next designated transporter for
3 years after accepting the shipment?
[66263.22]
50. Does the transporter who
transported HW from the State out of
the U.S. Keep a copy (indicating that
the HW left the country) for 3 years?
[66263.22 (a))
Transp Chklst (Rev 7-18-91) Pg 10
-------
HI K D
NO . -IS
WATER TRANSPORT: SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
For shipments involving water transport,
completed in addition to the "Transporters;
Manifest Procedures" section.
this section must be
General Operation and
Yes No
Comments
For water (bulk) shipments, does the transporter comply with the
following: (66263.20 (h)/263.20(e) ]
51. Zf an initial transporter, obtain
a date of receipt and signature from
the water transporter on the manifest
and forwards it to the designated
facility?
52. For water transport, accompany the
waste with a shipping paper containing
all manifest information except
EPA/State ID Nos . , generator
certification and signatures?
S3. If a final transporter, deliver
the HW to the facility designated on
the manifest?
54. If a final transporter, obtain a
date of delivery and signature from
the designated facility on either the
manifest or shipping paper?
55. Retain a copy of the manifest or
shipping paper for 3 years?
[66263. 22(b) ]
56. If a spill of oil or hazardous
substances occurred, did the water
transporter 'give notice as required
by 33 CFR 153.203? [66263. 30 (d) )
Transp ChKlst (Rev 7-18-91) Pg 11
-------
(b) Return a signed copy to the
non-rail transporter?
and
(c) Forward at least 3 copies to:
(1) The next non-rail transporter?
or
(2) The designated facility?
or
(3) The last rail transporter
designated to handle the HW in
the U.S.?
58. Did the initial rail transporter
keep copies of nanifests or shipping
papers for 3 years after pickup?
[66263.20(1), 66263.22(C)(A)/
263.20(f)}
59. Did the rail transporter ensure
that a chipping paper containing all
Manifest information (except EPA ZD
Nos.p generator certification, and
signatures) acconpanied the HW at all
tines? [66263.20(1)(2)/263.20(f)]
60. Zf delivering HW to the designated
facility, did the rail transporter
obtain the date of delivery and
operator's signature?
(66263.20(i)(3)/263.20(f)(3))
61. Zf delivering HW to a non-rail
transporter, did the rail transporter
obtain the date of delivery and
non-rail transporter's signature?
(66263.20(i)(4)/263.20(f)(4))
Transp Chfclst (Rev 7-18-91) Pg 12
-------
i K u L L. i.
. 6 lS~336-21 7
C; 28.92 1J :0? No .015 P.15
Yes No
Comments
62. Did th« final rail transporter
k**p copies of the manifest or
shipping paper for at least 3 years
after delivery? [66263-20(1)(3)(B),
66263.20(1)(4)(B), 66263.22/
263.20(f)]
Trfr.sp Chkl«t (Rev 7-18-91) Pg 13
-------
.H.S. TROLLEr TURS TE;_ NC . 619-33S-21 ? J ^ug 2S.92 1-1:07 No.015 D.:.6
SMALL QUANTITY RECLAMATION TRANSPORTERS
For transporters operating under a RCRA Small Quantity Reclamation
Agreement, complete this section in lieu of the "Transporters:
General Operation and Manifest Procedures" section.
Yes No Comments
62. Did the transporter record on a
log or shipping paper the following
information for each shipment?
J-/263.20 (h)(l), (2)]
a. The nave, address and ID No. of
the generator?
b. The quantity of waste accepted?
c. All DOT-required shipping
information?
d. The date the waste is accepted?
63. Did the transporter carry this
Information during the transport?
[-/263.20
64. Does the transporter keep copies
of these records for at least three
years after termination or expiration
of the agreement? (-/263.20 (h)(4)]
Tranep Chklst (Rev 7-18-91) Pg 14
-------
U«i^T*i!^5csKSt~:iissts;Ssss^r5y£~.cr^rji.i' rrr^r.it-.». -.••.
L
- —
HELP
-------
-------
13:47 t»011M»Tl»44*4
IODINE NroLdo MX
SECflETARIA DE DE5ARROLLO URBANO Y ECOLOG1A
SUBSECRETARIA DE ECOLOGIA
DIRECOON GENERAL OE PREVENOON Y CONTROL
OE U CONTAM1NACION AMBefTAL
MMIinCSTODEEHTREGATRANSPORTE
Y RECEPCKHf DE RESIDUOS PEUGROSOS
1.
*Gf«
i&jLmiti
KrTaTT
LOC*i22^a3SHII"IL*'.i
«.
2
111
O
RESIDUO DE ACEITES LUBRICAMTES
80
BARRTL
16 fififi
TTBflS
•.MSTWCOOHS
ADOONJU,fAIUB,IU
R01S10MLRS
Jiui:ViOii.:4i:
.3;i;ir/*w^.
_S-1^ OFC.1L
, Bf TKJB^E"
2-22-58. 2-36-54
FMU.SU
^
CAL2. ffiXICO - BOULEVARD RXYEREXA - PUENTE INTL. I
i
o
^ *(*
KOU
-------
-------
03/13/82 13:35 tJ011»M7134494
iionDi of _
MODINE KroLdo KX
8014
PAD NO:
1U. 11*. lift OK
•tfv 40CBFNR
te*B«OTtofe
PA WHM Co*c NOl
26M3U
26&43W
26&43W
5-8-92
wffl 5-1-82
A TTdt ef
Brian H. Selden. Q. A. 'Kanaoer
01
NOTE
for tH raw TOP B»A
D011
0040.
-------
-------
seouv
SECRETARIA DE DESARROLLO URBANO Y ECOLOGIA
SUBSECRETAR'ADE ECOLOGIA
OIRECCION GENERAL OE PHEVENCION Y CONTROL
DE LA CONTAMNACION AMBIENTAL
HAMmCSTO
LA MPOHTACIOM o
eoo>.
HE MAT^fllA1 Fg Q apsipiinig
NOMRC Of L OENERAOOR
UMCACION .
CARGO
TEUFONO
MOUBRf DH. IMTCMUL O MMXIO
AbuAMA
DCSTMATANO
Of LA
_TfLEPOMO.
U imUZAOO* Ob MATBWL O
iMtuuoi
A. CWWCTCmSTICAS R«CAS DEL MATERIAL
COtOft
OUW
ONO O*
DRJEHTE
eSTAOOFWCOAt
OKUOO D
D
D
OB-CAPA3
o
DM
DM0
O< *
DI-4
D4.I-M
D7
071 -W
0 10.1 -US
0» US
OEXACTO
0«MCMOD< OJi OU- 1.4
lUtAQOJ.UD QtJ-l.T
0>.1-U Q> 1.7
nBtttTTP
•. eo*»oaictOM QUHHC* ISUMA TOTAL HASTA ioo%i
%
%
CAOMO
<••}.
»w>.
<*»_
PLOMQ
.PLATA (A*.
.COM (Out.
^ MQIffL 9Q m
.BMC (tn/l m
.TAUO (Tfc)
'E. OTDQ8
TOTAL
•ULPTO8
1
EIVAEBA TRAMSPORTADORA _..
UHCAOON
WO DE TRANSPORTS
TTPO DE OOKTENEDOR CAP.
RUTAASEOUR
MATf RULES ORESOUOSPEUQK38OS OH ONO
C9TAOO EN OUf K TNUMTOnTA
ovoLuyeiuauBo ^ n vauiiat aaLDo
TOTAL
MACtlMMO
O MEAOCONA COM B. AOUA
DRAHACTWO
OOTRQt
V
OEXPUXno
O TONCO
ONMOUNA
/^KMQRMACIONIJCIWNEJOEVCCIAL "N
VtANEXARPAOMMMUCIOIMLni J
POfl ESTE MEOIO CERTTFtCO QUE TOOA LA (NFOWMCION MCLUOA EN E8TE Y TOOO8 LOS OOCUMENTO5
AI>0>WLESE8COMPl^A,VERID1WYQUETtro^
NOMBRE Y F1RMAS AOTOREAOAS DEL OESTOR
NOMBRE Y RRMA OB. TECHCO
DELAEMPRESA
PECHA 06 AUTORtZAOCM.
XPRORROC
^
-------
-------
• TELEFONO.- Anotar el numero o numeros telettnfcos del responsabte de la
empresa generadora Induyendo sagun sea el caao extensttn y dave lada.
. NOMBRE DEL MATERIAL 0 RESIDUO.- Anotar el nombre qufmico cr.nin, y
sincx^tadtlmatefWorwtduosquelaenpcMaoeneradoftdebefireportar.
. ADUANA.. Anotar la tocalfeacfcn del puerto temntra, marWmo o atreopor
dorxle se soHdU el ingrtso o safida de tos matertales o residuos peHprosos. en
caso de importaet6n o exportacttn respeettvamente.
DESTINATAR1O (CONCESIONARIO)
NOMBRE DE LA EMPRESA.- Anotar el nombre, raz6n sociai de la empma o
persona tbica o moral a quien van destinados bs matertaiee o ratiduos
No. PARAUSOEXCLUSIVOOELASEDUE.
UBICACJON.- Anotar el nombre del corredor, parque o tiudad hdustrtal, la cade
dondaseubtea la empresadestinataria,asfoomo el numero extenor Interior, las
caUesentre las que se encuentra ubcada, la cotonia, dudad. munidpto, oddigo
RESPONSABLE.' Anotar el apellkto patemo, matemo y et nombre compJeto de
la persona Ksica o moral responsabte de la empresa ooncestonana.
CAROO.- Anotar el nombre del cargo que ocupa la persona ffstea o moral
HMpontefalede la empresa destinatarta.
TELEPONO- Anotar el numtro o nimeros tftteWntooi del responsable de la
empresa destinalaria inctuyendo segtin eea el caso etferaite y dave iada
PROCE8Q PARA LA UTtLEAOON DEL MATERIAL 0 RECUPERACION DEL
RESDUO^- Anexar la dwcnpd6n del preotso para la uttzaddn de toe materials
-------
o rtcuperactfn de tos residues paOQrosos.
CARACTERIST1CA8 F1SICAS DEL MATERIAL
COtOft-Anotaral color visual to mis prsciso posfcto, considefando tonafldad
dt< material o residue.
*
ESTADO RSICO A 21 "C.- Ciuzar ai cuadro partanadanta al aatado ftttoo dal
material oreslduo.
CAPAS.- Cruzar al cuadro contspondtonM al nunwo dt opts o
residues trvispoil&dos.
UQUIDOS UBRES.- Ciuzar el cuadro ptrtontdtnte ai mattrtaJ o rastiuo y
anotarwi casoposttvoeivoUrmnporetnliiildtfifquktoftri.
Ciuzir el ouadre peitonadente al PH qut mis M aotrqut a it mtdfcbn
realzada dtl matariaJ o rtsiduo y anouuto con •xactttud tn •( rangttn
corrtspondtonte.
GRAVEDAD ESPEOF1CA.. Cruzar tl cuadro p«rt»n*frntt a la gravadad
Mpacffica qua mas M aoaique a la madfctin raafeada dal material o ivskkjo y
anotartooon axaettud an al rengWn oorrnponflanla.
PUNTO OE RAHUL- Cruzar al cuadro partanacianta a la tanparahira qua mas
Mac»rc^alr»suftadoobt»nidocMrnatKW^
fMteado an oopa atttrta o oanadt, anotando tl dato axacto an tl rtngbn
ooRtspondtonta.
C.- COMPOStCtONQUIMICA.-
Anotar an cada uno da lot wngkxm la *6nnJa qulmfca y poreantajat da cada
uno da toa oofnponanat quftnloot da put conati al tnatarial o rasiduo, aitoi
datoa dabarin oonaspondar axaaamarta al anateto fbtoo-quimloo raahado por
-------
RIESGOINVOLUCRADO.- Anotar el riesgo o nesgos asociados en el transporte
de tos materiaJes o residues pefigrosos.
ESTAdO EN EL QUE SE TRANSPORTA.- Anotar el estado ffsico del material o
residue que se transporte cruzando posteriormente el cuadro correspondiente.
G.- CARACTERtSTICAS PEUGROSAS.-
REACT1V1DAD.- Ciuzar el cuadro correspondJente a las caracteristicas del
material o residue.
H.- 1NFORMACION DE MANEJO ESPECIAL-
Anexar ia irtormackin necesaria para el maneto del material o residue si requiora
de un trato especial.
!.• Los movimientos transfrontertzos de materialea o reslduos peBgrosos, ya sea para
importackSn o exportactfn. que queden sujetos al Vo. Bo. por parte-de la SEOUE
con Guf a Ecologica. deberan anexar conjuntamente con la solidtud Fianza o
Seguro por Responsabilidad Civil para la reparadon del dafto en caso de un
actidente en el territorto nacional o en el extranjero.
La Fianza o Seguro sera fijado por SEDUE de acuerdo con el arttcuto 17 del
decreto del 19 de enero de 1967, tomando en consideracjon to siguiente:
BrnaxirrDevertoesperado.estoquiemdedrquesetornaiaencuentael
volumen o peso del maxfeno movimlento transtrontertzo.
Para el grade de peUgrosidad de tos residues se tomart en cuenta tos otortos
de la Norma NTE-CRP-001/88 (conosMdad, reactMdad •xptosMdad,
todddad e WUmabttdad), y para tos matertaies ptigresos se tendrten
cuenta tos crtertos mtemadonaJes de ptlgrosUad de las Nadonn UnUn.
-------
PARA LA POUZA DE COBERTURA DE RESPONSABIUDAD CIVIL,
DEBERA LLEVAR LA SIGUIEKTE LEYENDA:
I
Cobertura de responsabilttad dvfl, por afectactin a tarcoios an su persona o en
aus bents o dates a la Ecotogfa pordenanw o mcape en tl mantjodtl matwfcl
o miduo para qua M haya obtertido la Qufa Ecoldgtea o por 01 documamo tn
cuastton; la poKza da sagufD dobora s0r exp0dida a favor da la Saerttarfa da
Desanollo Urbano y Ecobgfa.
-------
•AXAXDOCS ttSTE BCPOKTS CHP'KILTST
1.
2.
3..
4.
5.
6.
7.
1.
2.
2.
4.
5.
MxwirrsT IB
i.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
•7.
Transporter :
EPA ID No . :
Driver's Name:
Driver's License No.: , ,. „
Truck Description: _^_
Tr«etar License No.: _ _ State:
Trailer License No. : ., -,.,.,. State:
Copy of Acknowledgment with Shipaent? Yes No
EPft AcKn»«]»^TB*nt of Consent Date: _____ _
EPA Notice No. :
Waste Description Matches Shipment? Yes No
rowmriffli
Manifest No. : ., ,„
Customs' Copy With Shipment? Yes No
Customs' Copy is Complete? Yes No
Port of Exit Shown? Yes No
Certification Included? Yes No
Other Manifest Violations? Yes No
Deseriotion of Violations: „
-------
-------
U.S. Customs Service
itution Avenue, N.W.
ton, D.C. 20229
(202^RS-8195
t^^
j^ffSvVCTn^S.
^QSjjjSsk
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS
Carol Halhm
(202) 566-1101
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
Michael H. Lane
(202) 566-JI45
COMMISSIONER'S STAFF
Kttaberiy Bleck
O02) $66-2101
\
™c5ii
^i$z~^jii
r^Brag^P^
1
U.S. Customs
DIRECTORY
REGIONAL
OFFICERS
Addresses
Reftonal
CommnBon-r
Atll "TfWC*!
Con *qnrr
(Opemiont)
ReroM)
Caumrl
Rcfiant! Director
Intern*! Atlam
r ..ittn
•
NORTHEAST
10 Cautewiy St.
BOSTON
MA 02222-1056
PaffipSpayd
(41T) 565-6210
\ icior Uivivn
n»i7i J*M.:-KI
John deRamoet
(61 T) 165-6350
WUliam Rohdf
(»P) 565-5950
P»i O^Mallti
(6Pt 565-62IS
NEW YORK
6 World Trade C«ner
NEW YORK
NY 10048
Anthony LJberu
(112)466-4444
—
John Manucr
(2!2)4 Picard
tiKutitc Asttttant to Iht
Commiuraner
(202 1 566-9161
Cltarln Parkimon
Auittanr rommiannnir
ContTcuKMal Afcin
(201) 566-9102
William G. Lcwnaoe
(202) 566 5644
William A. Atthony
Spedal Attuuat lor Madia AlWn
(102) 566-5116
William S. HrlkKbkjer HI
Eiacutivc Dincxor
Border IflttrdictiQn Coaknltlae
<202)7«6-751I
Earl M. Mitchell
Special Aauftant M UK
CoDmiuioatr (Equal Opportunlry)
(102)555-9002
OMBUDSMAN
Kent fetter
(202)566-6541
David Hoover
Director Public Attain
(102) 566-S2S6
SOUTH
CENTRAL
W Canal St.
NEW ORLEANS
LA 701)0
J. Robert Grim
(104) 5IWJ24
David P. Baiwna
(504) 519-6476
HattieM. Brauanrd
(504)S*9«5I
Vick Chutton
(504) 5>9-2ir
Lu Orerron
<504, 5W-2976
SOUTHWEST
5150 San Feftf* St.
HOCSTON
TX 77057
R«hcn Tnmrr
l^l MV5M.MI
TooMaachard
(711) 9554*40
Jam DeStefano
(713) 953-6*27
John Burnt
(715)95549.9
J«d^T«rr,,r,Vl,«!:.
(tIJl 9534S2S
CHIEF COUNSEL
Michael T. Sehmin
(101) 566-5416
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONERS:
ENFORCEMENT
J«haE HtMley
(202) 566-2416
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS
Jaa*et W. Shaver
(201) 566-5M3
INSPECTION a\ CONTROL
Charto Wwirad
(202)566-1166
COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS
Samuel H Banlu
INTERNAL AFFAIRS
Georye Hcavev
(202) S66451S
MANAGEMENT
Ed*ari Kwa.
(202) 566-2414
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
William F. Rik>
(202)566-9713
PACIFIC
One World Tmat Ccattt
Suite 705
Looi Beach. CA
tOUI-0700
QuamnL.
VjUaaueva. Jr.
(.MID VXIt- JUKI
Alhirrt Tcnn;ini
l.'llll VWt. .HIM
Maul V\ ilsoii
'•""l<"Mk"41
fttarlo ( . MantU
(.^1(11 *IKI*- 1 1^11
Miki- rivnimi:
(JIIH'IMi ..»! Ill
NORTH
CENTRAL
SS E. Monroe St.
CHICAGO
IL 60603-5790
Richard McMullen
(311) 155-4753
F.d««J A. C«*2,n
l.M2)XVM2Mi
Saul N FVria
(111) 155-71*0
M.ininW^hir,^.
i.MJl »«U.I«4
ChefHc Milei
(312) Mb-JJ-'T
-------
-------
Customs Districts
(Note: Ne» York, Minnesota and Charleston, S.C. have Area Directors instead of District Directors)
Pac. Anchorage. Alaska 99501 » «>5 West 4ih A\e.
N.E. Baltimore. Maryland 21202 40 S Gay St.
N.E. Boston, Massachusetts 02222-1059 / 10 Causeway St., Room 603
N.E. Buffalo, New York 14202 / 111 W. Huron St., Room 603
S.E. Charleston. South Carolina 29402 / 200 E. Bay St.
S.E. Charlotte Amalie, St. Thomas-Virgin Islands 00801/
Main P.O. Sugar Estate
N.Ctn. Chicago. Illinois 60607 < 610 S. Canal St.
N.Cen. Cleveland, Ohio 44114 / Plaza Nine Bldg., 6th Fl.. 55 Erkview Plaza
S.W Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas 75261 / 1215 Royal Lane.
P.O. Box 619050
N.Gtn. Detroit. Michigan 48226-2568 477 Michigan Ave.,
Patrick V. McNamara Bldg.. Room 200
N.Cen. Duluth. Minnesota 55802-1390 > 515 W. First St., «209
S.W. El Paso. Texas 79985 /' Bldg B. Room 134
Bridge of the Americas P.O. Box 9516
Great Falls. Montana 59405 ' 300 Second Ave. S. / P.O. Box 789
Honolulu. Hawaii 96806 / 335 Merchant St. / P.O. Box 1641
Houston, Texas 77029 / Portway Plaza Suite 400, 1717 East Loop
Laredo. Texas 78041-3130 / Lincoln Juarez Bridge P.O. Box 3130
Los Angeles. California / 300 S. Ferry St.. Terminal Island.
San Pedro 90731
Miami. Honda 33131 < 77 S.E. 5th St.
Milwaukee. Wisconsin 53237-0260 6269 Act industrial Dr. ' P.O. Box 37260
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55401 ' 110 S. Fourth St.
Mobile. Alabama 36602 / ISO N. Royal St.
New Orleans. Louisiana 70130 / 423 Canal St.
New York. New York
New York Seaport Area. New York. New York 10048
Customhouse, 6 World Trade Center
Kennedy Airport Area. Jamaica. New York 11430
Bldg. 178. Room 330B
Newark Area. Newark. New Jersey 1)7102
Hemisphere Center
S.W. Nogales, Arizona 85621 International & Terrace Sts.
S.E. Norfolk. Virginia 23510 101 E. Main St.
N E. Ogdensburj:. New York. 13669 127 N. Water St.
N.Cen. Pembina. North Dakota 58271 Federal Bldg..P.O. Box 610
N.E. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania 19106 2nd & Chestnut Sis.. Room 102
S W. Port Arthur, Texas 77642 4550 75th St.
N.E. Portland, Maine_04112 312 Fore St.. P.O. Box 4688
Pac. Portland. Oregon 97209 511 N.W. Broadway
h.E. Providence, Rhode Island 02905 < 49 Pavilion Ave.
N.E. St. Albans. Vermont 05478 Mam & Stebbins Sts.. P.O. Bldg..
P.O Bo* 1490
N.Cen. St. Louis. Missouri 63105 7911 Forsyth Blvd.. Suite 625
I'ac. San Diego. California 92188 880 Front St.. Room S-S-9
Pac. San Francisco. California 94126 / 555 Battery St. P.O Box 2450
S.E. Old San Juan. Puerto Rico 00901 < Number One La Puntikla
S.E Savannah. Georgia 31401 1 East Bay St.
Pac. Scuttle. XViisliinuion VXHM limo 2ml Axe. Sinu iiiti
S.E Tampa. Florida 33605 4430 East Adamo Dr.. Suite 301
S.E Washington. D.C. 20041 POB 17423
Gateway l Bldg.. Dulles Intl. Apt.. Chantitly. Va :2021
S E Wilmington. North Carolina 28401 One Virginia Ate
<907> 27J-267S
(301) 962-2666
(617) 565-6147
(716) 8464373
(803) 7244312
(809) 774-2530
(312) 3534100
(216) 522-4284
DIMIK Oveaon
A. Robert Beikirch
John V. Linde
Don Cousin*. (Acting!
Mamie Poll IK-W
Benjamin Jefferson
Richard Roster
Joon F. Neuon
(214) 574-2170 David Gnenteaf
(313) 226-3177
(218) 720-5201
(915) 5344798
(406) 453-7631
(808) 541-1725
(713) 671-1000
(512) 726-2267
(213) 514-6001
<3»5) 530-79011
(414) 297-3925
(612) 348-1690
(205) 690-2106
(504) 589-6353
(212) 466-5817
<7lXi 55.M54:
(201) 645-3760
(M12) 7M-2UtU
(804)441-6546
(315)393-0660
(701) 825-6201
(215) 597-4605
(409) 724-0087
(207) 780-3326
J 51 Ui i2fr-2K<>5
(401) 528-5080
(K02J 524-1521
(314) 425-3134
(619) 557-5360
(41$(7«*-4.\4»
(809) 7294950
(912) 944-4256
l2M) 55.MI5S4
(813) 228-2381
(70?) 661-3600
(919)343-4601
Willam L. Morandini
Robert W. Nordness
Robert Holier
Don W. Myhra
George Roberts
Patricia McCautey
Joseph Castellano
John Heinrich
D. Lynn Gordon
Richard L. Rudin
Robert W. Nordness
David L. WiUett
Joanne Comelison
Jean F. Maguire
Thomas Martina
Kathleen Huge ,
Fred Lawrence
Dennis H. Murphy
William Dieuel
Raymond J. Hagerty, Jr.
Steven Knox
Joseph Sludcr
Emery W. logalis
Tom Hardy
Philip Bernard
Mike D'Ambrosio
Theodore Galantowia
Rudy Camacho
Paul Andrews
Alfonso Rohlcs
Robert J. Rkhtcr
Daniel C. Hoiland
Diane Zwicker
William Green
John R. Babb
number* luted *rt f/iow tthich nut 6c diiled
Published bs the United States Customs Service ' Washington. D.C. 20229 / (202> 566-5156
-------
-------
U.S. CUS
PACIFIC
MOUNTAIN
-------
QMS SERVICE
EASTERN
I—I
CAUUS
f •MOOH W^IA
IOWA
TH CENTRAL
SUTH CENTRALI
LOUISIANA
PUERTO RICO - VIRGJN I
-------
COMBUSTION INSPECTIONS
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: Combustion Inspections
KEY POINTS:
• You may be wondering why combustion inspections merit their own
presentation. The reason we spend time on this topic is that the devices are
unlike any other waste treatment processes. In addition, under the Land
Disposal Restrictions, incineration is considered the Best Available Technology
for the treatment of many hazardous wastes. The regulations and guidelines
applicable to these devices are equally unique. The standards for combustion
units are based on risk and demonstrated through the performance of the unit.
For example, a tank requires secondafy containment, whereas an incinerator
must demonstrate destruction and removal efficiency of four or six nines.
• Therefore, we believe that it will be useful to devote this time to discussing
inspections of incinerators, boilers, and industrial furnaces, and some of the
problems that may be encountered during these inspections.
• Using a slide presentation, we will conduct inspections of both an incinerator
and a BIF. The slide presentation will parallel a facility walk-through, with
most of the discussion focusing on five key areas of combustion facilities.
Vl-1
-------
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: Combustion Inspection (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Through our discussion, many questions will be raised that may not have
immediate answers. The purpose of this presentation is to provide you with
some information and to get you thinking about some of the more difficult
issues. At the end of the session we will review a list of references for
combustion issues. You can use these references to explore some of the issues
we raise today.
VI-2
-------
SIX KEY AREAS
1. Waste toed
2. Combustion device
3. Residue handling
4. Process controls and monitors
5. Records
6. Air pollution control devices
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Six Key Areas
KEY POINTS:
These six areas are critical to the operation of the unit. In addition, based on the
information that enforcement personnel have gathered over the years, we find
that the most difficulties for inspectors arise at one of these six areas.
Due to time limitations, we will not address air pollution control devices in
today's session. Rather, we will focus on the first five areas. EPA does,
however, offer many courses that concentrate on air emissions and such devices.
Each of these areas must be examined within the context of the whole facility
inspection. Many problems and violations are encountered in relation to the
waste feed parameters, the facility's recordkeeping practices, the process
controls and monitors, residue testing and analysis, and, of course, itself.
The presentation is divided into two parts: incinerators and BIFs. We will go
through the key points of an incinerator inspection, then the key points of a BIF
inspection. Note that the discussion of records for incinerators and BIFs is
grouped together and will be addressed at the end of the BIF inspection section.
VI-3
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 1
This slide shows an aerial view of a large facility that
Includes an incinerator.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 1
KEY POINTS:
We start our incinerator inspection with an aerial view of the incinerator. This
allows the inspector to gain a perspective of the facility and its surrounding area.
During an actual inspection, this is more likely to be gained by simply driving to and
around the facility and looking at facility maps.
Notice the surrounding area, which includes:
— Wetlands
— Surface water
— Vegetation
— No residential areas or homes.
Why are these things important? What condition do they appear to be in?
— Stressed vegetation may indicate contamination from the facility
— Unusual films on waterways may indicate spills.
What kinds of activity do you engage in pre-inspection?
Confer with Air program inspector to ensure facility does not have requirements
inconsistent with RCRA.
VI-4
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 2
Same facility from a different angle.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 2
KEY POINTS:
• This slide gives us a view of the same facility from another angle.
• During an actual facility inspection, the inspector may not be able to see all of
the areas at the facility this clearly, but this does allow us to become familiar
with the facility.
• As we move closer to the facility, we can again notice the surrounding
environment. We also can observe other activities at the facility, such as:
— Wastewater treatment
— Surface impoundments
— Waste storage
— Transportation.
• The inspector should be aware that the facility may have other regulated units
which need to be addressed during the inspection.
VI-5
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 3
This slide shows an incinerator stack.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 3
KEY POINTS:
This slide depicts a very revealing portion of the facility—the stack.
Notice the color and consistency of the plume. It is white and billowy because it
contains mostly steam. Keep this in mind as we look at the next slide.
VI-6
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 4
This slide shows an incinerator stack with emissions.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 4
KEY POINTS:
• This slide also depicts an incinerator stack.
• Notice the color and consistency of the plume here. It is black and thick.
• What might this indicate about the operation of this unit?
— Maintenance problems
— Possibly exceeding allowable emissions
— May not be operating efficiently
— Presence of combustion monitoring equipment.
• Note that RCRA inspectors may not be certified to "read" plumes; however,
general observations such as this can be very useful.
VI-7
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 4 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
* In addition, the following training courses are available for an inspector to
become certified to read plumes:
— Air Pollution Training Institute
Research Triangle Park, N.C.
— Air Pollution Compliance Training
Demonstration Center, New Brunswick, N.J.
f
VI-8
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 5
This slide shows a container storage area at a facility.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 5
KEY POINTS:
Now that we are generally acquainted with the incinerator facility, we will begin
to look at the incinerator operations. First, we are going to trace the hazardous
waste from storage to its introduction into the combustion unit.
This slide shows an outdoor container storage area. This area would be subject
to specific container requirements for TSDFs.
Requirements to look for include:
— Condition of containers, including open containers
— Aisle space
— Precipitation run-on prevention
— Secondary containment
— Storage of ignitable and reactive wastes
— Proper labeling.
VI-9
-------
I
INCINERATOR SLIDES 6 AND 7
These slides show an aboveground tank farm.
INCINERATOR SLIDES 6 AND 7
KEY POINTS:
• These are aboveground storage tanks.
• Things to inspect for include:
— Labeling
— General condition
— Secondary containment
— Leak detection.
• This slide shows a close-up of the piping or ancillary equipment connected to
the storage tank. It must be equipped with secondary containment, which could
include trench, jacketing, or double-walled piping.
VI-10
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 8
This slide shows an Ingroundtank.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 8
KEY POINTS:
This storage tank is inground and shows extensive piping, pumps, and
monitoring equipment.
Things to look for include labeling, secondary containment, and spill prevention.
VI-11
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDES 9 AND 10
These slides show waste transfer equipment such as pumps.
INCINERATOR SLIDES 9 AND 10
KEY POINTS:
• The following two slides depict transfer equipment and waste transfer activities.
• This slide depicts a transfer pump, located between the hazardous storage tank
and the actual combustion unit.
• It is important for the inspector to follow the flow of hazardous waste from
storage to the combustion unit to detect the possibility of any releases along the
way, or any other potential problems.
• These are areas at a facility that are prone to spilling and leaking and require
special attend on during an inspection.
• In these slides we should look for secondary containment and spill prevention.
• Condition of the pumps and containment devices is also critical, as well as the
appearance of the surrounding area. The presence of waste or waste oil around
the transfer equipment may be an indication of a problem.
• Also notice the safety equipment found nearby and any emergency alarms or
cutoffs.
Vl-12
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 11
This slide shows direct transfer activities.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 11
KEY POINTS:
• This slide shows direct transfer activities at an incinerator facility.
• Notice the buckets used to collect any drippage.
• Direct transfer areas should always be closely inspected for safety features,
including handling of the waste in a manner that will prevent fire or explosion.
• What would you be looking for here?
VI-13
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 12
This slide shows a liquid Injection nozzle.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 12
KEY POINTS:
In this slide the hazardous waste has reached the actual combustion device.
This is a pressure nozzle, or gun, at a liquid injection incinerator. It represents only
one of the many mechanisms used to feed hazardous waste into an incinerator. The
"gun" is a device that uses high pressure or steam to atomize liquid waste for more
complete destruction in a liquid injection incinerator. Usually, this is a continuous
feed process as opposed to drum feeding, which is considered a batch process.
Notice the general condition of the device. The atomizer must be maintained well,
as it is prone to clogging.
Some of the parameters that should be noted include atomizer fluid pressure, flow
rate, and waste feed cutoff mechanism because they are often specified in the
permit.
Waste feed cutoff is a critical aspect of any incinerator. The purpose of the
automatic waste feed cutoff (AWFCO) system is to shut off waste feed to the
incinerator whenever the operating parameters deviate from the limits set in the
permit.
Waste feed cutoff for a liquid feed is generally accomplished by the activation of a
cutoff valve, which should be interlocked to all of the required continuous
monitoring devices. These include monitors of temperature, combustion gas
velocity, and carbon monoxide in the stack gas.
VI-14
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 12 (continued)
INCINERATOR SLIDE 12 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• The permit should include a provision that establishes both a range and a level,
somewhat beyond that range, at which the AWFCO system must be activated.
• Incinerator regulations require weekly testing of the AWFCO system. The
inspector should be able to find evidence of this testing in the facility's log.
• In addition, the inspector should witness simulated and actual cutoffs.
• The facility should have records documenting cutoffs and their causes. The
frequency of cutoffs is sometimes an indicator of the unit's ability to operate
under steady state conditions, i.e., several cutoffs may indicate non-steady state
operation of the unit. Frequent cut-offs could also be triggered by faulty
monitoring equipment.
VI-15
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDES 13 AND 14
These slides show hazardous waste drums being fed to
a rotary kiln incinerator.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 13 AND 14
KEY POINTS:
• The following slides show drums being fed into a rotary kiln incinerator.
• This first slide also includes some direct transfer activity. A liquid waste being
piped from a tanker truck to, possibly, an underground tank. This may indicate
another regulated unit. Notice also the different types of drums, fiber and metal.
Feeding different types of material may affect the temperature and efficiency of
the unit.
* Drums being fed may increase the chances of puffing around kiln seals, possibly
leading to fugitive emissions.
• This type of waste feed system is not fully automated; the drums must be loaded
onto the conveyor by forklift.
• This type of drum feed is considered a batch process as opposed to the
continuous liquid feed we have just looked at. Because of this, the cutoff issue
is different. The facility should not feed hazardous waste into the kiln if any of
the cutoff-related parameters are exceeded. They can do so only if all operating
parameters are back to normal.
VI-16
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 13 AND 14 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• For permitted incinerators, there may be language in the permit that specifically
addresses how AWFCOs should be handled (e.g., "other operating parameters
must be maintained while hazardous waste is being treated in the unit").
VI-17
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDES 15 AND 16
These slides depict two feed mechanisms: a ram and a
hopper loading system.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 15 AND 16
KEY POINTS:
• This slide shows a ram feed. The guillotine fire door closes, cutting off the
waste feed from the combustion chamber.
• This slide shows a hopper loading system. The waste is loaded into the top
portion of the hopper, then the trap door is opened to allow the waste to fall into
the combustion chamber.
• These systems would also be considered batch feeds. How might a waste feed
cutoff be accomplished for a ram or hopper feed mechanism?
— Fire door
VI-I8
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDES 17 AND 18
These slides show a liquid Infection Incinerator (photo and
schematic).
INCINERATOR SLIDES 17 AND 18
KEY POINTS:
• This slide depicts a liquid injection incinerator.
• .Liquid injection incinerators are usually single chamber units, either vertical or
horizontal.
• Liquid injection incinerators are used primarily for the destruction of liquid
organic wastes. These units require minimal labor because of the relative ease
of handling pumpable liquids compared to solids.
Effective atomization is key to successful operation of a liquid injection
incinerator. The viscosity of the waste liquid should be less than 750 SSU
(Saybolt second units) to permit the atomizer to break the liquid into small
droplets.
The incinerator typically runs at an equilibrium temperature of approximately
1500 degrees Fahrenheit. The combustion zone temperature range for a given
unit will be specified in the facility permit.
Liquid injection incinerators are typigally equipped with transfer stations, like
the ones we have looked at, as well as storage and blending tanks.
VI-19
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDES 17 AND 18 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
Liquid injection incinerators are typically equipped with transfer stations, like
the ones we have looked at, as well as storage and blending tanks.
Ash-removal systems are generally unnecessary for liquid injection incinerators
because of the low ash content of most liquid wastes.
VI-20
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDES 19 AND 20
These slides show a rotary kiln Incinerator (photo and
schematic).
INCINERATOR SLIDES 19 AND 20
KEY POINTS:
• This slide depicts a rotary kiln incinerator.
• Rotary kiln incinerators are used for the destruction of both solid and liquid
hazardous wastes. They can be used for the destruction and ultimate disposal of
any form of waste. Whole drums can be fed by a conveyor belt into the kiln as
we have already seen during discussion of the waste feed area.
• Poor candidates for incineration in a rotary kiln are wastes with high moisture
content or high concentrations of toxic metals.
• The primary combustion chamber is typically operated from 1470 to 2900
degrees Fahrenheit. The system is generally equipped with a secondary
combustion chamber to allow for the oxidation of combustible solids suspended
in the gas streams from the kiln.
• Rotation of the shell provides transportation of the waste through the kiln and
enhances mixing of the waste with combustion gases.
VI-21
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDES 19 AND 20 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Two types of rotary kilns are common: cocurrent and countercurrent. In
cocurrent rotary kilns, the burner is located at the front end where the waste is
fed (pictured). In countercurrent rotary kilns, the burner is located at the end
opposite the feed.
• Because rotary kiln incinerators are often used to incinerate wastes with high
solids content, most are equipped with ash-collection systems.
VI-22
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDES 21 AND 22
These slides depict a fixed hearth Incinerator (photo and
schematic).
INCINERATOR SLIDES 21 AND 22
KEY POINTS:
• A third type of incinerator is pictured here. This is a fixed hearth incinerator.
• The combustion chamber consists of an immobile bed. A grate system allows
air to flow over and under the waste to enhance combustion. The combustion
chamber is typically rectangular or cylindrical in shape.
• The fixed hearth incinerator may handle a variety of wastes including both solids
and liquids. Hydraulic ram or hopper systems usually load 400 to 2400 pounds
per hour of waste into the combustion chamber, although smaller units are often
loaded manually.
VI-23
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDES 23 AND 24
These slides depict a fluldized bed incinerator (photo and
schematic).
INCINERATOR SLIDES 23 AND 24
KEY POINTS:
• This slide depicts a fluidized bed incinerator. Although fluidized bed
incinerators represent only a small fraction of existing incinerators, some
design and operating advantages are likely to result in increased use of these
units.
• Fluidized bed incinerators are typically small, compact combustors that
provide efficient destruction of a variety of wastes, including solid, liquid,
and gaseous waste.
• The main combustion chamber consists of a bed of hot inert material which is
fluidized with air. Gas is passed upwards through a column of fine
particulates at a sufficient velocity to cause the solids/gas mixture to behave
like a liquid. Bed temperature is typically maintained from between 840 and
1650 degrees Fahrenheit. Waste incineration occurs in and above the bed
where temperatures can reach 1800 degrees.
• Aside from the temperature, the primary design factor to be considered is the
gas velocity, which must be high enough to maintain bed fluidization, but low
enough to prevent bed attrition.
VI-24
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDES 23 AND 24 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• It is generally accepted that fluidized beds meet the definition of incinerator,
although there may have been some confusion in the past.
VI-25
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 25
This slide depicts a mobile Incinerator.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 25
KEY POINTS:
A type of incinerator that is somewhat of an anomaly in terms of inspection is
the mobile unit.
Mobile incinerators are typically employed for site cleanup or remediation
and may be transported from site to site and set up relatively quickly.
The units themselves may be rotary kilns, infrared, or fluidized bed
incinerators. The specifics of the inspection depend on which type of
combustion unit the mobile incinerator actually is.
While the units are often used for the combustion of contaminated soil, they
may handle a variety of wastes depending on the design.
Mobile incinerators are permitted for each individual site at which they
operate, unless the site is a Superfund site, in which case the unit need only
meet the equivalent operating conditions. Individual states may still require a
permit at Superfund sites.
VI-26
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 26 AND 27
These slides depict a modem control panel.
INCINERATOR SLIDES 26 AND 27
KEY POINTS:
• Now we will address the process controls and monitors.
• These slides should enable you to become familiar with some of the process
controls and monitoring systems present at combustion facilities.
• This is a state-of-the-art control and monitoring panel at an incinerator facility.
It allows you to look at the entire process flow from waste feed to stack,
providing monitoring information at many different points in the process.
• The most important point is that monitoring equipment must be functional.
Facility operators are required to perform regular maintenance and testing of
equipment at the facility. Records of inspections and maintenance should appear
in the facility operating records. What can an inspector do to verify that the
maintenance schedule is maintained? What are some indicators that a facility is
not performing maintenance and testing on process monitors and controls?
— Check facility log
— Inconsistent inspection/testing records
— Compare gauge readings taken on the unit with control room readings.
VI-27
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDES 26 AND 27 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• We see the waste feed cutoff indicator and other emergency signals. Computers
at the facility generate records from this information.
Vl-28
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 28
Slide depicting art older control monitor.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 28
KEY POINTS:
These slides illustrate the variety of monitors that may be encountered at
different facilities by showing older types.
When relying solely on these controls, as opposed to modern control panels
which illustrate the entire process, it is difficult for facility operators to visualize
the process flow. It is critical that the inspector be able to make the connection
between the reading on a monitor and the part of the unit the monitor actually
relates to.
How are records generated from these panels?
— Often by an operator taking a reading as shown in the slide
What might be a potential problem associated with using these monitors?
— Human error in recording
VI-29
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 29 AND 30
This slide shows strip charts.
INCINERATOR SLIDES 29 AND 30
KEY POINTS:
• These are examples of continuous monitors that produce a document referred to
as a strip chart. The inspector can take an instantaneous reading during the
inspection and will also examine the charts in the facility records for peaks
indicating an abnormality, an exceedance, or a potential violation.
• This chart shows several parameters. The inspector must be conscious of what
each line represents.
• At a minimum, combustion temperature, waste feed rate, combustion gas
velocity, and CO must be monitored continuously. In addition, any other
parameters can be specified in the permit.
VI-30
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 31
This slide depicts ash handling at an incinerator.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 31
KEY POINTS:
These slides depict the removal of ash from an incinerator and ash storage at a
facility.
At many incinerators, ash resulting from combustion is removed from the unit
into a hopper resembling a garbage dumpster, like the one pictured in this photo.
The handling of ash at a facility can be critical because of the physical and
chemical nature of the material. Physically, it is an extremely fine material and
tends to disperse around the facility and surrounding area if not handled
properly.
Vl-31
-------
INCINERATOR SLIDE 32
This slide depicts ash handling at an Incinerator.
INCINERATOR SLIDE 32
KEY POINTS:
This slide depicts a similar ash handling practice. Notice the hood to prevent
dispersion of ash at removal.
The facility must also comply with waste identification requirements as this is a
new point of generation. If the ash is derived from the treatment of listed
hazardous waste(s), it would also carry any applicable listing(s).
If the ash is not derived from a listed waste, the facility operator would have to
determine, either through testing or application of knowledge, whether the ash
exhibits a characteristic or not.
In addition, for any ash classified as a hazardous waste, land disposal restriction
standards, including paperwork, must be considered.
What issues might arise regarding LDR applicability when inspecting a facility?
— Recordkeeping
— Treatment standards
— Testing
— Recordkeeping.
Vl-32
-------
SIX KEY AREAS
1. Waste feed
2. Combustion device
3. Residue handling
4. Process controls end monitors
5. Records
6. Air pollution control devices
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Six Key Areas
KEY POINTS:
• Again, to reiterate, there are six key areas for a combustion inspection.
• We're now going to address several key aspects of the BIF inspection: waste
feed combustion device, residue handling, and process controls and monitors.
• Note again that records for BIFs and incinerators has been combined and will be
discussed at the end of the BIF inspection.
VI-33
-------
BIF SLIDE 1
This slide shows a BIF facility with a single stack
BIF SLIDE 1
KEY POINTS:
• This slide begins our inspection of a BIF facility. It gives us a general view of a
BIF facility.
• Again we should look at the surrounding area, the emissions, and the general.
appearance of the facility.
• What are some of the other things we might pay attention to?
— Odor
— Animal life
— Disease vector.
• What are some of the things you might do differently when preparing for a BIF
inspection as opposed to an incinerator inspection?
— Analyze upstream processes
— Check certification of compliance.
VI-34
-------
BIF SLIDE 2
Same facility from a different angle.
BIF SLIDE 2
KEY POINTS:
• This is the same facility from a different angle.
• What additional things can we see from this view?
— Storage tank
VI-35
-------
BIF SLIDE 3
This slide shows a BIF facility with four stacks.
BIF SLIDE 3
KEY POINTS:
This slide shows a BIF facility with four stacks. What does the number of stacks
tell us about the facility?
— More than one unit
— Allows you to confirm information found during pre-inspection activities.
As I have already mentioned, it is helpful to take note of the emissions from the
stack, as these can often be a good indication of the operating condition of a
given unit.
Refer to page IV-27 of the BIF Inspection Checklist. Please note that all
references given are for interim status BIFs, since these are the majority of the
facilities you will be inspecting. The BIF Inspection checklist also contains
guidelines for permitted facilities.
VI-36
-------
BIF SLIDES 4 AND 5
These slides show a hazardous storage tank.
BIF SLIDES 4 AND 5
KEY POINTS:
These slides show a hazardous waste storage tank located outside the facility (in
this case a boiler).
Once again, the inspector should follow the flow of hazardous waste from the
storage area to the combustion unit.
What type of requirements would this tank be subject to?
— Secondary containment
— Release detection
— Inspections
— Tags required by air emission standards for equipment leaks.
Note that there may be multiple lines feeding into the BIF. Some facilities feed
off gases into BIFs; this activity should be reported.
VI-37
-------
BIF SLIDE 6
This slide shows a leaking feed line.
BIF SLIDE 6
KEY POINTS:
• What does this indicate?
— Faulty equipment
— Lack of inspections.
• The facility inspection log should be checked. The leaking feed line may
indicate inadequate inspection throughout the entire unit.
VI-38
-------
B1F SLIDES 7 AND 8
These slides show the waste feed pump and flow meter.
BIF SLIDES 7 AND 8
KEY POINTS:
• This slide depicts a waste feed pump at a BIF.
• Details which enable the inspector to assess the waste feed pump include:
— The general condition of the pump and the surrounding area
— Associated gauges and monitors
— Container storage space nearby.
• What is the waste feed cutoff mechanism associated with this feed pump?
— Cutoff valve
These slides depict the waste flow meter on a BIF. Typical flowmeters used to
monitor liquid feed rates include rotameters, orifice meters, vortex shedding
meters, positive displacement meters, and mass flowmeters. Different meters
are used depending on the viscosity of the waste and the turbulence of the flow
conditions.
VI-39
-------
BIF SLIDES 7 AND 8 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
*
• How rate must be carefully monitored and controlled, as it is critical to the
operation of the unit. BIF regulations require a limit on feed rate. Hie feed rate
is calculated by knowing the flow rate and the concentration of given
constituents in the feed.
• What other information do you need, and why?
— Whether this is the hazardous waste flow meter or a measure of the fuel
mixture.
• If possible, you should obtain a reading from the flow meter at the pump and
compare with the control room readings.
VI-40
-------
BIF SLIDE 9
This slide shows the feed to the boiler.
BIF SLIDE 9
KEY POINTS:
The next few slides depict a waste feed mechanism at a BIF.
BIFs use high heating value hazardous waste as a supplement or substitute for
regular fuel. You should verify that the feed mechanism employs both a fuel oil
line and a waste fuel line. If not, the facility may be starting up with hazardous
waste under conditions not specified in their certification of compliance or
permit.
The general condition of the feed is good. Note the gauges showing flow rate.
The cutoff mechanism, again, is critical to the operation of the unit. Waste fuel
sampling and analysis may be in question. BIF regulations require extensive
feed analysis including hazardous waste analysis, total feed analysis (hazardous
and nonhazardous), and pumpable hazardous waste feed analysis, depending on
the particular facility.
-------
BIF SLIDE 10
Slide showing feed nozzle from inside the burner.
BIF SLIDE 10
KEY POINTS:
This slide shows the hazardous waste feed nozzle from inside the combustion
chamber.
Note the condition of the nozzle. Is it damaged or clogged?
VI-42
-------
BIF SLIDES 11 AND 12
These slides show waste feed and auxiliary fuel feed lines.
BIF SLIDES 11 AND 12
KEY POINTS:
This slide allows the inspector to follow the waste and auxiliary fuel feed lines
to their input into the combustion chamber.
Both lines carry hazardous waste to the main feed.
This slide depicts the same feed lines a little bit further along. Here we can
actually see the lines entering the combustion chamber.
The thinner line here is carrying the hazardous waste fuel, while the wider pipe
is feeding coal into the kiln.
-------
BIF SLIDE 13
This slide shows • flow meter and automatic waste
feed cutoff mechanism.
BIF SLIDE 13
KEY POINTS:
This slide shows two very important devices along the waste feed line. One is
the flow meter and the other is the automatic waste feed cutoff mechanism.
Here the flow of hazardous waste is continuously monitored. The cutoff device
is "downstream" of the flow meter. If at any time the flow rate exceeds
parameters established in the BIFs Certification of Compliance, the automatic
waste feed cutoff mechanism should be activated.
The principles of the AWFCO system for a BIF are essentially the same as for
an incinerator. One difference relates to the parameters that the system is
hooked up to. At a BIF, one of the parameters is the production rate. This
would not need to be monitored at an incinerator.
Depending on the facility and on measurement capabilities, the appropriate units
for measuring production rate may be represented as the raw materials feed rate,
thermal input, or production rate. For example, a boiler may measure steam
production.
VI-44
-------
BIF SLIDE 14
This slide shows a hydraulic gun feed mechanism.
BIF SLIDE 14
KEY POINTS:
• This slide shows a hydraulic gun feed mechanism. It is used to feed one-gallon,
plastic jugs of hazardous waste (most often laboratory waste) into the kiln.
• The containers are placed into the device at one end and then "shot" into the
combustion chamber.
• The device is portable and can be connected to the kiln whenever needed.
• It is important to identify this type of waste feed. This may not have been
accounted for as a feed stream.
• Refer to page IV-22 through IV-23 and IV-27 of the BIF Inspection Checklist
for more information on waste feed and AWFCO.
-------
BIF SLIDES 15 AND 16
Slides showing direct transfer areas at a BIF.
BIF SLIDES 15 AND 16
KEY POINTS:
These slides depict direct transfer areas at BIF facilities.
While the operations are not visibly different from direct waste transfer at an
incinerator, BIF regulations require management standards for direct transfer
operations.
The requirements are similar in substance to container and tank storage
standards. Included are requirements for the condition of containers, spill
prevention, secondary containment, and inspections and maintenance.
EPA identified problems associated with the practice of feeding waste from
transport vehicles to BIFs. These concerns include the potential for fires,
explosions, and spills during transfer operations and the stratification of waste in
the transport container and the potential for waste fuel flow interruptions which
in turn, could affect the ability of the burner to consistently provide efficient
combustion of the waste.
Pages VI-1 through VI-4 of the BIF Inspection Checklist discuss direct transfer.
-------
BIF SLIDE 17
This slide shows a laboratory setting.
BIF SLIDE 17
KEY POINTS:
This slide shows laboratory testing of waste. It is possible to devote an entire
course to waste analysis and the waste analysis plan, but we cannot do that here.
One key point: it is critical to look behind the numbers offered by a facility,
focusing specifically in this case on ppm.
A permitted facility will have an approved Waste Analysis Plan (WAP). The key
for the inspector is to determine whether the facility is properly following the WAP.
Most BIFs, on the other hand, are operating under interim status and you will need
to closely examine the facility's WAP to determine its sufficiency.
The WAP is a facility-specific document that grows and changes with the facility.
It is required for all TSDFs. Waste analysis ensures compliance with the facility
permit, as well as the the proper operation of the combustion device.
Some of the factors in waste analysis include:
— Quantity and description of each shipment received
— Physical and chemical characteristics of the waste
— Dates and methods of treatment
— Sampling and testing frequency.
The feed rate of hazardous waste into the device should be monitored and recorded.
If required by the permit, specific constituents (e.g., chlorine and metals) should
also be monitored and recorded.
VI-47
-------
BIF SLIDE 17 (continued)
This slide shows a laboratory setting.
BIF SLIDE 17 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Why is waste analysis important?
— Compliance with permit limits
— Proper operation of combustion device.
• The inspector should be able to determine an instantaneous feed rate. An hourly
rolling average feed rate, if required, should be determined by looking at facility
records.
• Look for facilities burning hazardous waste before receiving the waste analysis.
This may indicate the facility is using statistical analysis to determine waste
composition; this may not be appropriate at commercial BIFs such as cement
kilns.
• See pages IV-3 of the BIF Inspection Checklist for more details on WAPs.
-------
BIF SLIDES 18 AND 19
These slides depicts • boiler.
BIF SLIDES 18 AND 19
KEY POINTS:
The term BIF actually encompasses a variety of combustion devices. The
diversity of devices covered under this umbrella means that the inspector has to
be especially aware of the design of the unit. While units may appear similar, it
is important to note the differences.
For purposes of this discussion, we will concentrate on boilers and cement kilns,
as they make up the largest portion of the BIF regulated universe.
First, let's take a look at boilers. Approximately 160 boilers are burning
hazardous waste and are in the permitting process. A boiler is an enclosed,
pressurized device constructed to produce steam or hot water for electrical
generation or for on-site process needs.
Boilers are classified either by the method of heat transfer or the fuel firing
system employed.
The two major types of fuel firing mechanisms are stoker and suspension firing.
Stoker-fired boilers are designed to burn solid fuels, primarily coal, on a bed.
These can be underfeed, overfeed, or spreader feed, depending on where and
how the fuel is introduced into the boiler.
VI-49
-------
BIF SLIDES 18 AND 19 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
Suspension-fired boilers typically have the capacity to burn gas, oil, pulverized
coal, or a combination of these fuels. They can be subdivided into single and
opposed-wall-fired boilers, tangential boilers, and cyclone-fired boilers,
depending on where the burners are mounted in the device.
VI-50
-------
BIF SLIDE 20
Schematic of watertube boiler.
BIF SLIDE 20
KEY POINTS:
The three major types of heat transfer mechanisms are watertube, firetube, and
cast iron.
This slide depicts a watertube boiler. In a watertube boiler, hot combustion
gases flow around heat transfer tubes containing water, which is heated and/or
converted to steam.
The heated water or steam exits the tubes into common channels or steam
outlets.
With typical thermal efficiencies of about 80 percent, the steam/hot water
production capacity of a watertube boiler ranges from 10,000 Ib/hr to 250,000
Ibs/hr.
Watertube boilers may burn coal, gas, and other fossil and non-fossil fuels.
VI-51
-------
BIF SLIDE 21
Schematic of firetube bolter.
BIF SLIDE 21
KEY POINTS:
This slide depicts a firetube boiler. In a firetube boiler, hot combustion gases
flow through the inside of tubes, while water, steam, or other fluids to be heated
flow outside and around the tubes.
Firetube boilers are usually limited to a thermal input of 30 million Btu/hour,
and the pressure of steam produced ranges from 165 to 265 pounds per square
inch.
Firetube boilers generally have substantially smaller capacities than watertube
boilers and primarily burn oil or gas.
Finally, cast iron boilers (not pictured) utilize irregularly shaped heat exchangers
and, therefore, cannot be classified as either firetube or watertube. They
generally are used to produce low pressure steam or hot water for commercial or
institutional establishments.
VI-52
-------
BIF SLIDE 22
This slide shows a cement kiln.
BIF SLIDE 22
KEY POINTS:
The regulatory definition of industrial furnace includes 12 devices. For the
purposes of this discussion we will concentrate on cement kilns, shown on this
slide, as they are the most prevalent.
Cement kilns are horizontally inclined rotating cylinders, refractory lined and
internally fired, to calcine a blend of limestone and shale to produce Portland
cement.
Combustion gases and raw materials move counterflow in kilns. The kiln is
inclined, and raw materials are fed into the upper end while fuels are normally
fed into the lower end. The raw materials eventually begin to blend between
2250 and 2700 degrees Fahrenheit to form clinker product.
Cement kilns range from 60 to 760 feet long and 6 to 25 feet in diameter.
Kiln emissions are typically controlled by fabric filters or electrostatic
precipitators (ESPs).
There is a dry and a wet process.
VI-53
-------
BIF SLIDES 23 AND 24
Schematic of wet process and schematic of
dry process.
BIF SLIDES 23 AND 24
KEY POINTS:
* In the wet process, limestone and shale are ground, mixed with water, and fed
into the kiln in slurry form. This slurry usually contains 30 to 35 percent water.
• Wet process plants use longer kilns than dry process plants. On average, they
are 450 to 750 feet, to obtain the necessary heat transfer for water evaporation.
• With wet processes, it is important to verify that hazardous waste is not being
substituted for water.
• This is the dry process. In the dry process, raw materials are ground dry and fed
into the kiln. At some facilities a preheater and/or precalciner is used.
• Dry kilns are typically more thermally efficient than wet kilns.
• The average dry process kiln has a capacity of 360,000 tons of clinker per year,
while the wet process kiln produces on average 260,000 tons of clinker per year.
Vl-54
-------
BIF SLIDES 25
These slides show an optical pyrometer at a cement kiln.
BIF SLIDE 25
KEY POINTS:
These slides show an optical pyrometer at a cement kiln.
Optical pyrometers are typically used to measure the temperature of the furnace
wall or an object within the furnace, but also can be used to measure the
combustion gas temperature.
The pyrometer will normally require calibration. The effects of cement kiln dust
should be considered when calibrating, but in most cases, kiln dust should not
affect the ability of the pyrometer to detect changes in combustion zone
temperature.
In most cases, optical pyrometers and thermocouples are used together. The
inspector can then compare readings between the two.
Vl-55
-------
BIF SLIDE 26
This slide shows various monitors at a BIF.
BIF SLIDES 26
KEY POINTS:
These slides show various monitors at a BIF facility. The monitors, including
actual gauges and meters, do not differ significantly from incinerators.
One aspect that differs slightly is the requirement for process monitoring.
Parameters include the following as appropriate:
— Feed rate of total hazardous waste
— Feed rate of total pumpable hazardous waste
— Feed rate of metals
— Total hazardous waste feed streams
— Total pumpable hazardous waste feed streams
— Total feed rate ash in all feed streams
— Maximum combustion chamber temperature
— Production rate
— Maximum flue gas temperature entering PM control devices.
VI-56
-------
BIF SLIDES 27 AND 28
These slides show continuous emissions monitors.
BIF SLIDES 27 AND 28
KEY POINTS:
This slide shows CEMs at a BIF. Continuous emissions monitoring is required
for CO and O2, and under certain conditions, hydrocarbons.
Performance specifications for CEMs are provided in detail in Appendix IX of
the BIF rule.
The owner or operator must establish a QA program for the evaluation and
monitoring of CEM system performance. At a minimum this must include:
— Daily calibration checks
— Daily system audit
— Quarterly calibration error (CE) test
— Annual performance specification test.
Calibration seems to cause difficulties for both inspectors and facility personnel.
It is often not performed accurately by facility personnel. The facility should
always properly follow manufacturer's instructions for calibration.
The facility may continue normal operations, including hazardous waste feed,
during the short calibration period needed by state-of-the-art CEMs. A
calibration time of 15 to 20 minutes is typical for each CEM.
VI-57
-------
BIF SLIDES 27 AND 28 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
* What should be done to verify calibration of equipment while on an inspection?
— Check records for evidence of inspection and maintenance.
— Test the monitor yourself or ask to see the person who normally performs
calibration do an actual calibration.
— Check to see if the facility has a procedure for calibrating equipment. Are
they aware of the manufacturer's recommendations?
— Compare actual calibration procedures with manufacturer's
recommendations.
• Refer to page IV-4 of the BIF Inspection Checklist.
VI-58
-------
BIF SLIDES 29 AND 30
These slides depict ash handling practices at a BIF.
BIF SLIDES 29 AND 30
KEY POINTS:
Although many of the residual materials will be the same at a BIF as at an
incinerator, the regulations for BIFs subject the operator to some additional
requirements.
When conducting the residue handling portion of the inspection, it is important
to keep in mind the Bevill exemptions from the definition of hazardous waste.
What are these exemptions?
— Utility waste
— Mineral processing waste
— Cement kiln dust.
The issue arises as to whether the residue should qualify for the exemption when
it is generated partially from the processing of hazardous waste. EPA
determined that if the operator can show that residues generated from the
co-processing of hazardous waste do not differ significantly from residues
generated without processing hazardous waste, then the exemption should hold.
VI-59
-------
BIF SLIDES 29 AND 30 (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• The operator has two options. He or she can compare constituent content in
residues from hazardous waste co-processing with normal residues or compare
the constituent content with pre-established health-based limits.
• If the facility is using the first option, it is important for the inspector to check
the comparisons closely.
• When sampling and analyzing residues, facilities must follow proper sampling
procedures, such as the number of samples and the frequency of sampling.
• Residues are addressed in Section VII of the BIF Inspection Checklist.
Vl-60
-------
BIF SLIDE 31
Records review.
BIF SLIDE 31
KEY POINTS:
Now we will address some other issues relating to the facility records for
incinerators and BIFs.
This slide depicts one of the vital aspects of a facility inspection—the review.of
facility records.
Operating record requirements are found in pages IV-3 through IV-6 of the BIF
Inspection Checklist.
Now we will go through an exercise that will allow you to experience hands-on
the examination of incinerator and BIF records.
VI-61
-------
SIX KEY AREAS
1. Waste tod
2. Combustion device
3. Residue handling
4. Process controls and monitors
5. Records
6. Air pollution control devices
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Six Key Areas
KEY POINTS:
• Now that we have completed our inspection of combustion facilities, let's take a
moment to review the highlights of the inspection.
• We have raised many issues and identified scores of potential problems. The
inspector must be aware of the difficulties that can arise and must take time to fully
prepare for the inspection, particularly combustion facility inspections.
• As relates to incinerators and BIFs, there are six key areas: waste feed, process
controls and monitors, recordkeeping, the combustion unit itself, residue testing and
disposal, and Air Pollution Control Devices. Each is critical to the general operation
of the facility. However, for practical purposes, we focused on the first five areas.
• As has been addressed in other modules, good evidence gathering to support any case
is key to a successful inspection.
• The inspector must also keep in mind the vast amount of supporting information and
resources available, both in written form and in the form of experienced personnel.
• Your Participant's Manual contains a list of additional training and other resources
available to you regarding combustion inspections. Let's look at those for a moment.
Do you know of any additional resources that may be available?
VI-62
-------
FACT SHEET: HOURLY ROLLING AVERAGES
IOURLY ROLLING AVERAGE CALCULATION
1) :(NSTANTANEOUS READINGS: One reading every 15 seconds
15 second
leading
15 second
reading
15 second
reading
15 second
reading
15 second
reading
15 second
reading
15 second
reading
15 second
reading
2) ONE MINUTE AVERAGE READINGS: Average of four 15 second readings
I
1 minute
average reading
i
1 minute
average reading
3) HOURLY ROLLING AVERAGES: Average of the sixty most recent 1 minute average readings
,,, , „. Sixty most recent 1 minute average readings
1 Hourly rolling average = • •" —
60
SIXTY MOST RECENT ONE MINUTE READINGS:
L
;1 minute
iverage reading
1 minute
average reading
1 minute
average reading
T
1 minute
average reading
First reading for
an hourly rolling
average
First reading for
the next hourly
rolling average
Sixtieth reading for an
hourly rolling average
T
Sixtieth reading for
the next hourly
rolling average
II. HOURLY ROLLING AVERAGE FEED RATES
1) FEED RATE: based on the flow rate (for an hourly rolling average) and the
concentration of the constituent of concern during that hourly rolling average period.
Feed rate = Flow rate X Concentration of Constituent in the Flow
(weight/time) (volume/time) (weight/volume)
2) DATA FOR THIS CALCULATION:
a) Flow rate - continuous monitoring equipment data recorder
b) Concentration of Constituent - operating records for waste analysis for the time period of
the hourly average
.) CONCERNS FOR THE INSPECTOR:
a) Concentrations and hourly rolling averages for flow rates are for the same time period
b) Units for the calculations
-------
-------
REFERENCES FOR BIF INSPECTIONS
Background Information: Document for the Development of Regulations to
Control the Burning of Hazardous Wastes om Boilers and Industrial
Furnaces. January 1987. EPA 530-SW-87-014A.
Final Enforcement Strategy for Burning Hazardous Waste in Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces (includes inspection checklist), July 1992. OSWER
Directive 9941.0.
Methods Manual for Compliance with BIF Regulations-Burning Hazardous
Waste in Boilers and Industrial Furnaces. December 1990. EPA 530-SW-
91-010.
RCRA Permit Policy Compendium. March 1992. NTIS No. PB92-111-707.
-------
REFERENCES FOR INCINERATOR INSPECTIONS
Engineering Handbook for Hazardous Waste Incinerators. September 1988. NTIS
No. PB81-248163.
Hazardous Waste Incineration Guidance Series:
Volume 1—Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits, July
1983. NTIS No. PB84-100577.
Volume 2—Guidance on Setting Conditions and Reporting Trial
BurnResults. January 1989. ORD 625/6-89-019.
Volume 3—Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement Guidance Manual,
June 1989. ORD 625/6-89-021.
Volume 4—Guidance on Metals and Hydrogen Chloride Controls for
Hazardous Waste Incineration. 1988. Docket No. F-89-BBSP-S008.
Volume 5—Guidance on PIC Controls for Hazardous Waste Incinerators.
1989. Docket No. F-89-BBSP-S-0009.
Volume 7—Proposed Methods for Measurement of CO. O?. THC. HCL and
Metals at Hazardous Waste Incinerators. 1989. Docket No. F-89-BBSP-
S-0091.
Hazardous Waste Incineration Permitting Study. August 1986. NTIS No. PB87-
202420.
Hazardous Waste Incineration. A Resource Document. 1988. American Society of
Mechanical Engineers (ASME).
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Inspection Manual. April 1989. OSWER Directive
9938.6.
Hazardous Waste Incinerator Questions and Answers. April 1988. EPA 530-SW-88-
018.
Incineration Standards: Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste TSDFs under RCRA Subtitle C Section 3004. December 1980.
NTIS No. PB81-190092.
Metals Control Efficiency Test at a Dry Scrubber and Baghouse Equipped Hazardous
Waste Incinerator. September 1990. NTIS No. PB-91-101805.
•
-------
Permit Writer's Guide to Test Burn Data: Hazardous Waste Incineration.
September 1986. EPA 530-SW-88-024.
Permitting Hazardous Waste Incinerators. April 1988. EPA 530-SW-88-024.
RCRA Permit Policy Compendium. NTIS No. PB92-111707.
Seminar Publication: Permitting Hazardous Waste Incinerators, September 1986.
ORD No. 625/4-87-017.
Small Modular Incinerator Systems with Heat Recovery. November 1979. SW-797.
Trial Burn Observation Guide. March 1989. NTIS No. PB89-179543.
Ordering Information:
NTIS (800) 553-6847
(703) 487-4650
ORD (513) 569-7562
RCRA Docket (202) 260-9327
-------
-------
Review of Monitoring
Records
A. HW Incinerator
Exercise 1: Using the attached chart and checklist, determine if
this unit has violated any of the permit conditions
listed on the checklist. Below is the key for the strip
chart. Please note any problems you have
determining compliance based on this information.
Strip Chart Key:
3 Organic waste / 0-12 LPM
4 Kero. flow / 0-10 LPM
5 Total air / 0-3000 SCFM
6 CO / O - 750 PPM / 1 hour avg.
7 Q tank recirc. / 0-200 LPM
9 Venturi recirc / 0-400 LPM
10 NaOH / 0-5 LPM
11 Quench make-up / 0-200 LPM
13 O, / 0-5 %
15 AQ waste / 0-27.5 LPM
16 Venturi diff. / 0-100"
17 C. temp. / 0-1200 degrees C
21 Venturi blowdown / 0-12
-------
-------
OSWER Dir. No. 9938.6
ID *
Date
II. COMPARISON OF PERMIT AND OPERATING CONDITIONS
Date
Time Readings Began
Time Readings Ended
A. Permit Operating Parameters
y 1. Temperature measured at each
v combustion chamber exit
Periltted Permitted Observed
MaxlMH NlnlWB Reatfing(s) Calculated
(units) (units) (units) Value
a. Primary
b. Secondary
c.
d.
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
CO emissions measured at
the stack or other appro-
priate location
(location: *>ta/-K )
Does CO monitor automatically correct all readings to 7% 02 based on
actual 02 stack concentration? yes no
If no, does permit require 02 correction?
the correction factor to be used?
Date correction factor last determined
changes made 1n Oa correction factor. _____
Does permit specify
If so, 11st it.
Describe any
Permit-specified frequency for verifying 02 correction factor
• If a 60-m1nute rolling average Is required, does the observed reading
reflect a 60-m1nute rolling average?
yes no not applicable
If no, attach data and calculate the average.
3. 0; emissions (location): _______
4. Flue gas flow rate or
velocity measured at stack
or equivalent method:
NA
A-6
-------
-------
OSWER Dir. No. 9938.6
ID *
Date
Permit Operating Parameters
CHECKLIST NO. 1 (continued)
Permitted
(units)
Permitted Observed
M1n1*n Reading (s) Calculated
Value
(units) (units)
5. Feed rate of each waste stream to each combustion chamber.
Containerized waste feeds covered under Item 10? yes
Chamber
no
Waste Stream
(Name or Identifier)
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
>.6«-/
m»n
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
6. Pressure 1n primary chamber
7. A1r pollution control:
a. Liquid flow rate (or NA
liquid/gas ratio) to
absorber
b. Nozzle pressure 1n
absorber
c. pH of liquid to
absorber
d. Differential pressure NA
across venturl scrubber
e. Differential pressure
across baghouse
IT
1*
f. kV values for ESP or NA
ionizing wet scrubbers
g. Current for ESP or NA
Ionizing wet scrubbers
(minimum)
(minimum)
NA
A-7
ift
, "Vt <•"
c i
-------
1)
-------
B. BIF
Exercise 2:
Using the information provided, determine if this
cement kiln is in compliance with the values on the
completed checklist Please note any problems you
have detemining compliance.
KEY:
KSPD
COAL
SUPFUL
FEED
BZTMP
Oxygen
KEXT
BAGHT
CZNT
BHSP
O2BIF
NOBIF
COBIF
kilo rotational speed in rpro
feed rate of 1 degree fuel in tph
feed rate of pumpable waste-
derived fuel in gal/hr
feed rate of hazardous waste mix
in tph
burn zone temperature in degrees
Fahrenheit
percent Oz at kiln exit
kiln exit temperature in degrees
Fahrenheit
baghouse inlet temperature in
degrees Fahrenheit
calcine zone temperature in
degrees Fahrenheit
baghouse pressure drop in inches
HjO
O, readings from CEM
NO reading from CEM
CO reading from CEM
Note: Feed rate limits are based on hourly rolling average
values.
-------
-------
PQ
1/2
s
c
o
D.
&
E
(8
V
-o
O
£
-
-**
Allowable Limi
o
Pu «
|2
e" I
JS
«
• w
0
C
0
It
8-5
e
S
V
a
to
§
U
•^^
to
I
V
_o
^Q
1 Chlorine/C
I
i
|| Antimony
i
i
1 Arsenic
1
e
e
5
•c
CO
BBBBBB
t
ve
Berryllium
I
|| Cadmium
u
M
1
e
1 Chromium
i
|
4M
S
i
9
4)
i
o
|
i
o
1 Thallium
-------
-------
2
U
a
0)
a
fc
HH
tt
X)
S
V
E
E
o
U
Observed
o
TT
ee
5
| Parameter
3
GO
CO concentration in stack
60
HC concentration in stack
u.
M
0>
41
•o
o
o
"I
Maximum cumbustion cha
temperature
e entering
b.
1 Maximum flue gas temper
a PM control device
-------
•l
-------
ez T*«> c
'*••»**»*»******»
H9j*f
1*9.n
1*7.75
«f^**-t*i«
•»**-
rf*Pft*'
T 65 HS T 6 H? »
*************l
H>r-
02
»*«« B
CO 8IF
•*******'
iy»**a
1 i*i
»j iy«.T'»*a—t-
*95.1J 1
4J».«5 !
4.?o
•***»
74*.*3
471.07
1392.35 HI
1313.32 LO
'3 23JS.05
.1*7.99 2359.19
<«.*•»? g*'j*.-95
492.53
5.14
5.16
1259.99
M,
I
l*n«» iJtfCrta -i'
1.77
t»«i
1.77
4."9
•5»l»
.9* 9«3.95
.6* 47°.67
ift 4&T|?9
4i7.6a 1253.05
f l"9
J.7?
ft*'
l.lj
1,7
5.27
4.0$
TO*.*? m«.»4 to
1.C1 907.5^
b*0o 9*7..;*
fc*i "uli3?
5.27 J
817.29
>i*3 £?5Ji?9 l«l«iTi
>0*i*9
-w*»-
1379.33 5
1» 19.78 HT
l!T3i*9 L*
**?..?i
iuJrtu ii
•4v«v«t
4.«3
-T-i4i
6
90»5t nl-
*9?
VM-
-«••
f6 1819.53
,.«j .i^L.p,;j i*if,6» **'..'
1.67
4.53 C17.26 516.24
'.••1
K47
1*3 ili4i«i
*l9t*9—*-
•»6fl.a7 HI
413.74 10
5.^3
4.42
1314.^v
9*4.it
I
157.S9
?. •>»<..?«
•l»"*.3* ^"»i9.^g
17U1.31 -478.72 1.60 5.S2 $2«.77- .11.20 ,9
1115.69 496.96 * 1.71 5.74 547.90 41.ZO HI
i7«i«>i .47{-,»;•.• :*,*,o «.»a m
*5
-4^.fs !5*.4* it^
J3.40 17,*.S0 5.
IC.06 1.55
5.21
T t r
565.43
e * f j
191.68
ITT 1 3
9
-j »
-1
478.72
1.55
524.49 81.2C LO
•+Z«i
6. 1
411
'27.?7 HT
564.*: ».'
IS'.57 ~t
6.7; *•»«.£>•,
! .57
5°.5c 11
59.56 HT
*.*.,?.Is ir3e.*-» i.'T.r'i
tia^.it 1*1?.1* 473.12
e.15 «»«.*j ?73.73 1?
l*.*i *»*.^j 9fl.*a nt
«-.?; ?«*.77 59.56 LC
1 **9
I-.'
«_*.•'S>
! .6-
*5'.*5 nl
n u?
1*3.7
J *••.?
1.63 :.?= 619.41 *3P.33 14
1.69 6.">J 61*.41 "30.65 HT
!>*J 41-^5 -*%*igi) *?«!»*? t*
•tf3.'^-^.?jT*n i>zei-s.
•4amg
409.Ao
UT<
1.62
5.*3
5i5j
N 15
039«9* t«l
5.18 619.41 711.00 LO
>uti3?
2«T*.".' i*|g>93
• 9**?4 1«*i>-
492.96 l.?2
47«.2 LO
4?J *r6i»B ' 1*^5
u^»*«**tt»»*tt***#«•»*»**»****»*#****•««•»•********»********•************»**•***•******•«
1799.23 446.23 1.6V
709.64
>»•*&* i
3
-vr-
-------
-------
BIF#2
ANDERSON ENVIRONMENTAL CORPORATION
TECHNICAL DIVISION
BIF COMPLIANCE PROGAM
Procedure: Elemental Analysis by Flame and Graphite ftamce Atomk Absorption.
Mercury Analysis by Cold Vapor Atomk Absorption.
Reporting Units: mg/L
Monti: ~
Cd Cr Pb
As
Aff
Sb
Hi
Total
coal
<0.5
33.0
<0.5
0.53
nw feed
<0.5
15.0
<2.0
<0.5
47.0
<0.5
0.56
<0.5
<0.5
0.97
30.9
226.0
930.0
8.4
687.0
0.6
4.32
89.6
<0.5
2.30
28.3
64.0
494.0
14.0
340.0
4.80
2.20
1.3
10.6
<0.5
2.66
>m6 Kiln J2 -
^^^
:;*fev;:vvv<^"^*:*
coal
<0.5
33.0
5.0
27.8
47.0
4.4
0.30
1.3
4.4
<0.5
0.53
raw feed
<0.5
15.0
<2.0
<0.5
47.0
<0.5
0.56
<0.5
<0.5
<0.5
0.97
WDF
^^^^••^••v
CKD
28.9
176.0
786.0
12.0
650.0
<0.5
3.04
<0.5
83.4
<0.5
2.48
28.3
64.0
494.0
14.0
340.0
4.80
2.20
1.3
10.6
<0.5
2.66
MICJOGAN
:-^~;£
coal
<0.5
30.0
<2.0
12.6
49.0
<0.5
0.68
<0.5
1.2
<0.5
0.71
<0.5
25.0
31.0
10.2
158.0
<0.5
<.02
0.7
<0.5
<0.5
0.35
13.4
205.0
811.0
14.6
382.0
<0.5
2.52
<0.5
42.3
2.65
2.97
7.6
35.0
485.0
29.4
379.0
12.0
1.08 1.2 3.20 <0.5
5.34
cool
«0.5
30.0
<2.0
12.6
49.0
<0.5
0.68
<0.5
<0.5
0.71
nw feed
<0.5
24.0
14.0
10.0
152.0
<0.5
<.Q2
0.9
<0.5
<0.5
0.53
13.4
205.0
811.0
14.6
382.0
<0.5
2.52
42.3
2.65
2.97
7.4
34.0
399.0
19.4
362.0
10.6
0.92
1.1
4.0
<0.5
3.10
-------
-------
B. BIF (cont'd)
Exercise 3: Using the information provided, determine if the
unit is in compliance with the values indicated on
the checklist. Please note any problems you have
determining compliance.
Note: The feed rate limits are based on hourly
rolling averages
-------
-------
3
e
•9
e o o o e
I
i
8S28SS
285
3 ? 8 3 S ? S £ S 3 £ 3 S 8 S
^ONN5KeM «ONtf)K
-------
-------
n :
C
hH
fe
c
o
o.
'C
V)
0
£
A
k_
55
•o
ui
•imam-
•<*•>
Allowable Limi
1
U* v
|2
k4 «^\
> e
8to
i
c
a
0 *•%
1 1
§ ^
•0
,^^
1
1
BS^^^=
M
— ^^^
•LJ-Jl,
M
O
ef
V)
4)
•o
"C
_o
^
1 Chlorine/0
:=:••
w
1 Antimony
•BBB
i
e
| Arsenic
BW
t
e
'S
o
•
i
V
CO
V •! Jmi
^...VB
i
i
1 Cadmium
OBBS
i
o
e
S
1 Chromium
•BBE
i
e
c\
-------
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES
• Historical Perspective
• Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992
• Inspection and Enforcement Approaches
• Multi-Media Enforcement Initiative
• Inspection Protocol
• Pollution Prevention Initiative
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: Federal Facilities
KEY POINTS:
• During this presentation, we will discuss:
— Types of agreements entered into with Federal facilities, such as Notices of
Noncompliance (NONs) and Federal Facility Compliance Agreements
(FFCAs)
— The Federal Facilities Compliance Act
— Enforcement actions that can (and may not) be taken when violations occur
at Federal facilities
— Protocol for conducting inspections at Federal facilities
— Various innovative initiatives relating to Federal facilities.
VII-1 -/4
-------
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
• Enf orcmwnt at Fwtoral Facilltfes
• Executive Order 12088
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Historical Perspective
KEY POINTS:
• Before we begin these discussions, let's look at the history behind inspections at
Federal facilities.
— According to the Department of Justice, in the past, EPA could not use
certain enforcement tools such as civil judicial actions or imposition of civil
penalties against Federal agencies. This has changed recently with passage
of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992, which we will discuss
shortly.
— Environmental compliance programs and initiatives have been developed
and implemented in response to Executive Order 12088, issued on October
13,1978, which established the framework for ensuring Federal agency
compliance with Federal, state, and local pollution control requirements
issued. Each Federal agency must fully cooperate with EPA, state, interstate,
and local agencies to prevent, control, and abate environmental pollution.
VII-2 -
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES COMPLIANCE ACT
• Waiver of Sovereign Immunity
• Mixed Waste — 3-Year Delay lor Waiver of Sovereign
Immunity
• Inspections at Federal Facilities
* Federally-Owned Vessels
• Classifying Munitions
• Federally-Owned Treatment Works
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Historical Perspective
KEY POINTS:
The recently-passed Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA), signed
October 6, 1992, amends RCRA to clearly state that the Federal government
is part of the regulated community and Federal facilities are subject to all
RCRA requirements, penalties, or fines. The FFCA ensures compliance at
Federal facilities with RCRA and creates enforcement tools by clearly
waiving Federal agencies' immunity to existing enforcement actions such as
issuance of §3008(h) Unilateral Orders and §3008(a) Compliance Orders.
Passage of this Act essentially negates the Ohio v. DOE Supreme Court
decision. The FFCA also permits states to fine Federal facilities for RCRA
violations and empowers EPA to seek administrative fines and penalties to
correct violations.
The waiver of sovereign immunity was delayed for three years for Federal
facilities that violate §3004(j), relating to mixed waste storage, as long as
such waste is managed in compliance with all other applicable requirements.
Federal facilities will be liable for RCRA violations for mixed wastes other
than under §3004(j). Additionally, even while the three-year delay is in
effect. Federal facilities will be subject to injunctive relief for violations
VII-3 ^
-------
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Historical Perspective (continued)
KEY POINTS:
under §3004(j). The FFCA also requires that DOE submit an inventory, on
a state-by-state basis, of mixed waste. This inventory roust include
information regarding the types and amount of mixes waste generated,
treatment capacity, treatment facilities, and supporting information.
With passage of the FFCA, Congress intended to increase EPA's
enforcement presence at Federal facilities. Therefore, although the Act is
not completely clear on this point, it may now require EPA to undertake
inspections at all TSDs; in the past, it appears that states could conduct
these required inspections on behalf of EPA. However, with the addition
of the requirement for other agencies to reimburse EPA, the inspection
provision could be interpreted to mean an inspection program that
automatically expands as the Federal facility universe expands.
Hazardous wastes generated on Federally-owned vessels will not be subject
to RCRA until the waste is transferred to a shore facility, unless the ship is
placed in reserve, or the waste is transferred to another vessel. This
provision was intended to address DOD concerns that military vessels
performing their duties should not be subject to RCRA.
EPA has ultimate responsibility for classifying munitions. EPA will take
the lead in establishing a task force with DOD experts to identify when
munitions become hazardous waste under RCRA. EPA plans to issue a
proposed rule in the late summer of 1993, and a final rule by October 1994.
Federally-owned treatment works that meet certain criteria now are given
the same exemption afforded to POTWs.
VII-4-/}
-------
PLANNING INSPECTION PROCEDURES
PLANNING/COORDINATION
EVALUATION/ENFORCEMENT
OONDUCTMO MSPEC1ION
CE1
• Conduct open dieeueelon
• Review teclltty operating
procedure
• Conduct vfetMl
Inepect
• Docum
eemple
• Conduct cleelng
Inspection
Documtnt obMiMtton*/
Tililil.ll 1 IT I
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Planning Inspection Procedures
KEY POINTS:
• This diagram is designed to illustrate the basic differences in planning an approach
for inspections of private and Federal facilities.
• As you can see, aside from the special care taken in following the appropriate
protocol, CEIs at Federal facilities do not differ significantly from those conducted
at private facilities.
• Many Federal facilities may have restricted access. In order to plan a CEI, the
inspector may have to contact the facility or Federal agency that operates it to
acquire the appropriate security clearance or facility pass.
VII-5 'A
-------
AGREEMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT TOOLS
PLANNINOACOOROtNATION EVALUATION/ENFORCEMENT
CONDUCTWQMSPECTION
CEI
ContKtapwieylo
Mvittfy
or nqulramntt
• Review toclltty operating
• Conduct vk
Document ebeerwtlone/
Conduct elo*lng
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Agreements and Enforcement Tools
KEY POINTS:
• Whether a Federal facility could be sued or fined used to be an issue but, with the
enactment of the FFCA, the authority to issue orders to and levy penalties on Federal
facilities is clear. The following enforcement tools have been used to ensure
compliance at Federal facilities:
— All Federal facilities and government-owned/contractor operated (GOCO)
facilities are subject to the same compliance and enforcement actions as private
facilities, such as §3008(h) or §3008(a) orders.
— Compliance at a Federal facility also may still be attained through three-party
Inter-Agency Agreements between a state, EPA, and the agency operating a
Federal facility.
VII-6-/4
-------
MULTI-MEDIA ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE
Evaluate compliance
Reduce risk
Use multi-media approach to establish
holistic view that should prevent
cross-transfer of pollutants
Implement pollution prevention
solutions to areas of non-compliance
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Multi-Media Enforcement Initiative
KEY POINTS:
• The Federal Facilities Multi-Media Enforcement Initiative is being implemented
because, among other reasons, Federal facilities are a highly visible sector of the
regulated community.
• The primary goals of the Initiative are those indicated in the overhead.
• The Initiative is coordinated by the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
(OFFE) in the Office of Enforcement at EPA Headquarters, with the support of
the Regional Federal Facilities Coordinators, Offices of Regional Counsel,
Environmental Services Divisions, Regional Program Offices, NEIC, and states.
• The Initiative seeks to evaluate compliance first by:
— Using a multi-media approach to environmental enforcement
— Increasing the level of technical assistance to Federal agencies (Executive
Order 12088)
— Increasing environmental awareness and commitment to environmental
issues and promote environmental stewardship by Federal agencies
— Implementing pollution prevention solutions to non-compliance issues and
violations.
VII-7-/4
-------
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Multi-Media Enforcement Initiative (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• The two-year Initiative has begun with inspections and enforcement actions in
FY93.
• During the Initiative, Regions will each identify ten significant Federal facilities
within their jurisdiction mat warrant multi-media enforcement. Selection will be
based on compliance history; risk posed by a facility; Headquarters, Regional,
and state priorities and initiatives; and the opportunity to implement pollution
prevention.
• These facilities will be inspected in a four-phase nationally coordinated effort:
— Each year Regions may submit a new list of candidate facilities to ensure
continued compliance and enforcement (if necessary).
— At the end of the two-year Initative, OFFE will release a comprehensive
report describing the national trend in compliance rates at Federal facilities.
• The Initiative is strengthened by the FFCA because Federal facilities will need to
comply with applicable regulations in the same manner as private facilities.
VII-8-/4
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
• EPA 33/50
• TRIM (Toxics Reduction In the Military)
• TIPPP (Tidewater hiteragency Pollution Prevention Pi
» Pollution Prevention hierarchy:
t»gram)
V
SOURCE REDUCTION
\
RECYCUNG
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: Pollution Prevention
KEY POINTS:
The pollution prevention strategy for Federal facilities responds to the mandate of
the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 and the National Pollution Prevention
Strategy. The Pollution Prevention Initiative is led by EPA with the cooperation of
other Federal agencies.
The goals of the Pollution Prevention Initiative for Federal facilities are to:
— Reduce solid and manufacturing wastes
— Improve energy efficiency at installations
— Test use of alternate, environmentally protective materials that meet research
and military specifications
— Improve procurement practices and inventory controls
— Reduce nonpoint source environmental problems.
Examples of interagency cooperation among the Departments of Agriculture,
Defense, Energy, and Interior, and other agencies, to implement the Pollution
Prevention Initiative include:
— Achieving a 50% reduction in releases of 17 priority chemicals at all
govemment-owned/contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities by the end of 1995
through EPA's 33/50 Program (Industrial Toxics Project). The Department of
Energy has committed to the 33/50 program.
VI1-9-/1
-------
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: Pollution Prevention (continued)
KEY POINTS:
— Making a commitment, as the Department of Energy did, to report toxic
emissions under the 1986 Emergency, Planning, and Community
Right-To-Know Act, setting a strong precedent for bringing other Federal
agencies into the reporting program.
• Pollution prevention activities at DOD resulted in more than a 50% reduction in
hazardous waste disposal between 1987 and 1992. DOD continues to focus on
pollution prevention through the following programs:
— The Toxics Reduction in the Military (TRIM) program, which encourages the
voluntary participation of its GOCO facilities to reduce 17 priority chemicals
by 50% in accordance with EPA's 33/50 Program — this program is still
under development
— The voluntary reporting of all Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) chemicals for
DOD's major Government-Owned/Government-Operated facilities
— Tidewater Interagency Pollution Prevention Program (TIPPP), which is a
comprehensive environmental management initiative of the DOD, EPA,
NASA, Army, Navy, and Air Force to implement and develop a
demonstration pollution prevention model community. Examples of activity
under this initiative include:
•• Developing multi-agency generic guidelines to implement pollution
prevention programs and techniques
•• Initiating a network at Federal facilities to transfer technical information
concerning pollution prevention
•• Producing quarterly reports on the progress of TIPPP.
• For more information on Pollution Prevention Initiatives at Federal facilities,
contact the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC) to receive
facility-specific or agency pollution prevention reports, articles, directives,
guidance documents, and document-ordering information. The Clearinghouse's
address and their phone number are included in the copy of this presentation that
you will be receiving.
PPIC
Federal Agencies Mini-Exchange
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, VA 22043
(703) 821-4800
V1I-10 -A
-------
REVIEW
• Differences In Planning and Enforcement
• Inter-Agency Initiatives
- Multi-Media Compliance
Pollution Prevention
• Federal Facilities Compliance Act
OVERHEAD #8
TITLE: Review
KEY POINTS:
We would like to review several key pieces of information at this point.
• Because EPA may not have the correct security clearances to conduct CEIs at
Federal facilities, inspectors must plan to coordinate with the appropriate authority
to conduct an inspection. Plans must take into consideration whether the facility is
Federal, private, or GOCO.
• EPA and other Federal agencies are cooperating to implement more comprehensive
environmental compliance programs and to reduce pollution at Federal facilities.
RCRA inspectors should be prepared to incorporate these initiatives into their
inspection strategies.
• Congress passed the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, which enhanced the
enforcement tools that can be used to achieve compliance with RCRA and other
environmental laws at Federal facilities.
• When conducting inspections, be aware of special protocols, including the fact that
Federal facilities often require that inspectors obtain a security clearance before
entering the facility.
Vll-ll-A
-------
-------
FY1993/1994 FEDERAL FACILITIES
MULTI-MEDIA ENFORCEMENT/COMPLIANCE
INITIATIVE
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE
Developed by:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement
401 M Street S.W.
(OE-2261)
Washington, D.C. 20460
Much 1993
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Background 1
II. Scop* of the Initiative 1
]H. GoaJi of fee laitutivc 2
XV. Objectivei of tbe laitutivc 2
V. Metsureaeou of Succe** & Accountability 3
VI. laitutivc Implementation 4
». Ceaenl Implementation Guidance 4
b. Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA) 4
VH. Selection Criteria 6
VH. Multi-Media laapectiou I
DC. EPA/Suus Multi-Media Eaforccmeot Aetiou 9
a. Stale Has the Delegated Authority 10
b. EPA-lead Enforcement Action* 10
c. Multi-media Enforcement Settlement*/Acuoni: 10
d. Negotiation* of Enforcement Settlement* 11
X. Environmentally Beneficial Project* 11
XI. Multi-Media Enforcement Communication* 12
XII. Jff Major MilMtocua M
XIV. Conclusion* 15
LIST OF EXHD1TS
Exhibit
1 Selection Criteria for Federal Facilities Initiative
-------
*>
-------
UST OF ATTACHMENTS
I Lot of Fadwal FtcUity Coordiaaion for the Refiooi ad NEIC (included in otmat document)
0 Definition* of laspectioB Categorice From the NEIC Multi-media laveetifatioe Maaual
ID Fiael Addeodum oa Multi-Media Enforcement to tbt Policy Framework on Sute/F«denl
Ea/orccmeet Afnementt, May 13. 1992
IV Guidance for the FY 1993 State/EPA Enforcement Afrwrneott PIDOMI. July 10, 1992
V Policy oo the Use of Supplement*] Enforcement Project! (SEP) ia EPA Settlement!, February
12, 1991
VI Interim Policy on tfae bciunoe of Pollution Prevention ead Recycling Pfovtaoei in
Enforcement Settlement!, February 25, 1991
VH Article by Asnitut Admiaistntor Tate - 'EPA't Eaforcemeat Prioritie* for Fiscal Year
1992* - in National Environmental Enforcement Journal. February, 1992
Reaponae to Comments on lae Draft Implemenution Guidance
-------
*}
-------
DRAFT IMPLEMENTATION GUIDANCE FOR
THE FY 1993/1994 FEDERAL FACILITIES MULTI-MEDIA
ENFORCEMENT/COMPLIANCE INITIATIVE
*
L Background
Federal facilities are • highly visible sector of die regulated community. They an of free*
eoviroumtel significance and have become an Administration priority. While committed to improved
environmental performance, the eomplieaee ntee for Federal agencies have traditionally been lower IB til media
then tboee of private facilities. This initiative ii designed oot only to assist Federal afeoeiet ia rsduciag
environmental risks, but aleo to improve their compliaoce status by providing holistic eoviroameotal multi-media
facility evaluations aimed at preventing the croef-oiedia transfer of poUutantt and em[iheiinn| pollution
preveotion based solutions to environmental compliance problems.
The Enforcement Management Council (EMC) has selected the Federal Facilities Multi-Media
Enforcement/Compliance Initiative (FMECT) as one of the only three Ageacy
-------
Although the main focus of this initiative is to improve envfronmeoial compliance at the selected
Federal facilities. Ms initiative will provide numerous benefits lo Federal agencies a* • wboie. Tint, the
initiative will create greater efficiencies for EPA, States, tad Ftdenl imtallstioos by eiimiaatiog the resource
burden of multiple single madia inspections by ooosolidatiaf inspection activities using a multi-media approach.
Wbco possible, taphasis will be placed on uaiof multi-media enforcement settlements to addnai multiple
violations under vinous statutes. The initiative will also aerve as an excellent training pound for Federal
afcncy environmental staffs throufb ••'mytij EPA/State technical assistance. This and other related initiative
activities will promote improved environmental management it each facility by providing a holistic view of
compliance problems and creative opportunities to implement environmentally protective solutions.
m.
Goals of the Initiative
The goal of the initiative is to improve Federal agency compliance with en'
enial statutes and
regulations. The initiative else seeks to include reduction of environmental risks from Federal facilities through
increased use of multi-media inspections; efficient utilization of all available enforcement authorities; enhanced
use of innovative pollution prevention (F2) approaches to solving comptianc
This initiative should highlight the benefits of multi-media approaches in environmental enforcement;
increase the level of t*^hniMl assistance to Federal agencies; and increase the level of environmental awareness
and commitment by Federal agencies to protection of human health and the environment.
IV.
Objectives of the Initiative
In addition to the goals of the initiative that are listed above, the initiative also has several objectives
that OFFE believes will enable EPA and the States to focus their efforts toward these goals. The primary
objectives of this initiative are to:
a. Improve compliance in each media and their corresponding programs, with an emphasis on
RCRA, CWA, CAA, EPCRA (this applies primarily to govcmnent^wnad contractor-operated
(COCO) nciUtiw). and TSCA.
b.
Reduce threats and risks to the environment posed by releases, discharges, and the cross-media
transfer of pollutants.
the resource efficiency and the environmental benefits of multi-media inspections
actions at Federal facilities.
Uiiimm the identification and use of P3 opportunities in inspections and enforcement actions
to eorve environmental compliance problems.
and expand upon Regional/State
in multi-media
*!«•
for violations that are identified.
\
f.
Increase the use of cross-statutory provisions lo obtain facility-wide environmental
improvements through settlements that integrate pollution prevention
Increase the overall efficiency of the enforcement process by conducting multi-media
inspections in lieu of independent single-media
h. Increase awareness and support for multi-media enforcement through outreach to all levels of
EKTORCEKEKT CQKTIDgyTIXI. 2
-------
*e Federal sector.
i.
•Bvuoameoial awareness through staffing, budgeting, and environmental
•ftwtmcture.
Increase aod improve the consideration of environmental equity boon.
V.
Measurements of Sucom ft Ac
ihfli
The succee* of this initiative depends largely on the support for aad effective implementation of a
multi-media enforcement program by the appropriate Regional aad State programs. Seven! of the measura
success mentioned below identify improvements ia facility operations that yield sound environmental
management results, while others highlight Regional and State implementation of multi-media enforcement
activities at Federal facilities. The following is a list of measures which the Office of Fedenl Facilities
Enforcement (OFFE) believes will demonstrate progress towards the initiative's stated foals and objectives:
a. Improved compliance rates and/or the identification of deficiencies in environmental
compliance. The measurement of the change ia compliance rates will be evaluated by
comparing compliance rates before aad after the initiative. Regions aad States should use
existing definitions of non-compliant-*.
of
completed withia the tiae tnae estabUibed uader
b. Reduced pollutant eausaioas aad discharfes.
c. Nuntber of •dminiitnuvc enforceawBt caees
this iaitiative.
e. lacrteaed aumber of anilti>eiedia iaipectioat aad administrative setttaneatt.
f. Exteasive use of P2 projects thai reduce emissioas and discharges of pollutanu aad addre&t
aoQ'Compliaaee probleav aad vwlatioas ia all enforceaient sectleaMats.
Aa iateriat report aad fiaal report will be developed by OFFE ideetifyiaf the succeeses aad limitatiou
ideatified duhaf the iaitiative with a stroaf eophuit oe tte Re|ioaal/State perspective of the eavirooBMatal
sums of selected Fedenl facilities. It should be noted that these aieasures of success are a guide for Refioas
and Sutes, aad m*y be further expeaded ia their evtliutioa of the eaceeaes of the initUbvt. Other aweAirw of
succett that the Refioas aad States any identify are also accepteMc for this iaitudv* ia order to highlight
uaioue Recioaal/State acooflplisbjaeata*
Refioaal offices should be familiar with the new Strategic Targeting Activities Reporting System
(STARS) measures for reporting multi-media enforcement activities, which are outfitted in the FY 1993 Agency
Operating Guidance (EPA 230-B42-001, July 1992). STARS code 'E/C-T eacourages the use of multi-media
enforcement aypieaches. Specifically, measure Me* measures the aumber of consolidated multi-media
inspections at Federal facilities, and measure *2c' measures tat aumber of coordinated multi-media inspections
at Federal facilities. Under the FMEC3, Region* will be able to report Federal facility enforcement numbers
for both of these inspection measures. The initiative will also allow the Refioas to report meir judicial referrals
for COCO Federal facilities end administrative enforcement actions at all Federal facilities under STARS code
•E/c-r.
EKTORCgMEKT COKTIDEKTIXL
-------
This section provides general guidance on implementation of the initiative and a summary of the
Federal Facility Compliance Act, a new law that amends RCRA and that will have a profound effect on the
implementation of the initiative.
n. General Implementation Guidance
As Regional experiences have indicated, implementing an effective multi-madia program requires
extensive coordination and communication among all participants. Activities ranging from establishing
inspection targets, to coordinating with State inspectors, to ensuring timely preparation of multi-media
enforcement cases, involve numerous parties and require planning and leadership. Each Region has chosen to
implement multi-media programs using a management approach which is most appropriate to their needs. This
initiative seeks to work within theee existing structures as a means of strengthening existing Regional programs.
Accordingly, all planning and impk
i should he conducted through existing multi-
media structures, such as through the designated Regional multi-media coordinator and through the Regional
multi-madia targeting/screening committees. As Federal facilities can present unique management concerns, the
Regional Federal Facilities Coordinator (FFC) should alao be actively involved in the initiative. For example,
the FFC should coordinate or assist with facility selection, as well as with any subsequent coordination.
In order to ensure that Headquarters is able to effectively communicate with the Regions on essential
matters related to this initiative, each Region should have designated a single point of contact for this initiative.
Regions are encouraged to designate the FFC as this contact, to the extant such designation is compatible with
Regional structures. However, this person could alao be the Regional multi-media coordinator, a person on the
Deputy Regional Administrator's staff, the multi-media coordinator within the Office of Regional Counsel, a
multi-media coordinator within a media office, or any other appropriate person. This contact should be able to
respond to Headquarters inquiries regarding the status of selection efforts, inspections, enforcement efforts,
pollution prevention efforts, end ether general marten relating to the progrssi of the initiative. The name of the
Regional contact should be provided to the Headqiurten contact, who will be responsible for the same
information from Headquarters' perspective. The Headquarters' contact is Jim Edward, Director of the
Strategic Planning and Prevention Division nf the Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement, and the lead staff
contact for this initiative is Reggie "*«"*"m (202/26CM641). Attachment I to this guidance document contains
a list of assigned contacts for the FMECI for me Regional offices and the National Enforcement Investigations
Center (KEIC).
b. Federal Facility Compliance Act (FFCA)
The implementation of mis initiative will be aided by dw paaaage of me Facility Compliance Act
(FFCA). On October 6. 1992. President Bush signed the FFCA into law. This new Act amends the Solid
Waste Dispose! Act, There are several new authorities that will make Federal facility enforcement actions more
consistent with actions currently used in the private sector. To the extent possible, EPA will he seeking to
lie the use of me new enforcement authorities and requirements of the FFCA in this multi-media
initiative.
One of me major changes of (he FFCA is the waiver of sovereign immunity for fines and penalties for
violations of hazardous and solid waste requirements. While the States have always had injunctive authority, it
now appears that States have the ability to sue the Federal government for fines and penalties, b addition, as
the Slates have penalty authority, it appears that EPA. likewise, has penalty authority.
Another significant change added by the FFCA » that EPA clearly has administrative'Sectioo 3008U)
order authority. Congress stated that EPA shall initiate administrative enforcement actions against the Fedenl
COKTIDEKTIAI.
-------
government ia ifae i
other pcnoe. EPA
orden to tbe Federal
•ad
this to
tfor
the same circu
Dan that EPA win
compliance violations.
would be initiated against any
SOOXa) compliance and compliance
Centres, though, added aa additional provision which EPA if gathering
appropriate interpretation. Congress stated that ao administrative order to the Federal
fiaal until tbc Federal government has had the opportunity to confer with the Ad
on to determine d*e
The question for
the Agency to consider is when should mil opportunity to confer occur aad with whom. EPA
guidance on October 13, 1992 aad has received comments from the Regions (and the Department of Justice)
regarding tbe proposal. The Final Implementation Guidance should be issued by tbe second quarter of FY 93.
The FFCA also requires me Administrator to undertake mspectioos at all Federal facilities that treat,
store, aad dispose of haardous waste. Tbe Office of Waste Programs Enforcement (OWPE) plans to Mod out
a proposed guidance on thaee inspections to the Regions for comment in March 1993. The proposed guidance
includes this multi-media initiative as one of the criteria for priority setting in conducting ground water
monitoring inspections at Federal facilities. In addition, the Federal agencies must reimburse EPA for the cost
of these inspections. OFFE is working wim the other affected offices aad me Office of Management end
Budget (OMB) to develop the appropriate interpretation regarding
The Land Disposal Restrictions require treatmeat
id capacity be developed for mixed
waste. DOE has stated that three yean are necessary sad adequate to develop treatment capacities aad
treatment technologies for mixed waste. Tbe statute provides that tbe waiver of sovereign immunity for fines
aad penalties for violations of only RCRA Section 3004(j) (storage of mixed waste) does not apply for three
yean provided DOE complies with all other applicable requirements.
Tbe FFCA requires DOE. within 110 days of October 6, to submit two inventory reports: 1. a
national inventory of all its mixed wastes, regardless of the time they were generated, on a state-by-sute basis
and 2. a national inventory of its mixed waste treatment capacities and technologies. DOE will submit these
reports to EPA and tbe appropriate State. Both EPA aad tbe State have 90 days to comment. DOE shall
consider and publish the comments before finalizing the two inventories. DOE will then develop s PLAN for
developing treatment technologies for treating the inventory wastes where no treatment exists and also for
developing more treatmeat capacities where technologies are available. Once DOE completes these plans. DOE
will submit them to tbe State (provided tbe Slate has the requisite authority) for review, approval, disapproval,
or modification within 6 months of receipt. If the State does not have tbe necessary delegated authority, DOE
will submit tbe plan to EPA for similar action within the same timeframe. Depending on which entity has the
lead authority under RCRA, me State or EPA will aaaoimee the availability of the plaa to the public. If the
planis approved, EPA or the delegated State shall issue aa order requiring compliance with the approved plan.
OFFE has convened a workgroup to address fee various requirements of me mixed waste provisions of the
FFCA. At this time, the group is concentrating on dM components of the inventory.
la another proviaioa of the FFCA, Congress instructed EPA to create new regulations for munitions
regulations. The proposal for new regulations should be promulgated no later than 6 months from October 6,
1992. Tbe provision states that the Administrator shall propose, after consulting wife the Secretary of Defense
and appropriate State officials, regulations identifying when military munitions become haardous waste. Within
24 months of April 6, 1992, EPA shall promulgate tbe regulations. The Office of Solid Waste has convened a
workgroup to address tbe munitions requirements, end tbe workgroup has already mat once with representatives
from the Department of Defense.
Congress further provided in As FFCA that the Federal government is tow eligible for the >
sewtge exclusion provided Out the exempted material meets pretreatmeat standards of Section 307 of the Clean
Water Act. There are other parameters provided in the FFCA that the treatment works can meet aad continue
to be eligible for the exclusion. OFFE has formed s workgroup to develop guidance in order to implement uus
ZKTORCEMEKT COKTIDEWTIXL
-------
Federally Owned Treatment Works (FOTW) provision. Moreover. OFFE ia considering proposing a
rulcmaking to ensure proper monitoring of the FOTW by tbe Federal agency. Thia new provision abould be
emphasized ia multi-media inspections as an excellent opportunity for cross media enforcement (e.g. using the
new RCRA order authority to address pretreatment requirements of the CWA).
Finally, fta FFCA states
transferred to shore. This exempt!
at public wssssls ere not
ion diaappeen if tbe waau ia
tbe veeeel ia placed in reeerve or tbe waste, is traaaferred to
to RCRA r Tuirements tmti.' tt
a e vat for more (baa 90 days
public veaat. «iibia *e territorial waters of
fee More than 90 dtyt after ibe dale of
tbe United States and is stored on such vessel or another public
transfer.
For further informetion. contact Sally Dalzell (202/260-9101), Acting Director of OFFE's Enforcement
Division, Reggie rheetham (202/260-4641) of OFFE. or your Regional Federal Facilities Coordinator.
Tbe Regions will take tbe lead m facility selection to ensure tbe maximum degree of Regional
involvement and support for tbe initiative. Baaed on a Regioaally4eveloped list of targeted candidate facilities.
each Region should conduct a minimum of two multi-media inspections per year. OFFE provided data support
as an attarhmrnt to the draft guidance to assist Regions in identifying candidate facilities. Tbe five criteria for
facility selection outlined in Exhibit I are:
• Compliance record
• Regie a risk ranking, including NEIC ranking, or other identified iapects of human health,
and threats to equatic systems
• Significance with respect to other national. Regional, or State priorities/initiatives
^ EflVUtMQslOtaU •nTBlCy
• Opportunity for pollution prevention
These ranking factors are intended to be e guide for tbe Regions and States to nee in selecting Federal
facilities for tbe initiative in e uniform and consistent manner. Thus, the intention of tbe selection criteria is not
to be prescriptive. They are meant to complement existing Regional approaches for selecting Regional targets,
while ensuring e consistent set of priorities are considered during the implementation of tbe initiative. They are
intended to provide ibe Regions and Slates win the maximum amount of flexibility while still maintaining
national consistency. Regions, in conjunction with tbe Slates to me extent possible, ere to take Ibe lead in
targeting facilities. Thu initiative abould not hinder tbe Regions and States from conducting Federal facilities
inspections which aey consider to be e priority within their jurisdictions. OFFE will continue to seek Regional
input into the development of the prioritization factors. In response to comments received on the Draft
Implementation Guidance, environmental equity has been added to Ibe selection criteria to ensure that
environmental equity concerns are factored into the facility sHertion process for FY 94. Since tbe initial
facility selections were based on tbe criteria outlined in the Draft Implementation Guidance, nanny
Regions did not incorporate environmental equity concerns into their FY §3 facility aslecriom.
Tbe facility selection process consists of two phases. In phase I, 6e Regions should identify tbe ten
most significant Federal facilities, baaed on the first four criteria described above for the initiative. Tbe
Regions are encouraged to develop their initial list of lea facilities for submission to OFFE for additional
evaluation based on factors that will m«ii>tfif (he national consistency of the initiative.
EKTORCtMEKT CONTIDZHTXMi
e
-------
Exhibit 1: Selection Criteria for Federal Fadliba Initiative
Record
bmeFY 1993 and FY 1994 initiative. Federal realities Aodd be targeted based on the
fbUowiag ranking factors, listed in descending order of significance:
Facilities ihould be evaluated for the extent of significant non-compliance
(SNC) under web of the media statutes. Federal facility coordinators should
remain flexible in the use of historic aoa~compliaoce dau. If the data
eccuniely ftflect the «itus of (he facility, tee nee it Included ei AtucbnMt
D to this fuidutc* is t lift of bcilitiM, eofted by Refioa, which tpdketec the
•unber of SN C RCRA violatioof which provide* tone of this iafbntMtioa.
This oMiehel u derived firoa the laiefreted Dele for EafomaMoi AaeJyeie
(IDEA) fyMem, which caa provide edditioaeJ coaplieocf. iaformetioa.
Itefioat ihould oouider the exteot to which aoa
-------
of dM selection
will start with OFFE
to the Regions in the identification of
pollution prevention opportunities by using EPA pollution prevention and waste minimization facility data. This
means that the order of the initial 10 targeted facilities submitted by each Region may change based on the
opportunity or potential to implement pollution prevention solutions to compliance problems. The Regions then
should establish their final list of ten facilities based on this feedback, of which at least four should be targeted
for inclusion in the two-year initiative. The Regions should identify these four facilities in their final submission
and provide a narrative overview of why each facility is significant to the Regional participation in the initiative.
OFFE provided the Regions win an initial list of Rational compliance profiles in the draft guidance, as
identified by the Integrated Data for Enforcement Analysis (IDEA) database. Based on this information, the
Regions will develop an initial list of tan facilities. OFFE will man provide pollution prevention profiles to the
Regions to assist them in developing a final list of tan facilities. This process should be repeated in mid-FY
1993 to ensure mat each Region has the proper mixture of facilities, including a proper mixture of defense and
non-defense facilities.
OFFE strongly encourages the Regions to continue to conduct multi-media inspections as part of this
initiative at other Federal facilities beyond the two-per-year •^•m™ level established under this initiative. If
more than two multi-madia inspections an performed at Federal facilities, information and results of these
enforcement activities should be submitted to OFFE.
VXD. Multi-Media Inspections
It is anticipated that the initiative will be conducted using four phases of multi-media inspections and
corresponding enforcement activities. Each phase of inspections will be coordinated Regionally, using the
national r~»Js and objectiv— of the initiative. This coordination will allow enfor 'jnent » elements to be
unplemeL 1 quickly and c istently in the Regions, which will enhance me deu ent eft :t of the initiative.
U.S. EPA Region I has developed s Federal Facility Multi-Media Inspections Standard Operating Procedures
which addresses many of their Regional protocols for performing multi-media activities. Regions/States who
are interested should contact the Region I Federal Facility Coordinator for more information. OFFE intends for
the Regions and States to utilize the initiative to complement Regional and State inspection priorities.
To further enhance the Regional enforcement efforts at Federal facilities, the implementation strategy
for conducting field activities calls for each Region to conduct a "•i"i"""' of two multi-media inspections per
year at Federal facilities in FY 1993 and in FY 1994. This approach gives the initiative national consistency
through some participation by all Regions, while leaving flexibility for those Regions that historically perform
more than two multi-madia inspections at Federal facilities each fiscal year to continue these efforts. This
means that the initiative will use current and historical Regional enforcement practices at Federal facilities and
the resources associated with these efforts. Each Region is requested to inform OFFE of the number of multi-
media inspections Ibey plan to eooduct annually under this initiative through the points of contact
under aecbon VI
The most desirable category of multi-media inspection to be conducted at Federal facilities for this
initiative is category "D* multi-media team inspections. This is me category of inspection currently used by
NEIC and several Regional Environmental Services Divisions (ESDs).
Due to external and internal limitations within each Region, category *C" multi-media inspections are
also an acceptable category to satisfy Ibe principles of this initiative. It is also important to note that category
*CAD* multi-media inspection* are the only levels recognized by the STARS reporting system. Under this
initiative. OFFE intends to maintain a level of consistency with those Agency measures outlined in STARS
measure E/C-S. The definitions for wh category can be found in the NEIC Multi-Medis Investitttioas Minual
EKTORCEKZMT COKTIPEMTIXL
8
-------
(EPA-330/9-I9-003-R, March 1992). These definition* also have
guidance. Regtoaa! policies for fee vat of aaaoiinosd or uniaoou
fee maiimuiri amount of eootrol of initiative activities si the Regional level
ia Attachment D to
•bould ht followed to provide
OFFE racofaiaat the limited iaspectioo resources available for iaspectioai is fee Rsftoas. OFFE is
working BOW to provide fee Refloat additional resources for activities nUied to fee initiative. However.
reeouroe efficiencies aey be reelized by combining fee logistics Beaded to support multiple inspections tato
inspection effort. EPA Regional resource* will also be enhanced by fens* States who wish to participate in fee
initiative. Some Refioos may fiad fee need for additional —tit*tnrr and expertiee in evahutiaf facilities in
their jurisdiction. NEIC hai committed to assisting fee Region* on a limited basil under fei< iaitiative. NEC
nai valuable aiperieaoe in Federal facility inspection* and compliance evaluation*. IB requesting •ttiitipcB
from NEIC, Regions abould follow aomal procedure* for requesting NEIC attifir* duriaf fee fourth quarter
of FY 1992 for FY 1993 aad duriag fee fourth quarter of FY 1993 for FY 1994 to aUow sufficient time for
scheduling end pre-iaspectioa activities.
It is important to note feat all inspections should fellow Regional protocol for conducting multi-msdis
inspections. Ia addition, fee inspection teams should make provisions for ^Muhrrtiiig aa outfariefing
summarizing the preliminary findings of fee inspection. Aa mm
-------
>( A:
a. Stoic Hat the Delegated Authority
When * violation is detected during IB inspection, EPA's response typically depends upon whether the
vioUboB cited is part of a State-delegated program. For example, if EPA detects RCRA labelling tad manifest
violations, most State* have RCRA jurisdiction over these violation. Therefore. EPA would typically refer the
cut ID AC state for action* Depending on tbt Memorandum of Agraemeat betmeeu the EPA Region ad the
Stole and lac Region's working relationship with the Sou, the State would probably have a specified amount of
time to take aa enforcement action. If fee State fails to take action withia its allotted amount of tine after
rcfaml, IBM EPA would determine whether it will take aa action.
Waiting lor a State's dacisioa at this point ta die enforcement precaai may eauaa oaaceataary daiayi
aad hinder profress toward a sound settlement agreement. Resource efficiencies would he realized if the
Regions coordinate with the affected States as soon as the targeted facilities are selected, aad if possible include
the States in the targeting process. At that time, the Slate should deteraiac whether it has As neourcas to fully
participate ia the initiative. EPA hopes that the States will have the resources to participate in the inspection!
and conduct/support the enforcement actions where authority has been delegated.
h. EPA-kad Enforcement Actions
When EPA detects a violation which is NOT part of a State-delegated program, or, if the State decides
that EPA should be the lead (baaed oa coordination between EPA aad the States whan the facility is selected),
EPA will take the appropriate enforcement i
If EPA has the lead in the enforcement action, the next issue is what enforcement authority EPA should
use. For those statutes under which EPA has order authority (e.g., RCRA, CAA), OFFE encourages EPA to
exercise such authority. EPA may then choose to negotiate one admiaistntive settlement under oV various
statutes where violations have been detected, if the Region deems that appropriate. The proper application of
various statutes can provide leverage to die Regions/States, which may streamline the enforcement process.
For those violations for which EPA currently does not have order authority and EPA is the lead, EPA
would first issue a Notice of Non-compliance and then follow up with a Federal facility compliance agreement.
EPA and States also should exercise statutory penalty authorities against Federal facilities where they
clearly exist (e.g., RCRA). The recent Supreme Court decision held that the State of Ohio could not assess and
collect penalties for past violations of RCRA or the CWA. Instead, States are eligible to collect coercive
penalties only, or penalties for future violations. This msy present opportunities for increased use of stipulated
penalties in Federal facility compliance agreements or State enforcement actions. The recent FFCA overturns
this Supreme CourTdecision as it applies to RCRA.
Where me initiative is conducted at a govcmment-cwned contractor-operated facility (COCO), EPA
msy use the same enforcement authorities that are svaitable at any private party site. This would include the
authority to issue compliance orders as well as to assess and collect penalties. These authorities should be
exercised at COCO facilities, where appropriate, to the same extent as such authorities are exercised at private
party sites.
c Multi-media Enforcement Settlements/Actions:
State- or EPA-lead enforcement activities msy generate cases where violations exist under more thaa
one statute. This multi-media initiative will likely present cases of this nature. In cases when violations occur
under various statutes, it is an objective of this iaitistive for EPA and the States to address all violations under
COKTIDEMTIXL
10
-------
Miilu "adii eMtUmanu should help streamline the enforcement proceas by eliminating the aeed for
individual srtdamanTi for each atatute or media. For example, there may be canes where EPA identifies Federal
inmU-n-w th»t M nut of eaeylkaM wiA e^rtiia provis»os of both RCRA and CWA. Regions aad States
ahould work to negotiate one multi-media enforcement settlement uxorpontini all violations identified under
each program. Regions and States abould. follow tha guidance outlined ia the document'Final Addendum on
Multi-Media Enforcement to the Policy Framework on Stale/Federal Enforcement Agreements.*
r (i.e., completion of negotiations within 90*120
ity exiets, EPA nay chooaa to proceed with an
by ae Region, In other words, if there is
If negotiations are aot proceeding ia a timely i
of the identification of the violation^)) aad order
administrative order without aegorialing it, using a i
a lack of cooperation from tha Federal Agency (or fecility) during negotiations. EPA or the State may determine
not to pursue a single settlement addressing the various madia violations. Instead. EPA and the State My
pursue asperate enforcement actions. We believe that the Federal Agency's desire to obtain oae multi-media
settlement covering all madia violations will encourage Federal Agencies to negotiate ia a timely
X. EaviroamentaDy Beneficial Project!
As stated, one of the primary goals of the initiative ia to enhance P2 activities at Federal facilities.
Specifically, pollution prevention should be included ia all enforcement settlements under this initiative, to the
extent that they arc appropriate. One objective is to utilise pollution prevention approaches or solutions as the
primary means of addressing compliance problems and violations identified during the OMilti-aadia inspections.
This goal is consistent with tbe President's and tbe Congrees' vision net pollution prevention is tbe
most desirable environmental management strategy. Currently there is a great deal of P2 activity underway at
Federal facilities. Several of these activities arc described in the draft Federal Government Pollution Prevention
Strategy, which has been issued by OFFE and OPPT pursuant to the Agency's Pollution Prevention Strategy.
February. 1991.
initiative will build upon the themes outlined ia fee above P2 atralegy dominants, but will also
the Agency's two primary guidance documents which address P2 activities ia relation to enforcement
Policy on tbe Use of Supplemental Enforcement Projects (SEP) in EPA Settlements, Jamas M.
.Strode, February 12, 1991 (this document is provided M Attachment V to this guidance), and
, Policy on Ota Inclusion of Pollution Prevention and Recycling Provisions ia
Enforcement Sentiments. Jsmcs M. Strock. February 25.1991 (this document is provided as
Attachment VI to *BP* guidance).
These dnnimmts deecriba a specific methodology for considering P2 activities as part of enforcement
negotiations and settlements. They identify five specific types of SEP'a; pollution prevention projects, pollution
reduction projects, environmental restoration projects, environmental auditing projects, aad eafofoamant-ralatad
environmental public awareness projects. The document 'Policy oa the UBS of Supplemental Enforcement
Projects in EPA Settlements* specifically addresses penalty reduction ta exchange for P2 (or other types of
environmentally beneficial) project*, hence would generally aot be applicable to Federal facilities other than
GOCO's. By contrast, the document 'Interim Policy on Inclusion of Pollution Prevention and Recycling
i in Enforcement Settlements* lists factors lo be considered when deciding whether P2 activities should
gKTORCgHEKT COHflDENTIXL
11
-------
be used to correct ft* violation iudf or done in addition to the ntun to eoopliaoce; these factors would be
applicable whether fee Region wit negotiating with t private contractor or directly with the Federal facility.
This iaitiative will build upoa the applicable strategy ad policy documents deecrihed above by
empheiiTiin source nductioe1 activities ia every eafbrcement senlsmtaf to the •«•«"•"«« extant practicable.
For every enforcement settlement, the lUfioa tad the Stale should seek to iaclude any source reduction
activities when pncticabk. taking iato eonaidcntioa dM definition of acceptable SEPs and pollution prevention
activities, as thai* tarns an uead ID dte above-nferenced pollution prevention policy documents. U it
ifflpoftaot to note, bowavar. that the foal of tba taitiacivt it to matimiit F2 activibw. bcocc, iiaitatiow wbich
an aabodiad ia tfae policy documMU, wbich awy aot be fully applieaMa abould aot preclude punuit of
naaooable eouree nductioa activitiae to the muamtm aslant practicable.
The Regions will be asked to monitor the extent to which source reduction activities have'
ta enforcement settlements under this initiative, at wall as the benefits achieved through implementation of such
Battlements. This ia essential to determining the value and effectivenees of this initiative. At the end of each
year of the iaitiativa, Regions will be asked to nport on fteir source nductioa sarcasm by submitting the
information discussed below. Section DC, Multi-Media Enforcement Communicatioas. The Regions will also be
asked to nport this information on substances not utiliad or released during the eecond year of the iaitiative for
all facilities, including those which wen included m the first year of the iaitiativa.
As this is a Federal facilities iaitiativa, Regions and States an encouraged to consider multi-facility
source nductioe activities as pan of individual settlements, or ia conjunction with ft* several settlements at
multiple facilities. OFFE will work cloeely with all Regions to identify opportunities for such innovative
settlements. For example, aa enforcement action at a single fin-fighting training facility (FFTF) could be
expended to iaclude source nductioa activities at other facilities which operate FFTF'a but wan aot pan of the
iaitiativa. Likewise, if several Regions wan pursuing enforcement negotiations at several facilities operated by
one DOD service, the possibility of a series of source reduction activities throughout all of that service's
facilities should be explored.
The Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory (RREL) of EPA's Office of Research and Development is
a major resource available to enforcement personnel for expertise in the identification of pollution prevention
opportunities. RREL will assist the Regions by providing potential pollution prevention solutions for identified
anas of aoo
-------
objectives will he carefully tracked by the Regions through the identification by OFFE at me start of the
initiative* of the data to be collected. The data collected should support those items outlined in the objectives
The oat of publicity etnas t datareat effect that u an integnj put of
-------
xn.
Major
The foUowmi is a list of msjor milestones for the Federal facility multi-medu ooapttanc* initiative.
They may he revised to reflect progress and/or necessary changes during the initiative:
02/92
laiftntor Tale's article "EPA's Enforcement Priorities for Fiscal Year 1992"
>t*i Ffifnteement JojiouJ, February 1992, identifies
at Federal facilities (this document is provide as Attachment VD ID this guidance)
04/92 initial OTnetpt rr~ for fee FY 1993/1994 initiative to Regions from OFFE, after EMC workgroup
wvitw. Overall initiative is deacribed, iacludiag facility aatoetwe,
components.
05/92 AssistMt Adniiiustretor T*te issue* Fi»l Adc^odum « Md
oa State/Federal Eaforcemeat Agreements (this document is provided as Attachment TH to
widi dw fir* drift of A* unpltmnutioo
fuiduc* for the initiative (this document it provided M AOaduMt VIE to this
lUtpoon to ooDoept paper comment! test to <
06/92
07/92 Deputy Administrator Habicat iawac aatiooal fuidaoce oo State/EPA Eofofcemcnt Afneneats
hifhlifbtinf the Federal Faeilittw Multi-Media EoforeeaMBt/ConeliaDee Inituhv* (thu documeot is
provided ai ABachmeBt IV to thu fuidaaoe).
10/92
11/92
11/92
01/93
02/93
02/93
02/93
03/93
Issue draft implementation guidance for the FY 1993/1994 initiative Iron Deputy Administrator
Habicht to DAAs and DRAs.
Response from Regions indicating initial list of targeted facilities and extent of expected participation.
Comments from Regions and HQ offices oa the draft implementation guidance.
Deputy Administrator Habicbt issues memorandum to Federal Department and Agency Secretaries and
Administrators annouaciag the Federal Facilities Multi-Media Enforcement/Compliance Initiative.
OFFE begins distribution of P2 opportunity profiles to the Region.
Issuance of the final HQ communications strategy.
Distribution of annotated outline for inbriefiags and outbriefings for inspections under the initiative.
Distributies) of final implementation guidance for the initiative addressing commenters concerns to
Regions and HQ offices.
06/93 National press raleaas condudiag first phase of enforcement activities for the initiative.
L/93 National press release oa completion of second phase of enforcement activities for the initiative.
02/94 Draft report oa the results of the first and second phase of enforcement for the initiative.
06/94 National press release oa completion of third phase of enforcement activities for the initiative.
EKTORCZKEKT COKTTPEKTIXL
14
-------
112/94 National pteaa nleaae on completion of fourth phase of enforcement activities aad completion of overall
initiative.
0619$ Final Report oa the two-year iaitiative.
X1IL CoaduBOOi
•
At the end of die two-year initiative. OFFE will nicuc • raport. b*Hd opoa tttcasivt Rtfioaal tad
State input, deecribiDf the national tnod ia oonpliaaoe MM at Fcdenl fadlitm. at wall at a nunmary of Ib*
aovinnmeotal bcoefiu darivad from the iaitiativc, M aaaund ia lac eatcf oriea deacribad above, tba iAitiativc
will also last the effecavcaeas of nulti-nwdu appraaebec to aavtraooMatal eonpliaaoc aad impkoMBt pollution
pnvaatioa solutions to ideatifiad violatiou. Quaations and eommcDU rtftrdiaf lai( iaitiative abould be
forwarded to:
Jim Edward, Director
Stratcfic Planaiaf aad Prevention Division
Office of Federal Facilities Eaforccaxnt
U.S. EPA (OE-2261)
401 M Straet, S.W.
Waihiaitoa, D.C. 20460
(202) 260-1159 (direct) (202) 2604437 (tax)
or staff contact: Reffie Cbaathan (202) 260-4641/9437 (fax).
COKTIDEKTIXL
15
-------
-------
FEDERAL FAQUTIES HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPLIANCE MANUAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER 1 - MTRODUCnON
1A. The Federal FaclKles Hazardous Wast* Compliance Program
18. Ust of Complatad Federal Fadty Enforcement Agreements
CHAPTER 2 - STATUTORY AUTHORITY
2A. RCRA Section 6001
28. CERCLA Section 120
2C. Executive Order 12580
2D. Executive Order 12088
CHAPTER 3 - ENFORCEMENT POLICIES
3A. NPL listing policy for Federal Fadities, 40 CFR Part 300 (54 Federal Reohter. 3/13/89. p. 10520)
36. Federal Fadttes Negottattora Policy
3C Enforcement Actions Under RCRA and CERCLA at Federal FaclUat
3D. Elevation Process for Achieving Federal Fadly Compltance Under RCRA
3E_ Notice of Environmental Restoration Activities at Department of Defense Fadlties
3F. GOCO Policy
Enforcement Actions at Gowenvnert^Mrned/ContractorOparatad FadUes
Determination of Operator at Govemment-Owned/ContmcUjt -Operated FadUes
3G. Chapter 6 of the Community Relations Handbook: Communfty Relations during Enforcement
ActMbes and Development of the Administrative Record
3K
Off-see Policy
RFA or Equivalent investigation Requirement at RCRA Treatment and Storage Fadities
Revised Procedures for Planning and Implementing Off-efte Response Actions
31.
Procedures and Criteria for Department of Justice Coi
Federal Agencies
lence in EPA Administrative Orders to
1/90
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPLIANCE MANUAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
Enforcing lAGs using Sactton 310 (Otean's Suft Provisions) of CERCLA
Dapartmant of Justfca. EnforcMbllty of Saction 120 Fad* J
3J.
Stats of Maine, Dapartmant of tha Attomay Ganaral; anforoaabllty of Naw Brunswick Navm) Air
Station Intaragancy Agraamant using tha Cttzan's Suit Provisions of CERCLA Saction 310
(2/13/89)
EPA. Enforcaabllty of lAGs using CERCLA Sactton 310
Dapartmant of Justice, Enforoaabllty of Hanford agraamant undar CERCLA Saction 310
CHAPTER 4 - MODEL PROVISIONS FOR FEDERAL FACHJTY AGREEMENTS
4A. Agreement wth tha Dapartmant of Daf anaa - Modal Provisions for CERCLA Fadaral Fadfty
nant of Enargy - Modal Provision* for CERCLA Fadaral Fadfty
4C. Transmfttai of Stats Workgroup's Suggastad ModMcanb loDOD- *A Modal IAG language
DoD Suggastad IAG Languaga from tha Stata and Fadaral Agancy Workgroup
National Governor'* Association. Suggastad Languaga tar Thraa-party Fadaral Fadfty
Intaragancy Agraamants tor National Priority List (NPL) Sftas
40. Rocky Flats FedeiaJ Fadlry Cornpllsnca Agreement (ra: Mbcad Waata and Land Ban)
CHAPTER 5 - DOCKET/NPL LISTINGS
SA, Fadaral Agancy Hazardous Wasta Compllanca Dockat Piaamblas
SB. Fadaral Agancy Hazardous Waata Compllanca Dockat Regional Listings
5C. NPL listings
CHAPTER 6 --OTHER APPLICABLE GUIDANCE
6A. Land Ban
^
J. Cannon. Policy for Suparfund Compllanca wth tha RCRA Land Disposal Restrictions. OSWE*
Directive 9347.1<02
1/90
-------
FEDERAL FACILITIES HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPLIANCE MANUAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
66. Mixed Wast*
Department of Energy's (DOE) Final Byproduct Rule on Mixed Waste Regulation at DOE
Fadftiea (OSWER memo and 10 CFR Part 962, S2 Federal Register. May 1.1967)
Qartflcatton of Interim Status OuaHRcation Requirements lor the Hazardous Components of
Radioactive Mbced Waste (S3 Federal Register. September 23,1968)
Bruce Waddto, OSW. State Program Advisory #2 - RCRA Authorization to Regutata Mixed
Wastes
State Authorization to Regufee Hazardous Components of Radioactive Mixed Wastes (51
Federal Register. Jury 3,1986) «s attachment
Office of General Counsel. Regutatton of Radioactive Mixed Waste Under RCRA
6C. RCRA Operating Guidance: Chapter 5. Federal FadUties
CHAPTER 7 - DATA MANAGEMENT
7A. SCAP/SPMS Definitions and Methodology
78. CERCLJS Guidance
CHAPTER 8 - DOO GUIDANCE/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Defense Environmental Restoration Program Description
Defense Priority Model (54 Federal Register. October 20.1989)
Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement
DoD Directive - Hazardous Material Pollution Prevention
Management Guidance for Execution of the FY 1990/91 Defense Environmental Restoration Program
(DERP)
Memorandum on DoO's Policy on NPL Site Agreements
Memorandum on Agreements for NPL SKes - Interim Guidance Material
CHAPTER 9 - DOE GUIDANCE/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
Department of Energy Enviroomental Restoration and Waste Management Frve-year Plan
1/90
-------
FEDERAL FAQLJIIES HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPLIANCE MANUAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(CONTINUED)
DOE Memorandum: Negotiation of Consent Decrees, Compliance Agreements andanySlmlar
Agreements
DOE Memorandum: Policy on Future Environmental Compliance Agreements
DOE Memorandum: DOE CompUsnce AgrMrmntt
DOE Mwnorandum: Agratmint wth the Environmental Pretadton Ao«ncy - Modd ProvWont tor
CERCLA F«d«r&
DOE Invfcat Govamom to Negotiata Environmental CompHane* Aofaamanu
DOE Order Environmental Compllince lasue Coordination
Secrvtary of Energy Notice: Setting the New DOE Come
CHAPTER 10 - ORGANIZATION CHARTS/CONTACTS
Federal Fadfty Hazardous Waste ComplJanee Office (FFHWCO)
Department of Defence
D- aartment of Energy
Department of interior
1/90
-------
H.R.2194
Hundrtf gtcond
• *.'"•••$••••£.' :"»"»•?'-•*•• '• •.. • •'•>.- .• •••'vi '• ._ . .
•'•• "V-:.7Y' '. r. - AT THE SECOND SESSION
BefiM ewf ii«U •< Ift* Oly •/r«WjVt«« ew Friary. tW
'
'
T* WHHid 4to 8oU Wart* Di^OMl Aat M dtfiQr
.tiett •f>trtatot^uiri»wu »ni oatttex to fatoidfcriHtttt,.
Be ti enacted 6y
-------
*>
V''
• .-... . .. . H.R.21M—2
(including, but «ot finritod to. any fine or t
branch of-the federal
; to any'sttch sanction.*.'. ' ~" ' •'
(b) AMONIBTXATrVE BNFOKKMENT
be
section b
•ADMMaTRATrvE ENFORCEMENT Acnowa.—(1)
Administrator may commence an administrative enforcement action
against any department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive,
••)••••»» ^wa^ VBWMWM WM««»M««| ej^^uvji v» isssjiiis 9mm9**mmt++j w *M VsvVbWUVVi
legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Govamment pursuant
to the enforcement authorities contained in this Act The Adminis-
trator shall initiate an administrative enforcement action •gainst
such a department, agency, or instrumentality in the same manner
and under the same circumstances as an action would be initiated
against another person. Any voluntary resolution or settlement
of such an action shall be set forth in a consent order.
*<2) No administrative order issued to such a department,
agency, or instrumentality shall become final until such department,
agencv, or instrumentality has had the opportunity to conier with
the Administrator.
•
-------
R P. 2 194—3
Act mvotving ttorage oT mixed waste
.' -TO WM respect to the ^De*art
«T aomifirlBuani* referiJHto in
*ttfr*fter Ifae date the* it 8
s*a]l
the enactment of this Act for violations of section aOQ4Q) of
tuch Act involving storage of mixed watte, at-long at the
_ _..^_-__^...•«,. ....... ipHaacewithbotb^-^
(I) a plan that hat been submitted and approved ptinu-
ant to section 3021(b) of the Solid Watte Disposal Act
and which is in effect; and
(ii) an order requiring eompliance with euch plan which
ha* been iatued punuant to such section 3021(b) and which
it in effect
(4) APPLICATION Or WAIVER TO AGREEMENTS AMD ORDERS.—
The waiver of eovereign immunity contained in eection 6001(a)
of the Solid Watte Ditpotal Act (at added by the amendment!
made by aubeection (a)) thall take affect on the date of the
enactment of this Act with respect to any agreement, permit.
or administrative or judicial order emitting on each date of
enactment (and any subsequent modifications to tuch an agree-
ment, permit, or order), including. without limitation, any provi-
eion of 'an agreement, permit, or order that addresses
compliance with section 3004
-------
4
'(4)"Tbi' action Viortiw
w adding at the end
w. . ^ . ••.
„ oaU of the.ena^teentaf the Federal
- Facility Compliance Act of 1992, the Admfaiarratnr shall c*
duct a comprehensive ground water monitoring evaluaclon
• the facility, unless sucn an evaluation was conducted * *
the 12-month period preceding such date of enactment.*.
SEC. 10S. KDCED WASTE INVENTORY REPORT* AND PLAN.
(a) MOID WASTE AMENDMENT.—(1) Subtitle C of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 et aaq.) is amended by adding
at the end the following new section:
WASTE INVENTORY REPORTS AND PLAN.
"(a) MIXED WASTE INVENTORY REPORTS.—
tl) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 180 days after the date
of the enactment of the Federal Facility Ctmiplfr"*t Act of
1992, the Secretary of Energy shall submit to the Administrator
and to the Governor of each State in which the Department
of Energy store* or generates mixed wastes the following
reports:
"(A) A report containing a national inventory of all
such mixed wastes, regardless of the time they were gen-
erated, on a State-by-State basis.
tB) A report containing a national inventory of mixed
waste treatment capacities and technologies.
"(2) INVENTORY OF WASTES.— The report required by para-
graph (1XA) shall include the following:
*XA) A description of each type of mixed waste at
each Department of Energy facility in each State, including,
at a minimum, the name of the waste stream.
*KB) Hie amount of each type of mixed waste currently
stored at each Department of Energy facility in each State,
set forth separately by mixed waste that is subject to
the land disposal prohibition requirements of section 8004
and mixed waste that is not subject to such prohibition
requirements.
*(C) An estimate of the amount of each type of mixed
waste the Department expects to generate In the next
6 yean at each Department of Energy facility in each
State,
tD) A description of any waste minimitation actions
the Department has implemented at each Department of
Energy facility in each State for each mixed waste stream.
TE) The EPA hazardous waste code for each type
of mixed waste containing waste that has been character-
ized at each Department of Energy facility in each State.
•(F) An inventory of each type of waste that has not
been characterized by sampling and analysis at each
Department of Energy facility in each State.
"(G) The basil for the Department's determination of
the applicable hazardous watte code for each type of mixed
waste at each Department of Energy facility and a descrip-
tion of whether the determination is baaed on sampling
-------
^. V.;
W -..
H.R.2194—5
and analysis conducted on the waste or on the basis of
process knowledge. , . . .
. r .. TH) A description of the eource of each type of mixed
<•-•- ~&1*n&^#f^-i*^&%togtito-.
laM rfimttfll tiRJbJbltion .tpMtlai)^^:^k^^gy .
_ . the hsiardous waste compo-
nent of each type ef mixed waste at aoch Department
ojTEnergy faciUty> each State. «^««—
%J) A Statement of whether and low the redionucUda
content of the waste -alten or affectoawe of .the technologies
deeeribed in •ubparagraph (IX
'' «•>«%•> u-ti_».amAj_^_r T-^_^ _i_^j_r__iA--lii
NOU^.-TW_ieporU*equi»d ij pen^raph. OXBXiahaJl,
indude-tbe following:'" '•-.:«•* -.!•?,•• ..« * -.- -.v • • . - •
*tA) An eetimate of the •vailable treatment capacity
for «ach -waete deeeribed in the-reert requited by
'
-?XB) AdeecnjpUoa, including the 'capacity, number and
location, ef each treatment unit contidered in calculating
the eetimate under eubparagraph (A).
"(C) A deecripUon. including the capacity, number and
location, of any exiiting treatment unit that wae not conaid>
ered in calculating the eetimate under eubparagraph (A)
but that could, alone or in conjunction with ether treatment
unite, be ueed to treat any of the waitee deeeribed in
the report required by paragraph C1XA) to meet the require-
mentf of reguletioni promulgated pursuant to eection
3004(m).
"(D) For each unit listed in •ubparagraph (C), a etate-
ment of the reasons why the unit wae not included in
calculating the estimate under •ubparagraph (A).
*(£} A description, including the capacity, number,
location, and estimated date of availability, of each treat*
ment unit currently proposed to increase the treatment
capacities estimated under subparafraph (A).
tF) For each waste described in the report required
by paragraph (1XA) for which the Department has deter-
mined no treatment technology exiete, information suffi-
cient to support such determination and a description of
the technological approaches the Department anticipates
will need to be developed to treat the waete.
"(4) COMMENTS AND UNIONS.— Not later than 90 daye
after the date of the submission of the reports by the Secretary
of Energy under paragraph (1), the Administrator and each
State which received the reports shall submit any comments
they may have concerning the reports to the Department of
Energy. The Secretary of Energy shall consider and publish
the comments prior to publication of the final report
*(D) REQUESTS TOR ADDITIONAL WTORMATION.— Nothing in
this subsection limits or restricts the authority of States or
the Administrator to request additional information from the
rW* lelery of Energy.
"(b) PLAN FOR DCVELOPMEKT or TUATMEKT CAPACITIES AND
TECHNOLOGIES.—
*U) PLAN REQUIREMENT.— (AXi) For each facility at which
the Department of Energy generates or stores mixed wastes,
except any facility subject to a permit, agreement, or order
- - -..*•••... H.'
• -.. . .-«' -;.* - ... _i «*i
-------
H.R.2194—3
described in clause (ii), the Secretary of Energy shall develop
and submit, as provided in paragraph .(2), apian for developing
treatment capacities aod tach&olqcies to treat an of the facffity*
mtxad^waitas,^ regtBdleaA..oi: the tin* tfasyLwats ccnarattd.
• •• • #T^, P i
pr0inulc.ua
Oaaa« G) thall
•ubject to any permit
••"j"*« •" "«v !'• * vwuuMuug • •••••HUM mrr tr*»MB*uv
of such.was.tee, ortany existing agreement or administrative
or Judicial' order governing the treatment of such -wastes, to '
• fcT.li ili'i'ltl i l'i ft • timtt _ -• • • • • .
contain the following:
g ayaami tatng, oommcnnf oper
Hbacklogied-and curraBtly fenerated
* --
"Ui) For mixed wastes for which, no .treatment tach-
oologies exist, a schedule for identifying and developing
such technologies, identifying the funding requirements for
the identification and development of aueh technologies.
submitting treatability study exemptions, and submitting
research and development permit applications.
^iii) For all cases where the Department proposes
radionuclide separation of mixed wastes, or materials
derived from mixed wastes, it shall provide an estimate
of the volume of waste generated by each cue of radio-
nuclide separation, the volume of waste that would exist
or be generated without radionuciids separation, the esti-
mated costs of waste treatment and disposal if radionuctide
separation is used compared to ths tftitnujin! coats if it
is not used, and the assumptions underlying such waste
volume and cost estimates.
*XC) A plan required under this subsection may provide
for centralized, regional, or on-eite treatment of mixed wastes,
or any combination thereof.
t2> REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF PLAN.—(A) For each facility
that is located in a State (i) with authority under State law
to prohibit land disposal of mixed waste until the waste has
been treated and (ii) with both authority under State law
to regulate the hazardous components of mixed waste and
. • • . * m . • •* • • . • MB .. B • A *
authorization from the Environmental Protection Agency under
iponents of
waste, the Secretary of Energy ahall submit the plan rsquired
section 3006 to regulate the hazardous components of mixed
under paragraph (1) to the appropriate State regulatory «**•*•'•
for their review and approval, modification, or disapproval
In reviewing the plan, the State shall consider the need for
regional treatment facilities. The State shall consult with the
Administrator and any other State in which a facility affected
by the plan is located and consider public comments in •»«l""ig
its determination on the plan. The State shall approve, approve
with modification!, or disapprove the plan within 6 month*
after receipt of the plan.
~(B) For each facility located in a State that does oot
have the authority described in subparagraph (A), the Secretary
shall submit the plan required under paragraph (1) to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for
-------
H.R.2194— 7
../"..."; v.
review and approval, modification, or diaapprovaL A copy of
the-nlan also ^ahall be provided -by the Secretary to the. State
' such ladlity to located,,!^ teviowine: the plan, the
fcbflttfee. • '
&a*as in which any facility
p«Hk comments to
the plan. DM Adminiitrator ahall approve, approve with modi-
fication*, -or disapprove the plan wttfiui 6 months after receipt
of the-plan.
order orjde* appropriate State muthorivjr, requiring «empliaBce .
with the approved plan. • • ;
' ;-t3)' PDMJC WumoPATiON.—Upon «-i>-»«—y-» of a- plan
4? -the Secretary: «f Ettergr ta the Administrator er a Stak, -
and before approval of the plan by the AdminiitniUir «-a-.
State, the Aominietrator or State ahall publiah a notice of
the availability of the aubmitted plan and make each eubmitted
plan available to the public on requeat
•(4) REVISIONS or PLAN.—If any revieiona of an approved
plan are proposed by the Secretary of Energy or required by
the Adminiatrator or a State, the proviaions of paragraph*
(2) and (3) thaU apply to the revuions in the eame manner
at they apply to the original plan.
"(5) WAIVER or rtAN REQUIREMEKT.—UO A State nay
waive the requirement for the Secretary of Energy to develop
and aubmit a plan under this eubeeetion for a facility located
in the State if the State (i) entart into an agreement with
the Secretary of Energy that addressee compUanee at that
facility with aection SOMQ) with respect to mood waste, and
(ii) iatuee an order requiring compliance with such agreement
and which is in affect
"(B) Any violation of an agreement or order referred to
in aubparagraph (A) u subject to the waiver of sovereign immu-
nity contained in section 6001(»).
*(c) SCHEDULE AND PROGRESS REPORTS.—
«(1) SCHEDULE.—Not later than 6 months after the date
of the enactment of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of
1992. the Secretary of Energy ahall publish in the Federal
Register a schedule for submitting the plans required under
subsection (b).
"(2) PROGRESS REPORTS.—(A) Not later than the deadlines
specified in eubparagraph (B), the Secretary of Energy shall
submit to the Committee on Environment and Public Works
of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce
of the House of Representative* a progress report containing
the following:
•U) An identification, by facility, of the plans that
have been submitted to States or the Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to eub-
eeetion (b).
•(ii) The status of State and Environmental Protection
Agency review and approval of each such plan.
•(iii) The number of orders requiring compliance with
such plans that are in effect.
-------
H.R.2194—8
*(iv) For the first 2 reports required under this para-
graph, an identification of .the plans required under such
c-s^
tary bT Energy shall eupaut < :••'•* ".-
*i» •• *i»J»Vv, • / »». •* •" ft..*1
Solid. Waste. Dis^jaal Act
6902) i
»..**• ...
,._, —e term 'mixed waste* means waste that
both hazardous waste and source, special nuclear, or fc
material subject to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (
2011eteeq.)>.
(c)GAO REPORT..
(1) REQUIREMENT.—Not later than IB months after the
date of the enactment of this Act, the Comptroller General
shall submit to Congress a report on the Department of Ener-
gy's progreu in complying with section 302l(b) of the Solid
*?t _f_ »%T » A_t *• * -m
(2) MATTERS TO BE INCLUDED.—The report required under
paragraph (1) shall contain, at a minimum, the following:
(A) The Department of Energy's progress in submitting
to the States or the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency a plan for each facility for which a
plan is required under section 3021(b) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act and the status of State or Environmental
Protection Agency review and approval of each euch plan.
(B) The Department of Energy's progress in entering
into orders requiring compliance with any such plans that
have been approved.
(C) An evaluation of the completeness and adequacy
of each such plan as of the date of submission of the
report required under paragraph (1).
(D) An identification of any recurring problems among
the Department of Energy's submitted plans.
(E) A description oftreatment technologies and capac-
ity that have been developed by the Department of Energy
since the date of the enactment of this Act and a list
of the wastes thst are expected to be treated by euch
technologies and the facilities at which the wastes are
generated or stored.
(F) The progreu made by the Department of Energy
in characterizing its mixed waate streams at each euch
facility by sampling and analysis.
(G) An identification and analysis of additional actions
that the Department of Energy must take to—
(i) complete submission of all plans required under
such section 302 Kb) for all such facilities;
-------
' * •
- '..». - V : ".-'
"•-" •'• ' '- • '• '• ,'., • •
:*...* :•-<•«"-.• - • •"••'.•
H.R.2194—9
(ii) obtain the adoption of orders requiring compli-
• ance with all such plans; and • •. •.. - •
010 devek^mijeed waste treatment capacity and
Ik^BMklBMV&i^^Bl • * *«• * "•«'»'* * •' .*' """ •*• .' *•*« " '"1*~' •.' *• *l':. -.1 '*
»-* *;«*'*«is>*
(a) AMENDUENT.-Subtia« C of tto Solid Waste Disposal Act
(42 UJS.C. $921 at aaq.) is further amended by addingat the
•• Uo»d.tn
. ia otherwise no loofcr ia aernbe: ar •• • • .-••-. "-•'* •'. *
•(2) the wasteu transferred to another p^Alk^raaaal within
the territorial waters of the United States and is stored oo
such veasel or another publk ^assri lor more than 90 daj*
after the date of transfer.
-(b) COMPUTATION OP STORAGE PDUOD.—For purposes of sub-
section (a), the 90-day period begins on the earlier of—
-(1) the date on which the publk vessel on which the
waste was generated u placed in reasnre or is otherwise no
longer in senrict, or
•(2) the date on which the waste is transferred from the
public vessel on which the waste was generated to another
public vessel within the territorial waters of the United States:
and continues, without interruption, as long as the waste is stored
on the original public vessel (if in reserve or not in eervice) or
another public vessel.
"(c) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:
"(1) Th« term 'public vessel' means a vessel owned or
bareboat chartered and operated by the United States, or by
a foreign nation, except when the vessel is engaged in
commerce.
"(2) The terms *in reserve* and *in service' have the mean*
ings applicable to those terms under section 7293 and sections
7304 through 7308 of title 10. United States Code, and regula-
tions proscribed under those sections.
"(d) RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAW.—Nothing in this section
shall be construed as altering or otherwise affecting the provisions
of section 7311 of title 10. United States Code.".
(b) TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of contents for subtitle
C of such Act (contained in section 1001) is further amended by
adding at the end the following new item:
3032. PttbBe «MM!I.'.
1ST. MUNITIONS.
Section 3004 of the Solid Waste Dispossl Act (42 U.S.C. 6924)
is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
*(y) MUNITIONS.—(1) Not later than 6 months after the date
of the enactment of the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992,
the Administrator shall propose, after consulting with the Secretary
of Defense and appropriate State officials, regulations identifying
-------
H.R.2194—10
when 'military munition* become hazardous waste for purposes
le and providing for the safe transportation ana storage
t*. Not laterthu 24 months after such date, and
*A lmivM**«ilt« •«* *if . -- - - .rr» . ._
of {his subtitle and
atJttch wast*.
; 4«ftsf
_ • • * • • i * ' ~ M
ite -such regulations. Any
. JAM r •_• » * _• ^
storage
and
ahaB
Lt/teimanh^th and the environment •
•(2) For pui-possi of this subsection, the torn *mllit*ry muni-
jtions' indudee chemical and conventional munitions".
(a)
AittMbioarr
.€. y«21 'M-
sod the following now
tt the
• ta) iN-OtNOUU— For purposes of section 1004(27). the phrase
Imt does aot inchidt solid or dissolved material.!* domestic atvate'.
•hall apply to any solid or dissolved arterial introduced by a
source into a federally owned treatment works if—
•U) such solid or dissolved natsrial is subject to a
pretreatment standard under section 307 of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1317). and the source is in
compliance with such standard;
*(2) for a solid or dissolved material for which a
pretreatment standard has not been promulgated pursuant to
section 307 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
U.S.C. 1317), the Administrator has promulgated a schedule
lor establishing such a pretreatment standard which would
be applicable to such solio or dissolved material net later than
7 years after the date of enactment of this section, ouch stand-
ard is promulgated on or before the date established to the
schedule, and after the effective date of such standard the
source is in compliance with such standard:
"(3) such solid or dissolved material is not covered by
paragraph (1) or (2) and is not prohibited from land disposal
under subsections (d). (e). U), or (g) of section 3004 because
such material has been treated in accordance with section
3004
-------
H.R.2194—11
"(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to affect
any otfcer enforcement authorities available to the Administrator
or a State under this subtitle. . . ,
.^d) IMrwrnoN,—For purposes of thit .section, .the term tsdar-.
»*•«•-- « u •*. ..**». w ^ . i- _ .. _ j •* JM »• ••• ^j. ^__ • .!..*„.». . A. ' •.
: by a department, agency, or instrumentality of the1 Federal
Government treating wastewater, a majority of which k
aewage, prior to discharge in accordance with a permit iasued
under section 402 of the Federal'Water Pollutke/Coafrol Act.
"(e) 8AVINO9 CLAUSE.—"Nothing in this section. fl*«ll be con-
.strued afji^ecting any, agreement, pennit, jar {dritfnistrative. or
'fie^UCe^BU 'Oe^QCaTk Of tftSf CODfiAClOO 04* YOQUUV^^kAB
an agreement, permit, or order, .that is in existence on the'date
of the enactment oFthis section- and that requires 'corrective action
or closure at a federally owned treatment works or solid waste
management unit or facility related to such a treatment works.'.
• '•tbj TECHNICAL AMENDMENT.—The-ttbk of contenta-ibr subtitle
C of such Act (contained in section lOOl) is furthef amended by
adding at the end the following new item: • "
*S«. 3023. Fedtrtlly ewntd tiMtmtnt worfca.*.
SEC. US. SMALLTOWN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING.
(a) ESTABLISHMENT.—The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency (hereafter referred to at the "Administrator'')
shall establish a program to assist small communities in fi««"»««g
and financing environmental facilities. The program shall be known
as the "Small Town Environmental Planning Program".
(b) SMALL TOWN ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING TASK FORCE.—
(1) The Administrator shall establish a Small Town Environmental
Planning Task Force which shall be composed of representatives
of small towns •from different areas of the United States, Federal
and State governmental agencies, and public interest groups. The
Administrator shall terminate the Task Force not later than 2
years after the establishment of the Task Force.
(2) The Task Force shall—
(A) identify regulations developed pursuant to Federal
environmental laws which pose significant compliance problems
for small towns;
(B) identify means to improve the working relationship
between the Environmental Protection Agency (hereafter
referred to as the Agency) and small towns;
(C) review proposed regulations for the protection of the
environmental and public health and suggest revisions that
could improve the ability of small towns to comply with such
regulations;
(D) identify means to promote regionalization of environ-
mental treatment systems and infrastructure serving small
towns to improve the economic condition of such systems and
- infrastructure: and
(E) provide such other assistance to the Administrator as
the Administrator deems appropriate.
(c) IDENTIFICATION or ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS.—(1)
Not later than 6 months after the date of the enactment of this
Act, the Administrator shall publish a list of requirements under
Federal environments! and public health statutes (and the regula-
tion* developed pursuant to such statutes) applicable to small
-------
H.R.2194—12
towns; Not less than annually,'the Administrator shall make such
additions and deletions to and from the list as the Administrator
.-#>'
•Natal Wanning Program Under 1
to notify small communities of the regulations identified under
paragraph (1) and of future regulations and requirements through
methods that the Administrator determines to be effective to provide
information to the greatest number of small communities.' ' "
any of the following:
(B) Other news media.
(C) Trade, municipal, and ether associations that the
Administrator determines to be appropriate.
(D) Direct mail
(d) SMALL TOWN OMBUDSMAN.—The Administrator shall ostab-
lish and staff an Office of the Small Town Ombudsman. The Office
shall provide assistance to small towns in connection with the
Small Town Environmental Planning Program and other business
with the Agency. Each regional office shall identify a email town
contact. The Small Town Ombudsman and the regional contacts
also may assist larger communities, but only If first priority is
given to providing assistance to small towns. •
(e) MULTI-MEDIA PEUOTS.—(1) The Administrator shall con*
duct a study of establishing a multi-media permitting program
for small towns. Such evaluation shall include an analysis of—
(A) environmental benefits and liabilities of a multi-
media permitting program;
(B) the potential of using such a program to coordinate
a small town's environmental and public health activities;
end
(C) the legal barriers, if any. to the establishment
of such a program.
(2) Within 3 years after the date of enactment of this Act,
the Administrator shall report to Congress on the results of the
evaluation performed in accordance with paragraph (1). Included
in this report shall be a description of the activities conducted
pursuant to subsections (a) through (d).
-------
TRIBAL LANDS INSPECTIONS
• Historical Perspective
Inspection and Enforcement Approaches
• Inspection Protocol
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: Tribal Lands Inspections
KEY POINTS:
• During this presentation, we will discuss:
— Types of agreements entered into with Indian Tribal governments, such as
Notices of Noncompliance (NONs)
— Enforcement actions that can (and may not) be taken when violations occur
on Tribal lands—as you know, because of the status of facilities on Tribal
lands, EPA cannot use the standard enforcement tools otherwise available
— Protocol for conducting inspections on Tribal lands.
VII-1 - 6
-------
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
• EPA - Tribal Government Partnership
• Indian 'Self-government"
Govemment-to-Govemment Relations
Between U.S. and Tribes
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Historical Perspective
KEY POINTS:
• Before we begin these discussions, let's look at the history behind inspections on
Tribal lands.
• The partnership that EPA has established and continues to foster with Tribal
governments is based on the principles outlined in the EPA Policy for the
Administration of Environmental Programs and Indian Policy Implementation
Guidance. The Policy and Guidance state that inspections must be based on the
principles of Indian "self-government," and relations between the Federal
government and Tribal Governments must be conducted on "a goyemment-
to-government" level. Accordingly, when inspectors are conducting CEIs, EPA
will give special consideration to Tribal protocol and ensure the close involvement
of Tribal governments in making decisions and reviewing environmental
compliance on reservation lands. Inspectors should stand ready to work directly
with Tribal officials on a one-to-one basis, rather than subordinate to state
agencies. EPA recognizes that Tribal governments have primary responsibility for
making environmental policy and for conducting facility evaluations on Tribal
lands. The EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs and
Indian Policy Implementation Guidance is included in your Participant's Manual.
VII-2--6
-------
PLANNING INSPECTION PROCEDURES
PLANNING/COORDINATION EVALUATION/ENFORCEMENT
CONDUCTING INSPECTION
CE1
• Conduct open discussion
• Rcvtow tocllity opsrstlng
procedure
• Conduct visual
Inspection
• Document obssrvittons/
•smplss
• Conduct closing
discussion
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Planning Inspection Procedures
KEY POINTS:
* This diagram is designed to illustrate the basic differences in planning an approach
for inspections on Tribal lands and for inspections of private facilities.
• Federal Indian Policy states that inspections should be conducted through
"govemment-to-government" relations by contacting the Tribal environmental
protection agency. Most RCRA CEI's are conducted jointly by EPA and the Tribal
agency. Actual inspection procedures may vary among EPA Regions. A list of the
Regional EPA Indian Coordinators is provided in your Participant's Manual for your
convenience.
• Aside from the special care taken in following the appropriate protocol, CEIs at
facilities on Tribal lands do not differ significantly from those conducted at private
facilities.
-------
AGREEMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT TOOLS
PLANNmO/COORMNATON EVALUATION/ENFORCEMENT
COMDUCTMO MSPECTION
ContaelTrltal
ce
DfQCtOtm
• bmductvtoMl
• PecuimfM
••mpwft
• Conduct doting
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Agreements and Enforcement Tools
KEY POINTS:
• Because the Federal government may not sue or fine an Indian Tribal government,
the specifics of enforcement at these facilities becomes complex. The following
enforcement tools are used to ensure compliance at facilities on Tribal lands:
— Indian Tribal governments and EPA usually negotiate compliance agreements
at facilities owned and operated by the Tribal government. Only after all other
dispute resolution negotiations fail should EPA issue administrative orders,
such as §3008(h) or §3008(a) compliance orders.
— Private facilities on Indian Tribal lands are also subject to all RCRA
enforcement actions and fines.
VII-4-,
-------
INDIAN TRIBAL FACILITY INSPECTIONS
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: Indian Tribal Facility Inspections
KEY POINTS:
• Before conducting an inspection at a Tribal land facility a considerable amount
of research and preparation must be done. Tribes are their own government
entity and inspectors must work with them to ensure a smooth inspection. By
following the appropriate protocol a potentially hostile situation (EPA
threatening to inspect, Tribal government threatening to bring charges for
trespassing) will be cooperative and pleasant.
• Tribal concerns and responsibilities will vary depending on the exact
owner/operator status of a facility. An inspector should determine if the Tribe
owns and operates the facility or if it is leasing it some other entity.
— Tribal owner/operator—a Tribal representative should be involved at all
stages of the inspection process
— Lease to non-Tribal entity—the Tribe must give permission for the
inspector to enter the property but will not accompany the inspector.
VII-5 - 6
-------
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: Indian Tribal Facility Inspections (continued)
KEY POINTS:
* It is important to have an understanding of the relationship between a Tribe and
a state. Although Tribes usually work only with the Region on environmental
issues, some may have a working relationship with the state. If so, the state
may already be involved with the Tribe or have some initial information that
may save you time.
• It is critical to contact the appropriate Tribal environmental representative
whether it is the Tribal Chairman, the Indian Health Offices, the Tribal Police
Officer, the legal offices, the environmental office, or another Tribal body.
inspector should meet with the appropriate Tribal representative and go
• the inspection procedures and seek information about specific Tribal
RS Pnr Mamnliv
The
over the inspection,
issues. For example:
— Is some information especially sensitive?
— Are there areas that are sacred and should not be photographed?
— Is there any information that would be considered sensitive that should be
made "confidential" in the report?
The inspector should be sure to go over what he or she is planning to do as part
of the inspection, including:
— Where you need to be taken
— What samples you plan to take (be sure to offer to split samples with the
Tribal representative)
— What photographs you plan to take (offer to give copies of the photos to
the representative)
— What will be included in the inspection report
— Who can get a copy of the report through the FOIA process (i.e., any state
or Federal agency or member of the public).
When conducting the inspection the Tribal representative will, most likely, want
to accompany the inspector. Be sure to follow all previously agreed-to
procedures.
Prepare the Inspection Report, making sure to note any sensitive material as
"confidential" so it will not be distributed to the public in response to a FOIA
request.
Be sure to give a copy of the Inspection Report, photographs, test results, etc. to
the Tribal representative.
Vll-6-6
-------
REVIEW
REMEMBER!
* Differences In Planning and Enforcement
• Different Protocols
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Review
KEY POINTS:
We would like to review several key pieces of information at this point.
• Because EPA may not be able to obtain direct access to Indian Tribal lands,
inspectors must plan to coordinate with the appropriate authority to conduct an
inspection. Plans must take into consideration whether a facility is Tribal-owned or
private.
• When conducting inspections, be aware of special protocols. Specifically, many
tribes have cultural protocols that should be followed.
Vll-1-8
-------
f
-------
MARCH 20, 1992
EPA REGIONAL INDIAN COORDINATORS
ANNE FENN
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION I (PAG 2300)
JFK FEDERAL BUILDING
BOSTON MA 02203
617-565-3927
FTS-835-3927
FAX* FTS-835-3346
ARTHUR LINTON
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION IV (9EAB-4)
345 COURTLAND STREET NE
ATLANTA GA 30365
404-881-3776
FTS-257-3776
FAX* FTS-257-5066
ERNEST WOODS
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION VI (6E-FF
1445 ROSS AVENUE
12TH FLOOR, SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TX 75270
214-655-2260
FTS-255-2260
FAX* 214-655-7446
CAREN ROTHSTEIN
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION VIII (80EA)
999 18TH STREET
DENVER CO 80202
303-294-1114
rrs-33o-ni4
FAX* FTS-330-7665
STEVEN ROY
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION X
1200 SIXTH AVENUE
SEATTLE WA 98101
206-553-2118
FTS-399-2118
FAX* FTS-399-1775
ROBERT HARGROVE
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION II (2PM-E1)
26 FEDERAL PLAZA
NEW YORK NY 10278
212-264-6722
FTS-264-6722
FAX* FTS-264-6693
CASEY AMBUTAS
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION V (5ME-19J)
77 W. JACKSON
CHICAGO IL 60604
312-353-1394
FTS-353-1394
FAX* 353-4135
MICHAEL BRONOSKI
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION VII
762 MINNESOTA AVENUE
KANSAS CITY KS 66101
913-551-7291
FTS-276-7291
FAX* 276-7467
ROCCENA LAWATCH
INDIAN COORDINATOR
EPA REGION IX (E-4)
1235 MISSION STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103
415-744-1602
FTS-484-1602
FAX* 415-744-1460
MARTIN D. TOPPER, Ph.D,
NATIONAL INDIAN
PROGRAM COORDINATOR
USEPA, 401 M ST., SW
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
202-260-5051
FTS-260-5051
OFA FAX # 260-0129
-------
-------
PART 271 SUBPART A - FINAL AUTHORIZATION
DOC: 9541.02(84)
State Authorization, Indian Lands
40 CTR 271
Jurisdiction and implementation of the Hazardous Waste Program
on Indian Lands
Regional Division Directors, Regions I-X
Bruce R. Weddle, Actine Director, State Programs and Resource
Recovering Division
#9541.02(84)
3-5-84
Key Words:
Regulations
Subject:
Addressee:
Originator:
Source Doc:
Date:
Summary:
States seeking to obtain authorization for the RCRA program on Indian
lands must demonstrate their jurisdiction in the Attorney General's statement .
when applying for final authorization. The State must show clear aad unambiguous
Congressional delegation of authority over Indian lands.
EPA will continue to administer the RCRA program on Indian lands if a
State does not request and obtain authorization over such lands. EPA will seek
to involve Tribal governments in the administration of its RCRA programs on
Indian lands.
Every Federal Register notice granting or denying RCRA authorization for a
State which has Indian lands within its boundaries must state whether EPA or
the State will operate the RCRA program on Indian lands.
-------
-------
f . •«..
4
•QUICTt Jurisdiction and Xa^lavantattan of tha Rasardoue
tfaata »rogra» on Indian Landa
raoNt Bruca t. toddla
Acting Diractor, ftata frograaa and Baaoarea
a. we ovary Diviaioe (WB-5O)
TOi B*gional OUiaion Directors, Bagioaa l-i
Can Stataa b« avthorisad to op«rata tha hasardoua waata
program on Indian Ianda, and, if ao, how?
piacuaaton
laeaotly. aararal fttataa h*Te raquaatad information on
ia^laa»ntatioB of tha hasardoua waata progra* uadar tha Baaourca
Conaarvation and Bacovery Act (BCRA) on ladian ianda. Ma ar«
currently working with tha Offica of Ganaral Ceunael on a co»pre-
5™iT* a*«oranduai on stata authorisation of radaral (BCBA, OIC,
•PDBfi) aavlronaMntal prograaia on Indian Ianda. Xn tha intariw,
tha guidanca that follows raapoada to aoaa of tha iaauaa raiaaC
on whatbar and how ttatas »ay obtain authorisation to opvrata tha
BCBA program on lodiaD laods.
X• Background
Indian triboa ar» vaawa^ "doaaatic d«pandant aationa", which
awana that althowgh thay tara attributaa of a nation, Congraaa
haa broad oowvr ovar Indian affaira. Cengraaa stay dalogata ita
9°"*r to ragulata Indian affaira to ttata gevarn»antSf how«««r, it
•uat do ao apacifically, in claar and axpraaa tana.
If a State wiahaa to obtain authorisation to oparata tha
RCRA program on Indian lands, it »ust daaionatrata juriadiction
evar activitiaa on Indian Ianda. Should any stata ba abia to
•aka • aatiafactory danonatration of Jurisdiction, IP* could
-------
- 1 -
.... «*«0«rv« vary Aet doaa net addraaa
authorisation of tha BCXA program on Indian lands. txcspt (or
dafining mdlaa tribas aa a municipality in f!004, JtCJtA ia ailant
in this araa. Tharafora, if a atat* vianaa to aaaart jurisdiction
ovar Indian lands rlthln ita boundsrias, it swist ahov aom* othar
alaar and unambiguous Congressional diractiva granting such
authority. Abaant such elaar diraetivaa» IFA vill continue to
oparata tha XCXA prograa on Indian landa,
Tha Praaidant*a policy on Indian affaira wss ovtlinad in a
atstsvant ralaaaad on January 24, 1913. Tha policy aaphasisss
tha iatportanca of aalf-gov«rnsM>nt by tha Indian tribas snd, at ths
aasM ti»af a policy of diraet govsrns»nt-to-govwrn*snt ralation-
ahip (i.s.» radaral to tribal govsrna«nt). TTtis policy laavaa
littla room for >ta
-------
"\ «i«
.X.
analysis of tme lagal basis for the State*a data of Jurlsdictior
ovar Indian land* la tha Attorney Gaaaral*s statement submitted
in the final Mthorisation package. To obtain BOA jurisdiction
•wo* India* lan«af tha State must ahov olear Congressional intant
to grant this authority. This Ut«rt oust be clearly atatad in a
federal atatute, a treaty with an Indian tribe, «r vaaa^iaueua
iagialativa aiatery. EPA will than avaluat* tha elala ai a utter
of Padaral Xadian iav. taeauaa thia ia a quaation of radaral law,
fcovwar, va will not nacaaaarily dafar to tha ftata Attocnay
Oaoaral'a opinion, aa w» ganarally do on qwaationa of intarprata-
tioaa of Stata law*
• /
Tha ailanca on this aubjact in ovr fadaral Pagiatar netieaa
naa baan oonfusing, twary HCHA authoritation aotiea for a fltata
that Ma an Indian raaanration auat atata tha atatua of theaa
Indian landa, i.a.» whathar IFA or tha ttata will oparata tha HCKA
program. If tha ttata haa aueeaasfully aaaartad aueh juriadietien,
tha aotiea auat ineluda tha baaia for aueh an aaaartion, i.a., tha
atatiita or traaty which givaa it elaar and onaabigtioua powar to
oparata tha K1A progra* on Indian landa.
Pactaion
•tataa may aaak authorisation for tha KCXA program on Indian
landa. IB ordar to obtain aueh authorisation, tha itata swat -
daaonatrata ita Jurisdiction in tha Attorney Ganaral*a atatavant
when applying for final authorisation. Tfea ftata oust show claar
and unambiguous Congressional delegation of authority over Indian
landa.
If a State does not request and obtain authorisstioa over
Indian land*, IPA will continue to adminiater tha KCXA program on
those landa. In keeping with the President'a Indian Policy, the
Agency will aaak to involve Tribal govarnmonta in tha administra-
tion of IPX's KC1A program* on Indian landa. This isaue will be
daalt with in further detail in tha forthcoming IPA Indian policy
and aubaequant guidances.
Every redaral Kagiater notice granting or denying K1A
authorisatioa tor a state w&lch has Indian landa within its
boundaries muat addreaa the atatua of those lamda, i.e., whether
tPA or tha State will oparata tha ItClA program on laelan lands.
cct Regional Counsels, tegions I-X
Nag tilvar
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D C. 20460
(
/•
OF
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
INDIAN POLICY
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Attached are two documents which were adopted by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) on November 8, 1984, relating to Indian Tribes
and Federal programs for protection of reservation environments:
1) EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on
Indian Reservations.
2) Indian Policy Implementation Guidance.
These documents lay the groundwork for EPA management of the Agency's
regulatory programs on reservation lands. The cornerstones of the .Policy
and Guidance are the principles of Indian "self-government* and
"government-to-government" relations between the Federal Government and
Tribal Governments. Through Implementation of the Policy, the Agency
hopes to realize the long-range objective of Including Tribal Governments
as partners in decision-making* and program management on reservation lands,
much as we do with State Governments off-reservation.
In the beginning, implementation of the Policy will be slowly paced, as
the Agency will need to seek legislative authority In many areas and go
through a lengthy budget process before we can carry out the principles
of the Policy and directives of the Guidance In a comprehensive manner.
In the first year, however, we will begin to seek statutory changes, modify
regulations, and work on selected pilot programs. These pilot programs will
investigate problems associated with Tribal regulation of water and air
quality and the handling and disposal of hazardous materials on reservation
lands. The experience will help both EPA and the Tribes develop models for
dealing with these problems 1n the special legal and political context of
Indian reservations.
Environmental programming that will Involve Tribal Governments In the
Federal regulatory process on a significant scale is a new endeavor for EPA
and Tribes alike. To be successful, we will need cooperation and assistance
from all sectors and would welcome your on-going support.
If yog have questions or need further information, please contact
Leigh Price, National EPA Indian Coordinator, at (202) 382-5051.
Attachment
-------
-------
11/8/84
EPA POLICY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAMS ON INDIAN RESERV .TIONS
INTRODUCTION
^^•••••i^B^^BBBBpBBBBBBB^t^* <*
The President published a Federal Indian Policy on January 24, 1983,
supporting the primary role of Tribal Governments In natters affecting
American Indian reservations. That policy stressed two related themes:
(1) that the Federal Government will pursue the principle of Indian
"self-government" and (2) that 1t will work directly with Tribal
Governments on a "government-to-government" basis.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has previously Issued general
statements of policy which recognize the Importance of Tribal Governments
1n regulatory activities that Impact reservation environments. It 1s the
purpose of this statement to consolidate and expand on existing EPA Indian
Policy statements 1n a manner consistent with the overall Federal position
In support of Tribal "self-government" and "government-to-government" rela-
tions between Federal and Tribal Governments, 'his statement sets fortn
the principles that will guide the Agency in de ng with Tri.,.1 Governments
and in responding to the problems of environmental management on American
Indian reservations in order to protect human health and the environment.
The Policy 1s Intended to provide guidance for EPA program managers in the
conduct of the Agency's congressionally mandated responsibilities. As
such, it applies to EPA only and does not articulate policy for other
Agencies In the conduct of their respective responsibilities.
It 1s Important to emphasize that the Implementation of regulatory
programs which will realize these principles on Indian Reservations cannot
be accomplished Immediately. Effective Implementation will take careful
and conscientious work by EPA, the Tribes and many others. In many cases,
It will require changes In applicable statutory authorities and regulations.
It will-be necessary to proceed In a carefully phased way, to learn from
successes and failures, and to gain experience. Nonetheless, by beginning
work on the priority problems that exist now and continuing in the direction
established under th«se principles, over time we can significantly enhance
environmental quailv. on reservation lands.
POLICY
In carrying out our responsibilities on Indian reservations, the
fundamental objective of the Environmental Protection Agency is to protect
human health and the environment. The keynote of this effort will be to
give special consideration to Tribal interests in making Agency policy.
and to insure the close involvement of Tribal Governments in making
decisions and managing environmental programs affecting reservation Unas.
To meet this objective, the Agency will pursue the following principles:
-------
-2-
1. THE AGENCY STANDS READY TO WORK DIRECTLY WITH INDIAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS
ON A ONE-TO-ONE BASIS (THE "GOVERNMENT-TO-GOVERNMENT" RELATIONSHIP). RATHER
THAN AS SUBDIVISIONS Of OTHER GOVERNMENTS.
EPA recognizes- Tribal Governments as sovereign entitles with pMnary
authority and responsibility for the reservation populace. Accordingly,
EPA will work directly with Tribal Governments as the Independent authority
for reservation affairs, and not as political subdivisions of States or
other governmental units.
2. THE AGENCY WILL RECOGNIZE TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS AS THE PRIMARY PARTIES
FOR SETTING STANDARDS, MAKING ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY DECISIONS AND MANAGING
PROGRAMS FOR RESERVATIONS. CONSISTENT WITH AGENCY STANDARDS AND REGULATIONS.
In keeping with the principle of Indian self-government, the Agency
will view Tribal Governments as the appropriate non-Federal parties for
making decisions and carrying out program responsibilities affecting
Indian reservations, their environments, and the health and welfare of
the reservation populace. Just as EPA's deliberations and activities have
traditionally Involved the Interests and/or participation of State Govern-
ments. EPA will look directly to Tribal Governments to play this lead role
for matters affecting reservation environments.
3. THE AGENCY WILL TAKE AFFIRMATIVE STEPS TO ENCOURAGE AND ASSIST
TRIBES IN ASSUMING REGULATORY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES
FOR RESERVATION LANDS.
The Agency will assist Interested Tribal Governmtnts 1n developing
programs and 1n preparing to assume regulatory and program management
responsibilities for reservation lands. Within the constraints of EPA's
authority and resources, this aid will Include providing grants and other
assistance to Tribes similar to that we provide State Governments. The
Agency will encourage Tribes to assume delegable responsibilities, (i.e.
responsibilities which the Agency has traditionally delegated to State
Governments for non-reservation lands) under terms similar to those
governing delegations to States.
Until Tribal Governments are willing and able to assume full responsi-
bility for delegable programs, the Agency will retain responsibility
for managing programs for reservations (unless the State has an express
grant of jurisdiction from Congress sufficient to support delegation to
the State Government). Where EPA retains such responsibility, the Agency
will encourage the Tribe to participate 1n policy-making and to assume
appropriate lesser or partial roles in the Management of reservation
programs.
-------
-3-
4. THE AGENCY MILL TAKE APPROPRIATE STEPS TO REMOVE EXISTING LEGAL AND
PROCEDURAL IMPEDIMENTS TO WORKING DIRECTLY AND EFFECTIVELY WITH TRIBAL
GOVERNMENTS ON RESERVATION PROGRAMS.
A nuliter of .serious constraints and uncertainties 1n the language
of our statutes and regulations have 1'mlted our ability to work directly
and effectively with Tribal fiovermvnts on reservation problem. As
Impediments 1n our procedures, regulations or statutes are Identified
which limit our ability to work effectively with Tribes consistent with
this Policy, we will seek to remove those Impediments.
5. THE AGENCY. IN KEEPING WITH THE FEDERAL TRUST* RESPONSIBILITY, WILL
ASSURE THAT TRIBAL CONCERNS AND INTERESTS ARE CONSIDERED WHENEVER EPA'S
ACTIONS AND/OR DECISIONS MAY AFFECT RESERVATION ENVIRONMENTS.
EPA recognizes that a trust responsibility derives from the his-
torical relatlo.: nip between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes
as expressed 1n certain treaties and Federal Indian Law. In keeping
with that trust responsibility, the Agency will endeavor to protect
the environmental Interests of Indian Tribes when carrying out Its
responsibilities that may affect the reservations.
6. THE AGENCY WILL ENCOURAGE COOPERATION BETWEEN TRIBAL, STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO RESOLVE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS OF MUTUAL CONCERN.
Sound environmental planning and management require the cooperation
and mutu? > consideration of neighboring governments, whether those
governments be neighboring States, Tribes, or local units of government.
Accordingly, EPA will encourage early communication and cooperation
among Tribes, States and local governments. This 1s not Intended to
lend Federal support to any one party to the jeopardy of the Interests
of the other. Rather, 1t recognizes that in the field of environmental
regulation, problems are often shared and the principle of comity
between equals and neighbors often serves the best Interests of both.
7. THE AGENCY WILL WORK WITH OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES WHICH HAVE RELATED
RESPONSIBILITIES ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS TO ENLIST THEIR INTEREST AND
SUPPORT IN COOPERATIVE EFFORTS TO HELP TRIBES ASSUME ENVIRONMENTAL
PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RESERVATIONS.
EPA will seek and promote cooperation between Federal agencies to
protect human health and the environment on reservations. We will
work with other agencies to clearly identify and delineate the roles.
responsibilities and relationships of our respective organizations and
to assist Tribes 1n developing and managing environmental programs for
reservation lands.
-------
.4.
8. THE AGENCY WILL STRIVE TO ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
AND REGULATIONS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS.
• •
In those cases where facilities owned or Mnaged by Tribal Governments
are not 1n compliance with Federal environmental statutes, EPA will work
cooperatively with Tribal leadership to develop means to achieve compliance,
providing technical support and consultation as necessary to enable Tribal
facilities to comply. Because of the distinct status of Indian Tribes and the
complex legal Issues Involved, direct EPA action through the judicial or
administrative process will be considered where the Agency determines, 1n Its
judgment, that: (1) a significant threat to humin health or the environment
exists, (2) such action_would reasonably be expected to achieve effective
results 1n a timely manner,* and (3) the Federal Government cannot utilize
other alternatives to correct the problem 1n a timely fashion.
In those cases where reservation facilities are clearly owned or managed
by private parties and there 1s no substantial Tribal Interest or control
Involved, the Agency will endeavor to act 1n cooperation with the affected
Tribal Government, but will otherwise respond to noncompHance by private
parties on Indian reservations as the Agency would to noncompllance by the
private sector elsewhere In the country. Where the Trite lias j substantial
proprietary Interest 1n, or control over, the privately owned or managed
facility, EPA will respond as described 1n the first paragraph above.
9. THE AGENCY WILL INCORPORATE THESE INDIAN POLICY GOALS INTO ITS PLANNING
AND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES. INCLUDING ITS BUDGET, OPERATING GUIDANCE. LEGISLA-
TIVE INITIATIVES, MANAGEMENT ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AMD ONGOING POLICY AND
REGULATION DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES.
It 1s a central purpose of this effort to ensure that the principles
of this Policy are effectively Institutionalized by Incorporating them Into
the Agency's ongoing and long-term planning and management processes. Agency
managers will Include specific programmatic actions designed to resolve prob-
lems on Indian reservations 1n the Agency's existing fiscal year and long-term
planning and management processes.
William D. Ruckelshaus
-------
MEMORANDUM
UNITED STATES ENV IPCNV£NTAL PPCTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
NOV 8 884
o»»>cc
SUBJECT: Indian Policy Implementation Guidance
FROM: Alvln L. Aim
Deputy Administrator
TO: Assistant Administrators
Regional Administrators
General Counsel
INTRODUCTION
The Administrator has signed the attached EPA Indian Policy. This
document sets forth the broad princir.es that will guide the Agency In
its relations with American Indian Tribal Governments and In the adminis-
trat- i of EPA programs on Indian reservation lands.
This Policy concerns more than one hundred federally-recognized
Tribal Governments and the environment of a geographical area that Is
larger ~han the combined area of the States of Maryland, New Jer;2y,
Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine. It is an
important sector of the country, and constitutes the remaining lands of
America's first stewards of the environment, the American Indian Tribes.
The Policy places a strong emphas.s or. incorporating Tribal Govern-
ments into the operation and management of EPA's delegable programs.
This concept is based on the President's Federal Indian Policy published
on January 24, 1983 and the analysis, recommendations and Agency input
to the EPA Indian Work Group's Discussion Paper, Administration of
Environmental Programs on American Indian Reservations (July 1963).
TIMING AND SCOPE
Because of the Importance of the reservation environments, we must
begin immediately to incorporate the principles of EPA's Indian Policy
into the conduct of our everyday business. Our established operating
procedures 'Including long-range budgetary and operational planning acti-
vities) have not consistently focused on the proper role of Tribal Govern-
ments or the special legal and political problems of program management
on Indian lands. As a result, it will require a phased and sustained
effort over time to fully implement the principles of the Policy and to
take the steps outlined in this Guidance.
-------
Some Regions and Program Of flees -have already made individual starts
along the lines of the Policy and Guidance. I believe that a clear
Agency-wide policy will enable all programs to build on these efforts so
that, within the limits of our legal and budgetary constraints, the Agency
as a whole ctn make respectable progress 1n the next year.
As we begin the first year of operations under the Indian policy, we
cannot expect to solve ill of the problem we will fact 1n administering
program under the unique legal and political clrcuwtancti f^Mted I by
Indian reservations. We can, however, concentrate on specific priority
problem and Issues and proceed to address these tysttMtf cai ly and care-
fully 1n the first year. With this general eaphasls, i believe that -we
can make respectable progress and establish good precedents for working
effectively with Tribes. By working within a manageable scope and pace,
we can develop a coordinated base which can be expanded, and. as appropriate.
accelerated in the second and third years of operations under the Policy.
In addition to routine application of the Policy and this **<•"« J"
the conduct of our everyday business, the first year "^l"^""""? «
will emphasize concentrated work on a discrete number of rep £$entat^ *«
problems through cooperative programs or pilot Projects. In the Regions,
this effort should Include the Identification and Initiation •*«•*•"
priority Tribal projects. At Headquarters. It should Involve the "isolutl on
of the legal, policy and procedural problems which hamper our ability to
implement the kinds of projects Identified by the Regions.
The Indian Work Group (UG). which 1s chaired by the
Office of Federal Activities and composed of representatives of key regional
and headquarters offices, will facilitate and coordinate these «"orts.
The IWG will begin Immediately to help Identify the specific
which may be ripe for Implementation and the problems needing
in the first year.
Because we are starting in -mid-stream." the *«P\«~"^t1°nJ gjj"
will necessarily require some contribution of Personnel time and funds.
While no one program will be affected in a major /"hlon. *1~" al lAgency
programs are affected to some degree. I do not «f~5'X rotates7
projects on Indian Lands to cause any serious restriction In the *««
funding support or in their ability to function «"«£<;«*• * J""™
the flexibility of each Region and each program, we have jot set a target
for a location of FY 85 funds. I am confident, however, that Regions and
J0rogr.; o'ffUes can. through readjustment of V'^^TtpA'?™ cy
significant and credible progress in the implementation of EPA s Policy i«
the next year.
-------
• 3-
ACTION
Subject to these constraints. Regions and program managers should now
Initiate actions to implement the principles of the Indian Policy. The
tight categories set forth below will direct our Initial Implementation
activities. Farther guidance will be provided by the Assistant Adminis-
trator for Eiternal Affairs as experience Indicates a need for such guidance.
1. THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS WILL SERVE AS
LEAD AGENCY CLEARINGHOUSE AND COORDINATOR FOR INDIAN POLICY HATTERS.
This responsibility will Include coordinating the development of
appropriate Agency guidelines pertaining to Indian Issues, the
Implementation of the Indian Policy and this Guidance. In this effort
the Assistant Administrator for External Affairs will rely upon the
assistance and support of the EPA Indian Work Group.
Z. THE INDIAN WORK GROUP (IWG) HILL ASSIST AND SUPPORT THE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR FOR EXTERNAL AFFAIRS IN DEVELOPING AND RECOMMENDING DETAILED
GUIDANCE AS NEEDED ON INDIAN POLICY AND IMPLEMENTATION MATTERS. ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATORS, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL SHOULD
DESIGNATE APPROPRIATE REPRESENTATIVES TO THE INDIAN WORK GROUP AND PROVIDE
THEM WITH ADEQUATE TIME AND RESOURCES NEEDED TO CARRY OUT THE IWG'S
RESPONSIBILITIES UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
EXTERNAL AFFAIRS.
The Indian Work Group. (IWG) chaired by the Director of the Office of
Federal Activities, will be an important entity for consolidating the
experience and advice of the key Assistant and Regional Administrators on
Indian Policy matters. It will perform the following functions: identify
specific legal, policy, and procedural Impediments to working directly
with Tribes on reservation problems; help develop appropriate guidance
for overcoming such impediments; recommend opportunities for Implementation
of appropriate programs or pilot projects; and perform other services in
support of Agency managers In implementing the Indian Policy.
The initial task of the IWG will be to develop recommendations and
suggest priorities for specific opportunities'for program Implementation
in the first year of operations under the Indian Policy and this Guidance.
To accomplish this, the General Counsel and each Regional and Assistant
Administrator must be actively represented on the IWG by a staff member
authorized to speak for his or her office. Further, the designated
representat1ve(s) should be afforded the time and resources. Including
travel, needed to provide significant staff support to the work of the
IWG.
-------
3. ASSISTANT AND REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD UNDERTAKE ACTIVE OUTREACH AND
LIAISON WITH TRIBES, PROVIDING ADEQUATE INFORMATION TO ALLOW THEM TO WORK
WITH US IN AN INFORMED WAY.
In the first.thirteen years of the Agency4! existence, we have worked
hard to establish working relationships with State Governments, providing
background Information and sufficient Interpretation and explanations to
enable them to work effectively with us In the development of cooperative
State programs under our various statutes. In a similar manner, EPA managers
should try to establish direct, face-to-face contact (preferably on the
reservation) with Tribal Government officials. This liaison Is essential to
understanding Tribal needs, perspectives and priorities. It will also foster
Tribal understanding of EPA's programs and procedures needed to deal effec-
tively with us.
4. ASSISTANT AND REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD ALLOCATE RESOURCES TO MEET
TRIBAL NEEDS, WITHIN THE CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED 8Y COMPETING PRIORITIES AND BY
OUR LEGAL AUTHORITY.
As Tribes move to assume responsibilities similar to those borne by EPA
or State Governments, an appropriate block of funds must be set aside to
support reservation abatement, control and compliance activities.
Because we want to begin to Implement the Indian Policy now, we cannot
wait until FY 87 to formally budget for programs on Indian lands. Accordingly,
for many programs, funds for initial Indian projects 1n FY 85 and FY
will need to come from resources currently planned for support to EPA-and
State-managed programs meeting similar objectives. As I stated earlier, we
do not expect to resolve all problems and address all environmental needs on
reservations Immediately. However, we can make a significant beginning
without unduly restricting our ability to fund ongoing programs.
I am asking each Assistant Administrator and Regional Administrator to
take measures within his or her discretion and authority to provide sufficient
staff time and grant funds to allow the Agency to Initiate projects on Indian
lands in FY 85 and FY 86 that will constitute a respectable step towards
Implementation of the Indian Policy.
5. ASSISTANT AND REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS, WITH LEGAL SUPPORT PROVIDED BY THE
GENERAL COUNSEL, SHOULD ASSIST TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS IN PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT AS
THEY HAVE DONE FOR THE STATES.
The Ageocy has provided extensive staff work and assistance to State
Governments over the years In the development of environmental programs
and program management capabilities. This assistance has become a routine
aspect of Federal/State relations, enabling and expediting the States'
assumption of delegable programs under the various EPA statutes. This "front
end" Investment has promoted cooperation and Increased State Involvement
In the regulatory process.
-------
As the Agency begins to deal with Tribal Governments as partners in
reservation environmental programing, we will find a similar need for EPA
assistance. Nany Regional and program personnel have extensive experience
in working with States on program design and development; their expertise
should be used to assist Tribal Governments where needed.
6. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND THE GENERAL
COUNSEL SHOULD TAKE ACTIVE STEPS TO ALLOW TRIBES TO PROVIDE INFORMED INPUT
INTO EPA'S DECISION-MAKING AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACT!VITIES~"STOFTAFFECT
RESERVATION ENVIRONMENTS.
Where EPA manages Federal programs and/or makes decisions relating
directly or Indirectly to reservation environments, full consideration and
weight should be given to the public policies, priorities and concerns of the
affected Indian Tribes as expressed through their Tribal Governments. Agency
managers should make a special effort to Inform Tribes of EPA decisions and
activities which can affect their reservations and solicit their Input as we
have done with State Governments. Where necessary, this should Include provid-
ing the necessary information, explanation and/or briefings needed to foster
the informed participation of Tribal Governments In the Agency's standard-
setting and policy-making activities.
7. ASSISTANT AND REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS SHOULD, TO THE .MAXIMUM FEASIBLE
EXTENT. INCORPORATE TRIBAL CONCERNS. NEEDS AND PREFERENCES INTO EPA'S POLICY
DECISIONS AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES AFFECTING RESERVATIONS.
It has been EPA's practice to seek out and accord special consideration
to local interests and concerns, within the limits allowed by our statutory
mandate and nationally established criteria and standards. Consistent witn
the Federal and Agency policy to recognize Tribal Governments as the primary
voice for expressing public policy on reservations, EPA managers should, within
the limits of their flexibility, seek and utilize Tribal Input and preferences
in those situations where we have traditionally utilized State or local.Input.
We recognize that conflicts In policy, priority or preference may arise
between States and Tribes as it does between neighboring States. As In the
case of conflicts between neighboring States, EPA will encourage early communi-
cation and cooperation between Tribal and State Governments to avoid and resolve
such issues. This 1s not Intended to lend Federal support to any one party in
Its dealings with the other. Rather, It recognizes that In the field of environ-
mental regulation, problems are often shared and the principle of comity between
equals often serves the Interests of both.
Several of the environmental statutes Include a conflict resolution mechan-
ism which enables EPA to use its good offices to balance and resolve the con-
flict. These procedures can be applied to conflicts between Tribal and State
Governments that cannot otherwise be resolved. EPA can play a moderating role
by following the conflict resolution principles set by the statute, the Federal
trust responsibility and the EPA Indian Policy.
-------
-6-
t
8. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND THE GENERAL COUNSEL
SHOULD WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS TO ACHIEVE COMPLIANCE WITH
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS. CONSISTENT
WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF INDIAN SELF-GOVERNMENT.
The EPA India*-Policy recognizes Tribal Governments as the key
governments having responsibility for matters affecting the health and
welfare of the Tribe. Accordingly, where tribally owned or managed
facilities do not meet Federally established standards, the Agency will
endeavor to work with the Tribal leadership to enable the Tribe to
achieve compliance. Where reservation facilities are clearly owned or
•anaged by- private parties and there is no substantial Tribal interest
or control involved, the Agency will endeavor to act in cooperation with the
affected Tribal Government, but will otherwise respond to noncompliance by
private parties on Indian reservations as we do to noncompliance by the
private sector off-reservation.
Actions to enable and ensure compliance by Tribal facilities with
Federal statutes and regulations include providing consultation and
technical support to Tribal leaders and managers concerning the impacts
of noncompliance on Tribal health and the reservation environment
and steps needed to achieve such compliance. As appropriate. EPA may
also develop compliance agreements with Tribal Governments and work
cooperatively with other Federal agencies to assist Tribes in meeting
Federal standards.
Because of the unique legal and political status of Indian Tribes
in the Federal System, direct EPA actions against Tribal facilities
through the judicial or administrative process will be considered where
the Agency determines, in its judgment, that: (I) a significant threat to
human health or the environment exists, (2) such action would reasonably be
expected to achieve effective results in a timely manner, and (3) the Federal
Government cannot utilize other alternatives to correct the problem in a
timely fashion. Regional Administrators proposing to initiate such action
should first obtain concurrence from the Assistant Administrator for Enforce-
ment and Compliance Monitoring, who will act in consultation with the Assis-
tant Administrator for External Affairs and the General Counsel. In emergency
situations, the Regional Administrator may Issue emergency Temporary Restrain-
ing Orders, provided that the appropriate procedures set forth in Agency
delegations for such actions are followed.
-------
9. ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS, REGIONAL ADMINISTRATORS AND THE GENERAL COUNSE*.
SHOULD BEGIN TO FACTOR INDIAN POLICY GOALS INTO THEIR LONG-RANGE PLANNING AND
OGRAM MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING BUDGET, OPERATING GUIDANCE, MANAGEMENT
CCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS AND PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
In order to carry out the principles of the EPA Indian Policy and work
effectively with Tribal Governments on a long-range basis, 1t will be necessary
to institutionalize the Agency's policy goals in the management systems that
regulate Agency behavior.' Where we have systematically Incorporated State needs,
concerns and cooperative roles into our budget. Operating Guidance, Management
accountability systems and performance standards, we must now begin to factor the
Agency's Indian Policy goals into these same procedures and activities.
Agency managers should begin to consider Indian reservations and Tribes
when conducting routine planning and management activities or carrying out
special policy analysis activities. In addition, the IWG, operating under the
direction of the Assistant Administrator for External Affairs and with
assistance from the Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
will identify and recommend specific steps to be taken to ensure that Indian
Policy goals are effectively Incorporated and institutionalized in the Agency's
procedures and operations.
Attachment
-------
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C 204*0
1 0 1831
SUBJECT: EPA/State/Tribal Relations
TO: Assistant Administrators
General Counsel
Inspector General
Regional Administrators
Associate Administrators
staff Office Directors
Earlier this year Z shared with you my views concerning
EPA's Indian Policy, its implementation and its future direction.
Z would now like to further emphasize my commitment to the Policy
by endorsing the attached paper that was coordinated by Region
vril on EPA/State/Tribal Relations.
This paper was prepared to formalize tha Agency's role in*
strengthening tribal governments' management of environmental
programs on reservations. Tha paper notes that tha differences
between the interests of tribal and stata governments can be very
sensitive and sometimes extend well beyond the specific issues of
environmental protection. Zt reaffirms the general approach of
the Agency's Indian Policy and recommends the strengthening of
tribal capacity for environmental management. Z believe the
Agency should continue its present policy, making every effort to
support cooperation and coordination between tribal and stata
governments, while maintaining our commitment to environmental
quality.
I encourage you to promote tribal management of
environmental programs and work toward 'that goal.
Please distribute this document to states and tribes in your
region.
William X.
Attachment
cc. Headquarters Program Office Directors
Regional Office Directors
-------
-------
FEDERAL, TRIBAL AND STATE JIOLES .4 THE PROTECTION
AND REGULATION OF RESERVATION ENVIRONMENTS
A Concept Paper
I. BACKGROUND
William Reilly, in hi irst %ar as EPA Administrator,
reaffirmed the 1984 EPA Inc *n Po. :y and its implicit promise to
protect the environment of Indian reservations as effectively as
the Agency protects ths environment of the rest of the country.
The EPA Indian Policy is premised on tribal self-determination,
the principle that has been set forth as federal policy by
Presic.tr.ts Hi-on, Reagan, and Bush. Self-determination is the
principle ret gnizing the primary role of tribal governments in
determining tne future course of reservation affairs. Applied u
the environmental arena in the EPA Indian Policy, this principle
looks to tribal governments to manage programs to protect human
health and the environment on Indian reservations.
II. TRIBAL. STATE AND FEDERAL EXPECTATIONS
The Agency is sensitive to the fact that tribal and state
governments have serious and legitimate interests in the
effective control and regulation of pollution sources on Indian
reservations. EPA shares these concerns and, moreover, has a
responsibility to Congress under the environmental statutes to
assure that effective and enforceable environmental programs are
developed to protect human health and the environment throughout
the nation, including Indian reservations.
Indian tribes, for vhom human welfare is tied closely to the
land, *«e protection of th« reservation environment as essential
to preservation of th« reservations themselves. Environmental
degradation is viewed as a form of further destruction of the
remaining reservation land base, and pollution prevention is
vieved as an act of tribal self-preservation that cannot be
entrusted to others. For these reasons, Indian tribes have
insisted that tribal governments be recognized as the proper
governmental entities to determine th« future quality of
reservation environments.
-------
Stat« governments, in turn, recognize that the environmental
Integrity of entire ecosystems cannot be regulated in isolation.
Pollution in the air and water, even the transportation of
hazardous materi-als in everyday commerce, is not restricted to
political boundaries. Accordingly, state governments claim a
vital interest in assuring that reservation pollution sources are
effectively regulated and, in many cases, express an interest in
managing reservation environmental programs themselves, at least
for non-Indian sources located on the reservations. In addition,
some state officials have voiced the concerns of various non-
Indians who live or conduct business within reservation
boundaries, many of whom believe that their environmental or
business interests would be better represented by state
government than by the tribal government.
Although the Agency hears these particular concerns
expressed most often through tribal and state representatives,
respectively, the Agency is aware that most of these concerns are
shared by both tribes and states. For example, tribal
governments are not alone in holding the viev that future
generations depend on today's leaders to manage the environment
wisely. Many state officials argue the same point with the same
level of conviction as tribal leaders. Conversely, tribal .
governments share with states the awareness that individual
components of whole ecosystems cannot be regulated without regard
to management of the other parts. Tribal governments have also
shown themselves to share the states' sensitivity to the concerns
and interests of the entire reservation populace, whether those
interests are the Interests of Indians or non-Indians. In the
Agency's view, tribes and states do not differ on the importance
of these goals, where they differ at all, they differ on the
means to achieve them.
EPA fully shares with tribes and states their concerns for
preservation of the reservation as a healthy and viable
environment, for rational and coordinated management of entire
ecosystems, and, thirdly, for environmental management based on
adequate-input both from regulated businesses and from the
populace whose health the system is designed to protect.
Moreover, the Agency believes that all of these Interests and
goals can be accommodated within the framework of federal Indian
policy goals and federal Indian law.
III. EPA POLICY
The EPA Indian Policy addresses the subject of state and
tribal roles within reservation boundaries as follows:
i) First, consistent with the President's policy, the
Agency supports the principle of Indian self-government:
-------
"In keeping with the principle of Indian self-government,
the Agency will view Tribal Governments as the appropriate
non-Federal parties for making decisions and carrying out
prograr ~es.ponsit lities affecting Indian reservations,
their c ironment , and the health and welfare of the
reservation populace. Just as EFA's deliberations and
activities have traditionally involved the interests and/or
participation of State Governments, EPA will look directly
to Tribal Governments to play this lead role for natters
affecting reservation environments."
2) Second, the Agency encourages cooperation between state,
tribal and local governments to resolve environmental issues
of mutual concern:
"Sound environmental planning and management require the
cooperation and mutual consideration of neighboring
governments, whether those governments be neighboring
States, Tribes or local units of government. Accordingly,
EPA will encourage early communication and cooperation among
Tribes, States and local governments. This is not intended
to lend Federal support to any one party to the jeopardy of
the interests of the other. Rather, it recognizes that in.
the field of environmental regulation, problems are often
shared and the principle of comity between equals often
serves the best interests of both."
IV. PRINCIPLES AMD PROCEDURES FOR EPA ACTIOK
EFA program managers will be guided by the following
principles and procedures regarding tribal and state roles in the
management of programs to protect reservation environments.
i . The Agency will follow the principles and procedures
set forth in the EPA Policy for the Administration of
Environmental Programs on Indian Reservations and the
accompanying Implementation Guidance, both signed on
November a, 1964.
2. The Agency will, in making decisions on program
authorization and other matters where jurisdiction over
reservation pollution sources is critical, apply federal law ••
found in the U.S. Constitution, applicable treaties, statutes »-s
federal Indian law. Consistent with the EPA Indian Policy and
the interests of administrative clarity, the Agency will view
Indian reservations as single administrative units for regulatcr,
purposes. Hence, as a general rule, the Agency will authorize *
tribal or state government to manage reservation programs only
where that government can demonstrate adequate jurisdiction over
pollution sources throughout the reservation. Where, however, i
tribe cannot demonstrate Jurisdiction over one or more
-------
reservation sources, the Agency will retain enforcement primacy
for those sources. Until EPA formally authorizes a state or
tribal program, the Agency retains full responsibility for
program management. Where EPA retains such responsibility, it
will carry out* its duties in accordance with the principles set
forth in the EPA Indian Policy.
3. Under both authorized and EPA-administered programs for
reservations, the Agency encourages cooperation between tribes
and states, acting in the spirit of neighbors with a mutual self-
interest in protecting the environmental and the health and
welfare of the reservation populace. Such cooperation can take
many forms, including notification, consultation, sharing of
technical information, expertise and personnel, and joint
tribal/state programming. While EPA will in all cases be guided
by federal Indian lav, EPA Indian Policy and its broad
responsibility to assure effective protection of human health and
the environment, the Agency believes that this framework allows
flexibility for a vide variety of cooperative agreements and
activities, provided that such arrangements are freely negotiated
and mutually agreeable to both tribe and state. The Agency vill
not act in such a manner as to force such agreements.
•
4. The Agency urges states to assist tribes in developing
environmental expertise and program capability. The Agency has
assisted in funding state environmental programs for two
decades, with the result that, today, state governments have a
very capable and sophisticated institutional infrastructure to
set and enforce environmental standards consistent with local
state needs and policies. As the country now moves to develop an
infrastructure of tribal institutions to achieve the same goals.
state governments can play a helpful and constructive role .in
helping to develop and support strong and effective tribal
institutions. The State of Wisconsin has worked vith the
Menominee Tribe to develop a joint tribal/state ftCRA program tftat
can serve as a model of mutually beneficial cooperation for other
states and tribes.
5. The Agency urges tribes to develop an Administrative
Procedures Act (APA) or other means for public notice and comment
in the tribal rule-making process. Many tribes now working with
EPA to develop environmental standards and regulatory programs
have already taken the initiative in establishing such technique*
for obtaining community input into tribal decision-making. Sue-.
tribes have enacted APAs and held public meetings to gather input
from both Indian and non-Indian residents of the reservation
prior to setting tribal environmental standards for their
reservations. The Agency generally requires states and tribes tt
provide for adequate public participation as a prerequisite for
approval of state or tribal environmental programs. The Agency
believes that public input into major regulatory decisions is «•
important part of modern regulatory governance that contribute*
-------
significantly to public acceptance and therefore the
effectiveness of regulatory p-ograms. The Agency encourages all
tribes to follow the example : those tribes that have already
enacted an APA/ -'
6. Where tribal and State governments, managing regulatory
programs for reservation and state areas, respectively, may
encounter transboundary problems arising from inconsistent
standards, policies, or enforcement activities, EPA encourages
the tribal and state governments to resolve their differences
through negotiation at the local level. EPA, in such cases, is
prepared to act as a moderator for such discussions, if
requested, where a statute such as the Clean Water Act
designates a conflict-resolution role for EPA in helping to
resolve tribal/state differences, EPA vill act in accordance with
the statute. Otherwise, EPA will respond generally to such
differences in the same manner that EPA responds to differences
between states.
v. conclusion
The Agency believes that where an ecosystem crosses
political boundaries, effective regulation calls for coordination
and cooperation among all governments having a regulatory role
impacting the ecosystem. Many differences among tribes and
states, like differences among states, are a natural outgrowth of
decentralized regulatory programs; these differences are best
resolved locally by tribes and states acting out of mutual
concern for the environment and the health of the affected
populace. EPA actions and decisions made in carrying out its
role and responsibilities will be consistent with federal law and
the EPA Indian Policy. Within this framework, the Agency is
convinced that the environmental quality of reservation lands can
be protected and enhanced to the benefit of all.
-------
-------
WASTE MINIMIZATION/POLLUTION PREVENTION
AGENDA
Introduction to waste
minimization/pollution
prevention
RCRA enforcement
policy
Available resources
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention
KEY POINTS:
* This presentation will cover an introduction to waste minimization and
pollution prevention, the RCRA enforcement policy and the inspector's role
in complying with this policy, as well as resources available to inspectors
and facilities. This presentation also includes an exercise that provides an
opportunity to demonstrate the inspector's new role and test the limits of the
new enforcement policy.
VIII-1
-------
WASTE MINIMIZATION
Waste Minimization « Source Reduction and Recycling
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Waste Minimization
KEY POINTS:
There has been considerable confusion over the terms waste minimization
and pollution prevention. What does waste minimization mean to you?
Now that we have heard our peers' definitions of waste minimization, I will
relate a definition offered in a draft Agency guidance that defines waste
minimization as:
"the reduction, to the extent feasible, of hazardous waste that is
generated prior to treatment, storage, or disposal of the waste. It is
defined as any source reduction or recycling activity that results in
either: (1) reduction of total volume of hazardous waste; (2) reduction
of toxicity of hazardous waste; or (3) both, as long as that reduction is
consistent with the general goal of minimizing present and future
threats to human health and the environment." (FR Vol. 54, No. Ill,
page 25056, 6/12/89)
For purposes of this Institute, we will refer to waste minimization as source
reduction and recycling.
VIII-2
-------
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Waste Minimization (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Wastewater treatment, incineration, and other forms of treatment are often
considered to be waste minimization, but they are not.
• It is important to note that transferring waste from one medium to another
does not constitute minimizing waste. For example, incinerating hazardous
waste may result in a decrease in RCRA regulated waste, but an increase in
releases to the air. True minimization reflects reductions in one medium
without increases in others.
VIII-3
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION
Pollution Prevention » Source Reduction
"=>
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Pollution Prevention
KEY POINTS:
What does the term pollution prevention mean to you?
Although the theory behind waste minimization and source reduction is the
same, the language prescribed by HSWA and the Pollution Prevention Act
defines the two terms differently.
Unlike the definition of waste minimization outlined in HSWA, the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990 indicates that pollution prevention includes source
reduction but excludes most types of recycling. The Act defines source
reduction as any process that:
"reduces the amount of any hazardous substance, pollutant, or
contaminant entering any waste stream or otherwise released into the
environment prior to recycling, treatment, or disposal..."
EPA interpreted the language in the Pollution Prevention Act and defined
pollution prevention as source reduction in a May 28, 1992 memo from
Henry Habicht II, EPA Deputy Administrator.
VIII-4
-------
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Pollution Prevention (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Both HSWA and the Pollution Prevention Act emphasize the importance of
taking a multi-media approach to reducing wastes. Inspectors can help
implement reduction across media by looking beyond RCRA waste streams
when conducting inspections. Inspectors should look at entire processes at
facilities, noting transfers of pollutants from one medium to another.
VIII-5
-------
WASTE MANAGEMENT HIERARCHY
Most Favorable
I
Source
Reduction
Recycling
Treatment
Least Favorable
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Waste Management Hierarchy
KEY POINTS:
• How would you define the Waste Management Hierarchy?
• The EPA first published a Waste Management Hierarchy in a 1976 policy
statement. The Hierarchy is intended to be a logical approach to managing
waste in order to minimize risks to public health and the environment. The
Hierarchy has evolved and may differ depending on the source.
• The Hierarchy presented in the viewgraph is based on the Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990, which states: "pollution should be prevented or
reduced at the source whenever feasible; pollution that cannot be prevented
should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner whenever feasible;
pollution that cannot be prevented or recycled should be treated in an
environmentally safe manner whenever feasible; and disposal or other
release into the environment should be employed only as a last resort and
should be conducted in an environmentally safe manner." (Public Law
101-508 Title 6, 104 STAT 1388, Section 6602(b), November 5,1990).
VIII-6
-------
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Waste Management Hierarchy (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• The Hierarchy encourages the reduction of wastes at the source and the
recycling of materials, rather than treating and/or disposing of them on land
or in air and water.
• Waste minimization refers to the top two tiers of the Waste Management
Hierarchy: source reduction and recycling. Pollution prevention refers only
to the top tier of the Hierarchy.
VIII-7
-------
WASTE MINIMIZATION/POLLUTION
PREVENTION TECHNIQUES
WASTE MINIMIZATION
J.
SOURCE REDUCTION
Process
Changes
1
RECYCLING
J
I
Material
Changes
Operational
Changes
Use and
Reuse
Reclamation
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention Techniques
KEY POINTS:
• What do you see as the components of source reduction and recycling?
• Source reduction, the preferred option, can include product changes or source
controls.
• Product changes include substitution of a product, conserving a product, or
changing a product's composition.
• Source controls include:
— Process changes — for example, with respect to temperature, pressure,
or equipment;
— Material or input changes using non-hazardous materials or materials
that result in less waste;
— Changes in operating techniques — for example, improved
housekeeping and maintenance to reduce leaks and spills,
education/outreach programs, or changes in inventory management or
materials handling procedures.
VIII-8
-------
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention Techniques (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Recycling can include use and reuse and reclamation.
• RCRA regulations indicate that a material is used or reused if it is:
— Employed as an ingredient in an industrial process to make a product,
or
— Employed in a particular function or application as an effective
substitute for a commercial product. (40 CFR 261.1)
• A material is reclaimed if it is processed to recover a usable product, or if it
is regenerated. (40 CFR 261.1)
VIII-9
-------
FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
Federal wast* minimization/pollution prevention legislation
Includes:
• Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)
* The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Federal Legislative History
KEY POINTS:
• HSWA emphasized waste minimization as a national policy, stating that
"wherever feasible, the generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or
eliminated as expeditiously as possible ...," and it established requirements
for generators and TSDFs.
• The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990 made source reduction a national
policy and required EPA to perform numerous functions, including training
enforcement personnel and inspectors, to promote source reduction. The Act
also prescribed additional reporting requirements for the SARA Title III
universe on their source reduction and recycling efforts. More specifically.
Title III requires reporting on manufacturing plants' releases of 320 toxic
chemicals into air, water, or soil. Facilities must estimate and report their
total releases each year. EPA compiles these reports on a computerized
database called the Toxic Release Inventory or TRI. How can you make use
ofTRIdata?
• Land ban has been the biggest HSWA driver of waste minimization, since
generators have suffered higher costs as a result of the ban.
VIIMO
-------
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Federal Legislative History (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• In addition, EPA has instituted national programs to achieve reductions in
pollution. One example of such a program is the 33/50 Program,
announced by EPA in 1991. This voluntary pollution prevention initiative
sets reduction goals for 17 high priority toxic chemicals. The goal of the
program is to reduce the total amount released into the environment and
transferred off site by 33 percent at the end of 1992 and by 50 percent at
the end of 1995, based on 1988 levels. This would mean a reduction from
1.4 billion pounds of the 17 targeted chemicals released and transferred off
she in 1988 to 200 million pounds released or transferred off site by 1995.
EPA seeks to accomplish these reductions through innovative pollution
prevention programs that go beyond regulatory requirements. Participants
in the program include, for example: B.F. Goodrich; AT&T; Dupont;
Illinois Toolworks; and 3M.
VIII-11
-------
HSWA WASTE MINIMIZATION REQUIREMENTS
• §3002(aX6>^generetors must report on waste
mjnlinizatlon efforts in biennial report
• waste
b) - generators must ce
Ion program is in place
- owners/operators must certtfy that a waste
ion program Is in place for any new permit
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: HSWA Waste Minimization Requirements for Generators and TSDFs
KEY POINTS:
• HSWA sets forth three basic waste minimization requirements for generators
and TSDFs. They are:
— That hazardous waste generators submit waste minimization
information as pan of the biennial reports (§3002(a)(6));
— That generators certify on the manifest that they have a waste reduction
program in place (§3002(b));
— That, as a permit requirement, all TSDFs must certify at least annually
that they have a waste reduction system in place (§3005(h)).
• Using HSWA authority, EPA has promulgated regulations addressing these
issues in 40 CFR under Sections 262, 264, and 265.
VIII-12
-------
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: HSWA Waste Minimization Requirements for Generators and TSDFs
(continued)
KEY POINTS:
• What kind of program can TSDFs undertake?
— Substitute one waste for newly-purchased material in treating other
waste
— Recycling instead of treatment
— Require generators to have waste minimization plan in place.
V1II-13
-------
EPA/STATES RELATIONSHIP
Historically^ ftaiaS'Kave Impiementedtechnical assistance
programs \
• TheW has been a recent move by statesto adopt waste
minimization requirements V
• In fact, many states now nave pollution prevention
legislation;
OVERHEAD #8
TITLE: EPA/States Relationship
KEY POINTS:
* Historically, almost all states established mostly non-regulatory programs to
encourage waste minimization. State programs have included:
— Technical assistance
— Education and outreach
— Economic benefit
— Waste exchange
— Research and development
— Limited regulatory requirements.
• Now states are becoming more prescriptive, although relatively few involve
or empower their enforcement program.
• Many RCRA-authorized states have adopted waste minimization
requirements. In fact, more than half of all U.S. states have enacted pollution
prevention legislation that typically requires RCRA generators or SARA
Title III facilities to develop pollution prevention plans. Facilities in these
states should have well documented waste minimization/pollution prevention
plans that can be reviewed by the inspector.
• What is the status of waste minimization requirements and pollution
prevention legislation in the states represented at the Institute?
VIII-14
-------
RCRA POLICY: CHECKING COMPLIANCE
RCRA POLJCY
Determine Compliance
--;- CtwckMmlteel ••:,:•/•;': >:::":
* Check Biennial Report *w! ;;
Annual Export Report '•••
:• Check pwwa wndWone met
,.:' enforcement aetttement*
dive limited, battc advice on:
- The Waete Minimisation Pl«n
- W»te minimization
epportunttiM
Encouraga w»«t«
minimintion/pellulion prwwntlon
- Identity available technical
aoicUnce
- Identify reaouree* and contact*
- Inform o( petant»l benefit*
OVERHEAD #9
TITLE: RCRA Policy: Checking Compliance
KEY POINTS:
• The RCRA policy is set forth in "The Role of RCRA Inspectors in Promoting
Waste Minimization" (OSWER Directive 9938.10), which was based on
existing Regional and state efforts and recommendations. It directs
inspectors to determine compliance. To do this, inspectors should:
— Check that each manifest is certified by an authorized person
— Check to see that a waste minimization plan is in place and is being
implemented
— Ensure that waste minimization language is included on the biennial
report or annual export report
— Confirm that any waste minimization conditions included in a permit or
resulting from enforcement action are being met.
VIII-15
-------
OVERVIEWS
TITLE: RCRA Policy: Checking Compliance (continued)
KEY POINTS:
Other compliance related initiatives include the following:
• EPA has developed guidance on developing supplemental environmental
projects (SEPs) and incorporating pollution prevention into enforcement
settlements. Pollution prevention requirements in SEPs or pollution
prevention settlement provisions include training, pollution prevention
assessments, and technology changes.
— Inspectors may be asked to review or provide waste minimization
information to support enforcement personnel in developing SEPs as
part of settlement negotiations.
— Inspectors will need to check compliance with SEP requirements.
• EPA is incorporating pollution prevention into TSDF permits as well as
permits in other programs:
— Inspectors should check compliance with RCRA permit requirements.
— Permits in other programs could also impact RCRA waste and waste
minimization efforts. Inspectors could benefit by reviewing these other
permits.
VIIM6
-------
RCRA POLICY: GIVING ADVICE
RCRA POUCY
Determine Compliance
Check Biennial Report and
Annual Export Report
Cheek permit condition* and
enforcement eettkmenU
Eneounge wictt
minimization/pollution prevention
- Identify «v«il*ble technical
auictanc*
Identify resource* and contact*
- Inform of potential benefit*
OVERHEAD #10
TITLE: RCRA Policy: Giving Advice
KEY POINTS:
• Inspectors may give limited, basic waste minimization/pollution prevention
advice to facilities. This advice may focus on the facility's waste
minimization plan/program and waste minimization opportunities.
• When giving advice:
— Present it in an informal manner
— Stress that it is not binding and not related to the facility's regulatory
compliance.
• Avoid giving advice that:
— Is technical
— Is capital-intensive
— Endorses a specific product
— Leads a facility to think that any changes made would bring the facility
into compliance.
VIII-17
-------
OVERVIEW #10
TITLE: RCRA Policy: Giving Advice (continued)
KEY POINTS:
* Proper examples of advice-giving related to waste minimization opportunities
include:
— "You may want to try either sweeping or blowing the sawdust and
residuals off the wood before treating it so you can lower die trash that
gets into the holding tank. That may lower the amount of waste sludge
you have to worry about."
— "If you let die wprkpiece hang a little longer over die tank, more of die
solution will drain back into it and you'll probably have less drag-out."
• Inappropriate advice would be:
— "Company X installed a Wammo Mark IV ink recycling unit to reuse
their waste inks. You should do the same. It might take care of some
of your regulatory problems and will save you a whole lot of money."
* Advice on the waste minimization program/plan can also be provided without
compromising your enforcement position by referring to die basic elements
in a waste minimization program as outlined in the nonbinding jRejJejai
Register Notice (Vol. 54, No. Ill, June 12, 1989). The Notice indicated that
discussion of the following should be included in a waste minimization plan:
— Top management support
— Characterization of waste
— Periodic waste minimization
— A cost allocation system
— Encouragement of technology transfer
— Program evaluation.
• Refer to "Role of Inspectors in Promoting Waste Minimization" for
guidelines for giving advice.
• During the exercise later in this presentation, we will explore the nature of
advice that is appropriate under the policy.
VIII-18
-------
RCRA POLICY: ENCOURAGING AND ASSISTING
WASTE MINIMIZATION/POLLUTION PREVENTION
RCRA POLICY
Determine Compliance
- Cheek Mentteet
• Check Biennial Report and
Annual Export Report
- Check permit condition* and
enforcement eetUententa
Give limited, batk advice on
- The Weete Mlntmbatlon Han
- Waste minlmtaation
opportunrtlee
« EftcoumgevoMte • •• •• •. •
ndntmtotkm/poileUon prevention
- Identify available teehntea!
.. . eaateteace -
. Identity nteoureaa and contact*
•— I'lfwOfttt^f pOtttmMl DWWflto ' ' '
O\7ERHEAD #11
TITLE: RCRA Policy: Encouraging and Assisting Waste Minimization/Pollution
Prevention
• Ways of encouraging waste minimization/pollution prevention include:
— Identifying for the facility waste minimization technical assistance
programs. These programs are listed by state in Pollution Prevention
Resources and Training Opportunities in 1992. Examples of these
technical assistance programs include:
•• Alaska's Waste Reduction Assistance Program and Small
Business Hazardous Material Management Project
•• Minnesota's Technical Assistance Program.
— Identifying resources to assist facilities attempting to integrate waste
minimization into their operations, including:
•• Book of pollution prevention training opportunities
•• Guidance and brochures
•* List of resources/contacts.
VIII-19
-------
OVERVIEW #11
TITLE: RCRA Policy: Encouraging and Assisting Waste Minimization/Pollution
Prevention (continued)
KEY POINTS:
* Some resources are displayed in the Library down the hall. To the extent that
they seem relevant, facilities can be referred to these documents. Please take
the time to flip through these resources during your breaks.
• You have been given in your Participant's Manual:
— A list of state waste minimization/pollution prevention laws
— A summary of the Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
— A resource list, which identifies pertinent written materials and points
of contact.
• As mentioned earlier, the Pollution Prevention Resources and Training
Opportunities 1992 identifies contacts in each state, university-affiliated
pollution prevention research centers and training programs, and
clearinghouses and associations that can assist facilities. This document can
be obtained by calling the Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse at
(703) 821^800,9 a.m. to 5 p.m.
• The Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse also contains technical,
policy, programmatic, legislative, and financial information concerning
source reduction and recycling efforts. It is accessible via telephone hotline,
computer, or mail. Call (713) 821^800 to reach the Technical Support
Office and (800) 424-9346 to reach the RCRA/Superfund Hotline. To access
this and additional information using your personal computer, call (703)
506-1025 to reach the Pollution Prevention Information Exchange System.
• Inspectors can also inform facilities of potential benefits of implementing
waste minimization activities. In certain states, facilities receive awards for
their pollution prevention work. Inherent incentives also exist for generators.
These include:
— Improved worker health and safety
— Reduced liability
— Improved public image
Improved public image •
Cost savings from reduced treatment and disposal costs, lower material I
handling/storage costs, reduced purchases of raw materials, etc.
VIIl-20
-------
SELF EDUCATION
OVERHEAD #12
TITLE: Self Education
KEY POINTS:
As we already know, an inspector should have a strong knowledge of the
industrial processes conducted at a facility prior to inspecting that type of
facility. Having an understanding of the process used at the facility will also
place the inspector in a better position to encourage the facility to implement
waste minimization activities.
An inspector may educate himself or herself regarding industrial processes by
reading relevant guidance such as The Paint Manufacturing Industry, or T^e
Commercial Painting Industry. These documents and other relevant
resources are included on your list of references in your Participant's Manual.
The inspector may also attend relevant seminars regarding topics such as the
metal processing industry. Inspectors can identify such seminars by calling
their Regional pollution prevention contact listed in Pollution Prevention
Resources and Training Opportunities in 1992. which is also included on
your reference list.
Inspectors will learn about industrial processes and waste minimization
opportunities while "on the job." Inspectors can apply "lessons learned"
during one inspection to other inspections of similar industrial processes.
The inspector should note, however, that without a knowledge of the
processes at a facility, he or she should not discuss the process or waste
minimization opportunities with the facility representatives.
VIII-21
-------
OVERHEAD #12
TITLE: Self Education (continued)
KEY POINTS:
* We will now conduct an exercise that requires us to apply the information we
have discussed during this module.
VIII-22
-------
What is the
waste
fnanajyenwnt
hierarchy?
OVERHEAD #13
TITLE: Summary
KEY POINTS:
Waste minimization is source reduction and recycling, while pollution
prevention focuses on source reduction.
The Waste Management Hierarchy is a means of managing waste to
minimize risks to public health and the environment. Source reduction is the
most preferable waste management technique. Recycling is the second most
preferable. Wastes should be treated only after source reduction and
recycling. Disposal is the last alternative.
VIII-23
-------
SUMMARY
What are the HSWA
waste minimization
requirements?
O\7ERHEAD #14
TITLE: Summary
KEY POINTS:
• The waste minimization portion of HSWA requires generators to:
— Certify on their waste manifests that they have a program in place to
reduce volume or quantity and toxiciry of waste
— Report on their waste minimization efforts in a Biennial Report and
Annual Export Report.
• HSWA requires TSDFs to certify that a waste minimization plan is in place
for any new permit issued.
VIII-24
-------
SUMMARY
What Is the
RCRA policy for
encouraging
waste minimization
OVERHEAD #15
TITLE: Summary
KEY POINTS:
• RCRA Policy directs inspectors to:
— Determine compliance:
•• Check manifests
•• Check Biennial Reports and Annual Export Reports
•• Check Permit Conditions and Enforcement Settlements.
— Give limited, basic advice.
— Inform generators of the benefits of waste minimization/pollution
prevention and available resources.
VIII-25
-------
-------
FACILITY DESCRIPTION
FABRICATED METAL INDUSTRY
RUSTY'S METAL SHOP
Rusty's Metal Shop, which fabricates metal, is classified under Standard Industrial
Classification (SIC) 34. The facility supports many other industries, such as the automotive
and appliance industries, by producing metal parts and products. The numerous processes
performed at Rusty's Metal Shop can be grouped into three categories: machining, cleaning,
and finishing. Rusty's Metal Shop produces:
For Ford Motors
• Camshafts
• Crankshafts
• Gears
For General Electric
• Chassis for radio and television
Drill bits
• Sockets
Machining operations at Rusty's Metal Shop involve metal cutting processes. During
this process metal is sheared from the workpiece/product. Metalworking fluids are applied to
the workpiece and machining tool to facilitate cutting by controlling the temperature, washing
away metal pieces, lubricating the cutting process, providing a good finish, and inhibiting
(corrosion and) surface oxidation. These fluids commonly may include water emulsions of a
soluble oil or paste, or oils (mineral, sulphurized, or chlorinated).
Metal workpieces are then cleaned to prepare for finishing. There are primarily three
types of metal cleaners utilized by Rusty's Metal Shop: 1) both halogenated and
nonhalogenated organic solvents); 2) alkaline cleaners; 3) acid cleaners. Cleaners are normally
contained in large open tanks, with the parts to be cleaned mounted on racks or in perforated
horizontal barrels. The racks or barrels are then lowered into cleaning tanks for a few minutes,
then removed and lowered into other tanks, depending on the process being applied.
Finishing of fabricated metal products at Rusty's Metal Shop involves electroplating
and painting. At Rusty's Metal Shop, solvent-based paints are used. Depending on the size,
shape, complexity, and quantity of items to be painted, Rusty's Metal Shop applies the paint
using one of the following methods: dipping; flow coating; or spraying. At Rusty's Metal
Shop, metal parts are cleaned and then are dipped in a series of plating baths followed by a
series of rinses. Electroplating is achieved by passing an electric current through a solution
containing dissolved metal ions as well as the metal object to be plated. Ferrous and nonferrous
metal objects are typically electroplated with various metals (cadmium, chromium, copper,
iron, nickel, and zinc) as well as precious metals (gold and silver). Rinsewater is used at
Rusty's Metal Shop to wash off the drag-out from a workpiece after it is removed from a bath.
All wastewaters are treated on-site and discharged under a NPDES permit.
-------
LIST OF WASTES
FABRICATED METAL INDUSTRY
RUSTY'S METAL SHOP
The major wastes at Rusty's Metal Shop include:
* . Metal working fluids (oils) and other lubricating oils
* Scrap metal
* Spent organic solvents
• Waste water treatment sludge
• Rags contaminated with organic solvents and oils
• Clay absorbent contaminated with organic solvents, paints, and oils
• Sludge from solvent recovery still
• Waste paint
• Wastewater, which is treated on-site to recover metals, neutralized and discharged
under NPDES permit
• Empty paint containers
• Waste acid etchant.
-------
WASTE MINIMIZATION PLAN
FABRICATED METAL INDUSTRY
RUSTY'S METAL SHOP
Rusty's Metal Shop has encouraged waste reduction in its machining, cleaning, and
painting operations for a number of years to reduce the quantity and toxicity of its wastes,
conserve natural resources, and reduce costs. The program elements are described below.
CORPORATE POLICY STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR POLLUTION PREVENTION
As evidence of corporate support of the waste minimization program at Rusty's Metal
Shop, management dispersed a memo describing the corporate pollution prevention plan and
tactics for fulfilling the goals in the plan.
DESCRIPTION OF POLLUTION PREVENTION PLANNING TEAM
Management hired an environmental engineer to coordinate all waste management and
minimization efforts for the Facility. This waste minimization coordinator communicates
monthly with top management at Rusty's Metal Shop. The coordinator along with top
management plban next steps for waste minimization efforts at the Facility.
PLAN FOR COMMUNICATING SUCCESSES AND FAILURES OF POLLUTION
PREVENTION PROGRAMS WITHIN YOUR COMPANY
The coordinator will compile an annual report on waste minimization activities at
Rusty;'s Metal Shop and will ensure that the report is made available to all employees.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROCESSES THAT PRODUCE, USE OR RELEASE
HAZARDOUS OR TOXIC MATERIALS (INCLUDING AMOUNTS AND TYPES OF
RELEASES)
Machining, cleaning, and painting operations at Rusty's Metal Shop produce hazardous
wastes and toxic materials. These wastes are noted on an attached list of wastes.
DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT AND PAST WASTE MINIMIZATION ACTIVITIES AT
RUSTY'S METAL SHOP
Primary Waste Minimization Activity
In 1991, Rusty's Metal Shop evaluated possible waste minimization activities,
including replacement of selected solvents with aqueous cleaners. This study indicated that
Rusty's Metal Shop could reduce its waste by making this replacement. The Facility
implemented this change on a pilot basis for two months at the close of the fiscal year. The
Facility saw a reduction from its average 120 tons of hazardous waste for a two month period
to 105 tons for the two month test period. The activity is being evaluated on other parameters,
such as process effectiveness, employee safety, and cost. Based on the findings, it may be
implemented within the first few months of the new fiscal year.
Characterization of Waste
Rusty's Metal Shop has implemented for a number of years a waste accounting system,
which tracks wastes produced at the facility from generation to final destination. The findings
from this accounting system are available for review.
-------
Periodic Waste Minimization Assessment
Periodic assessment is incorporated into the waste minimization practices at Rusty's
Metal Shop. These practices include tracking waste from generation to final destination to
identify source reduction opportunities and calculate the true cost of waste. For example,
Rusty's Metal Shop plans to select one waste stream for assessment and identify source
reduction opportunities.
Cost Allocation
Waste management costs are calculated for each step in the management process and
directed back to the department producing the waste.
Encourage Technology Transfer
Rusty's Metal Shop shares information with other fabricated metal industries through
participation in a Roundtable of Region A Waste Reduction programs. The Roundtable serves
as a forum in which generators can share information about successful and problematic waste
minimization approaches. Guest speakers from state and technical assistance programs, trade
associations, and consultants bring information on innovative technologies/approaches to the
forum.
Program Evaluation
The Waste Minimization Coordinator leads the annual evaluation of Rusty's Metal
Shop's waste minimization program. This evaluation is completed through a thorough tracking
of all wastes generated in the facility and through interviews with staff members from each area
of Rusty's Metal Shop. The Waste Minimization Coordinator submits an annual report on
waste minimization activities to top management at Rusty's Metal Shop.
-------
HAZARDOUS WASTE REPORT/WASTE MINIMIZATION
FABRICATED METAL INDUSTRY
RUSTY'S METAL SHOP
(The following information is an excerpt from Rusty's Metal Shop's Waste Minimization
Report, included in the Biennial Report.)
In 1991, Rusty's Metal Shop evaluated possible waste minimization activities,
in eluding replacement of selected solvents with aqueous cleaners. This study indicated that
Rusty's Metal Shop could reduce its waste by making this replacement. The Facility
implemented this change on a pilot basis for two months at the close of the fiscal year. The
Facility saw a reduction from its average 120 tons of hazardous waste for a two month period
to 105 tons for the two month test period. The activity is being evaluated on other parameters,
such as process effectiveness, employee safety, and cost. Based on the findings, it may be
implemented within the first few months of the new fiscal year.
-------
-------
STATE WASTE MINIMIZATION/POLLimON PREVENTION LAWS
STATUS OF LEGISLATION
STATE
ENACTED
PROPOSED
TECHNICAL
ASSIST. AVAIL.
AK
AR
AZ
CA
CO
CT
DE
FL
GA
HI
tL
IN
1A
KS
KY
LA
MA
MD
ME
MI
MN
MS
MO
MT
NC
ND
NE
NJ
NM
NY
NY
OH
OK
OR
PA
Rl
SC
SD
TN
TX
UT
VA
VT
WA
WI
WVA
WY
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
-
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention
-------
POLLUTION PREVENTION ACT OF 1990
SUMMARY
TITLE
6601 Short Title
6602 Findings and Policy
6603 Definitions
6604 EPA Activities
6605 Grants to States for State
Technical Assistance
Programs
6606 Source Reduction
Clearinghouse
6607 Source Reduction and
Recycling Data Collection
6608 Biennial Reports
6609 Savings Provisions
6610 Authorization of
Appropriations
SUMMARY
The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990
Congress declares pollution prevention as national policy.
Defines terms used in subtitle including an explanation of
source reduction (which excludes recycling).
Mandates EPA to develop and implement a strategy to
promote source reduction. Grants EPA the authority to
establish an office to carry out the 12 Agency functions
specified in the strategy. The office shall be independent
of program offices, with authority to review and advise
such offices.
Requires the Agency to make matching grants (up to 50%)
to support state programs to promote the use of source
reduction techniques by businesses.
Requires the Agency to establish and make available to
the public a source reduction clearinghouse to compile
information including a computer data base which
contains information on management, technical and
operational approaches to source reduction.
Requires each owner or operator of a facility required to
file an annual toxic chemical release form under Section
313 of SARA to include in this filing a toxic chemical
source reduction and recycling report.
Requires EPA to submit biennially to Congress a report
describing the actions taken to implement source reduction
and the results of these actions
Prohibits the Act from modifying or interfering with the
implementation of Tide III of SARA or responsibilities or
liability under state or Federal law.
Provides $8 million to EPA for each of the fiscal years
1991, 1992, 1993, and $8 million for state grants
for each of the fiscal years 1991, 1992, and 1993.
Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention
-------
WASTE MINIMIZATION/POLLUTION PREVENTION MODULE
THE ADVANCED RCRA INSPECTOR'S INSTITUTE
REFERENCES FOR INSPECTORS
EPA Guidance Documents
Facility Pollution Prevention Guide. EPA/600/R-62/088, May 1992. Describes how to
identify, assess, and implement opportunities for implementing pollution prevention. The
" " i is written for individuals responsible for implementing waste minimization programs at
;s. The guide also provides a list of references and information resources.
spection Manual. Appendix I: "Keeping Up With Current RCRA Regulatory
Concerns," pages I-7-I-9. Summarizes RCRA policy
RCRA Ins .
on incorporating pollution prevention
into RCRA inspections. Provides list of activities that an inspector should complete when
conducting a facility inspection to ensure that facilities are in compliance with HSWA
requirements. Also includes a waste minimization checklist and a list of resources to which the
inspector can refer.
EPA Policy Documents
"Interim EPA Policy on the Inclusion of Pollution Prevention and Recycling Provisions in
Enforcement Settlements," Memorandum from James M. Strock, Assistant Administrator,
Office of Enforcement, February 25, 1991.
"The Role of RCRA Inspectors in Waste Minimization," OSWER Directive 9938.10,
September 12, 1991. Describes activities RCRA inspectors should perform to ensure facilities
are in compliance with HSWA and to encourage pollution prevention.
"Waste Minimization Incentives: Request for Comments," Federal Register. Volume 55,
Number 194, pages 40881-40887, October 5, 1990. Responses to the comments are reflected
in the RCRA Waste Minimization Action Plan. EPA/530-R-92-020, May 1992.
Legislation
"The Pollution Prevention Act of 1990," Public Law 101-508 Title 6, 104 STAT. 1388,
November 5, 1990. Establishes a pollution prevention hierarchy as a national policy. The Act
describes the Agency's strategy for implementing pollution prevention activities and also
covers areas such as reporting requirements on source reduction and recycling activities.
EPA Resource/Outreach Documents
Pollution Prevention Resources and Training Opportunities in 1992. U.S. EPA, Office of
Pollution Prevention, EPA/560/8-92-002, January 1992. This document lists waste
minimization/pollution prevention state and Federal programs and contacts, as well as
guidance, fact sheets, and videos, university affiliated pollution prevention training and
research centers, clearinghouses, and associations.
Waste Minimization: Environmental Quality and Economic Benefits (Second Edition),
EPA/530-S W-89-049, 1989. A brief document that encourages generators to implement waste
minimization activities by providing them with examples of how waste minimization has been
cost effective for generators.
Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention
-------
REFERENCES FOR FACILITIES
EPA Guidance Documents
Facility Pollution Prevention Guide. EPA/600/R-62/088, May 1992. Describes how to
identify, assess, and implement opportunities for implementing pollution prevention. The
guide is written for individuals responsible for implementing waste minimization programs at
facilities. The guide also provides a list of references and information resources.
Guides to Pollution Prevention. These provide information on EPA's waste minimization
assessment process, as well as detailed information on industrial processes and waste
minimization opportunities for the following industries:
The Pesticide Formulating Industry. EPA/625/7-90/004
The Paiqt Manufacturing Industry. EPA/625/7-90-005
The Fabricated Metal Products Industry. EPA/625/7-90AX)6
The Printed Circuit Board Manufacturing Industry. EPA/625/7-90AXJ7
The Commercial Printing Industry. EPA/625/7-90/008
Selected Hospital Waste Streams. EPA/625/7-90/009
Research and Educational Institutions. EPA/625/7-90/010
Waste Minimization in Metal Parts Cleaning. EPA/530-SW-89-049.
L \ Policy Documents
"Clarification of Types of Activities That May Be Used to Satisfy Waste Minimization
Certification," OSWER Directive 9560.14-85, August 5, 1985. States that Congress' intent
with regard to waste minimization requirements in HSWA is to encourage hazardous waste
generators to reduce the quantity and toxicity of waste generated. Indicates that generators who
recycle onsite or send their wastes offsite to be recycled are also satisfying waste minimization
requirements.
"Submission of Waste Minimization Information," OSWER Directive 9454.00-1 A, May 23,
1986. Directs Regions ID verify that generators are submitting to EPA or authorized states
waste minimization information required by Section 3002(a)(6) and 40 CFR 262.4 l(a)6 &7.
"Waste Minimization: Permit Certification and Joint Permitting," OSWER Directive
9560.1985 (01), September 11, 1985. Provides guidance for incorporating the Section
3005(h) waste minimization certification of HSWA into RCRA permits; clarifies joint
permitting under HSWA.
EPA Resource/Outreach Documents
Innovative Hazardous Waste Treatment Technologies: A Developer's Guide to Support
Services. EPA 540/2-91/012, June 1992. Provides descriptions and contacts at
institutions/organizations that can provide support to innovative technology developers.
Pollution Prevention: A Resource Book for Industry. June 1990. Describes for industry
benefits of pollution prevention, and provides success stories and references. Also includes
bibliography which contains potential case studies and resources.
Waste Minimization: Environmental Quality and Economic Benefits (Second Edition),
EPA/530-SW-89-049,1989. A brief document that encourages generators to implement waste
minimization activities by providing them with examples of how waste minimization has been
cost effective for generators.
Waste MinimizatJotvPolluiion Prevention
-------
CONTACTS
Office of Waste Programs Enforcement:
• Technical Assistance Training Branch - FTS-260-9320 or 202-260-9320
Policy and Regional Operations Branch - FTS-260-8115 or 202-260-8115.
Office of Solid Waste:
Waste Minimization Branch - FTS-308-8402 or 703-308-8402.
Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics:
• Pollution Prevention Division - 202-260-3357.
The Pollution Prevention Information Clearinghouse (PPIC) contains technical, policy,
programmatic, legislative, and financial information concerning source reduction and recycling
in the United States and abroad. It can be reached via telephone hotlines, personal computer
(Pollution Prevention Information Exchange System (PIES)), or mail. Reach PPIC using the
following numbers or address:
RCRA/Superfund Hotline - 800-424-9346
PPIC Technical Support Office - 703-821 -4800
PIES-703-506-1025
Mailing Address - c/o SAIC
7600-A Leesburg Pike
Falls Church, Virginia 22043.
Waste minimization/pollution prevention state and Federal programs and contacts are listed in
Pollution Prevention Resources and Training Opportunities in 1992. This resource book also
lists guidance, fact sheets, and videos, university affiliated pollution prevention training and
research centers, and clearinghouses, and associations.
Waste Minimization/Pollution Prevention
-------
-------
HHyWtMp&fftAfi
UJ
V)
uj
D.O
z<
Oiu
II
a
:z
= •£ — -g
s S " 1§ .i
^L .W rl «•• ~ ^^ ^^ ^ M»
J2-5=J||*«H
n
Oi
1
o
tf>
-------
IU
UJ
E
Oz
§5
UJQ
fei
Jr. 2
g2
CO
u
DC
UJ
-------
UJ
CA
UJ
UJ
EC
UJ
CO
UJ
g
Q.
O
O
s
ff
Ul
I
D.
Z
O
2
UJ
O
Cft
CO
UJ
O
O
cc
I
O O
I I
5 1
3 Iff
28£-i
^5
!i
ii
i
•i
o"
I
Q.
I
e
I
w. w ~
111
• • •
II
s.
1
•«
Q.
-------
-------
"GRAY AREAS" IN SOLID WASTE
Is It a Solid Waste?
How Do I Know?
Where Do I Turn?
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: "Gray Areas" in Solid Waste
KEY POINTS:
• Determining whether a given material is a solid waste has enormous implications
for its management. If you determine that something is not a solid waste and,
therefore, can't be a hazardous waste, then its generation, transportation, and
final disposal are not governed by RCRA. If, on the other hand, you do
determine that the material is a solid waste, then there are very clear-cut
regulations that must be complied with. In this presentation, we will focus on
three major gray areas that you may frequently encounter in the field. These
three areas are: 1) sham recycling, 2) waste derived products, and 3) speculative
accumulation. For each of these areas, we will define the terms and describe
scenarios that fall within these three gray areas. There are others, such as
secondary material classification and point of generation issues, but in the
interest of time our discussions will focus primarily on the three mentioned.
• On inspections where it is difficult for you to determine if materials are or are not
solid waste, the determinations will have to be based on the facts of the particular
case. You may not be able to make a determination on the spot. You will have
to go back to the office and use all your resources (e.g.. Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response (OSWER) Directives, Regulatory Development
Branch memos, or RCRA Enforcement Division (RED) personnel.)
IX-1
-------
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: "Gray Areas" in Solid Waste (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• During this presentation we will examine two different scenarios by engaging in
active debate. The debates will illustrate that, in many cases, the facts can
support different determinations regarding classification of materials.
• In addition, we will identify human and written resources that you can consult
when faced with these or other gray areas.
• i
IX-2
-------
40CFR§261.2TABLE1
Stodg** (MM Jn W CFB fmt MU1
hwtzrdou* WMt*
By-product! 0M«d In 40 CFB Part
MUI or «1J2)
By-producta nhlbMng • ohmcM*
tk of htzzrdou* MSB)
VOfMRlOTCMI OVMHIlOfll P^OOUCw
SonpltoW
O
n
n
n
n
n
o
o
o
n
n
n
o
o
n
n
n
n
o
n
o
o
o
ON'ERHEAD #2
TITLE: 40 CFR §261^ Table 1
KEY POINTS:
• Table I of §261.2 is the starting point for determining if a material is a solid
waste. It covers four different recycling schemes and seven different types of
secondary materials and identifies when they would be a solid waste. For
example, a characteristic sludge thai is being used for its energy value would be a
solid waste. If the characteristic sludge was being reclaimed, it would not be a
solid waste and therefore could not be a hazardous waste.
• There will be scenarios which won't fit into Table 1 easily and that aren't as
straightforward. Let's take a closer look at each of the three gray areas that you
will likely encounter at some point when conducting inspections. Some of these
situations you may have already encountered in the field.
• Another issue that will need to be resolved is whether reclamation occurs prior to
use or reuse as an ingredient, prior to use as an effective substitute for a chemical
commercial product, or prior to being returned to the original process that
generated the material. In all three scenarios, if the secondary material is
reclaimed prior to use or reuse, it would not meet the §261.2(e) exceptions from
being considered waste management.
IX-3
-------
SHAM RECYCLING
\
O\7ERHEAD#3
TITLE: Sham Recycling
KEY POINTS:
You may encounter facilities that "recycle" their materials in ways that avoid
waste management, but do not significantly recover material or energy value. In
fact, the real intent is to treat or dispose of their hazardous waste, not to recycle
it— hence, the term "sham recycling."
An example is the direct use of a hazardous waste to manufacture a consumer
product, such as sending a F-listed solvent, with a low Btu value, to a cement kiln
and identifying it as a necessary ingredient in the production of cement. The
hazardous constituents are in effect treated while they contribute nothing to the
final product. Using spent pickle liquor as a wastewater conditioner is a
legitimate use of a secondary material as a commercial product substitute.
As you know, facilities are required to maintain documentation when claiming
that their materials are not solid wastes (40 CFR §261.2(f)). But you may
encounter, or have already encountered, situations where the material is partially
used to make a product. For example, a F006 sludge may have certain properties
that make it useful in cement production, but it also contains very high
concentrations of hazardous constituents that contribute nothing to the product.
The gray area in this scenario stems from the need to determine if this is a
legitimate use of the material and can therefore be considered recycling.
-------
WASTE DERIVED PRODUCTS
If • material is being recycled according to §261.2(e)(Mii)
then it Is
NOT A SOUD WASTE
BUT...
If the material will be used In a manner constituting disposal
or to produce a fuel then It Is
A SOLID WASTE
BUT...
If the material that will be applied to the land or used to
produce a fuel Is a commercial chemical product that is
normally used in that way then H Is
NOT A SOLID WASTE
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Waste Derived Products
KEY POINTS:
• As we have noted, §261.2(e) describes recycling activities that are not defined as
waste management. That is, use or reuse as an ingredient, use or reuse as an
effective substitute for a commercial product, and returning the material to the
process where it was originally generated, without prior reclamation.
• There are four important exceptions: if the material is being used to produce a
product that will be applied to the land, or to produce a fuel, or is being
accumulated speculatively, or is inherently wastelike, it is a solid waste. The
first two exceptions encompass waste derived products. There is one further
important exception: Products that are made by incorporating chemical
commercial products are not a solid waste if they are either used in a manner
constituting disposal or used for energy recovery (if the chemical commercial
product is normally used in that way).
• You are probably most familiar with an off-specification commercial chemical
product that is being sent off-site for energy recovery. For example, an
off-specification jet fuel, hydrazine (U133), used as fuel for a boiler. Another
example is chlordane (U036), a listed commercial chemical product that is also a
pesticide. When chlordane is used as a pesticide, it is not a solid waste.
Therefore, if chlordane is applied to the ground as a pesticide and it subsequently
IX-5
-------
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Waste Derived Products
KEY POINTS:
is mixed with a solid waste, this mixture would not be a hazardous waste via the
mixture rule. Again, this is because the commercial chemical product is being
used as it normally would be used.
• It becomes very important to determine if the commercial chemical product was
being used as intended or if in fact, it was actually being disposed. Let's look at
another scenario. 2,4,5,-T, a pesticide, is mixed with water prior to being used.
If this unused mixture spills onto the ground before it is used, the soil would be
considered to contain the listed commercial chemical product (i.e., F027). If the
contamination resulted from the use of the 2,4,5,-T, then the soil would not be
considered to contain the listed hazardous waste. You should note that the soil
could still be a hazardous waste if it exhibited a characteristic of a hazardous
waste.
• Even though a material is a solid waste if it is applied to land, it will not be
regulated if it meets LDR treatment standards and has been physically
incorporated into a product. An example is a commercial fertilizer that contains
zinc flue dust (K061), provided that it is being produced for the general public's
use and provided that it is handled in a manner commensurate with the
management of zinc fertilizers (e.g., stored and transported properly).
IX-6
-------
SPECULATIVE ACCUMULATION
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: Speculative Accumulation
KEY POINTS:
• Speculative accumulation occurs when materials are accumulated with the intent
of recycling, but there is a long time pehod before the recycling takes place.
Unless it can be shown that a certain amount of waste is recycled during a
calendar year, the material is a solid waste (and hence can be a hazardous waste).
The generator needs to show that the material has recycling potential, and that
there is a feasible way to recycle the material. The generator must also show that
there is a turnover of 75% of the accumulated material in a calendar year. The
gray area in this scenario results from the need to determine if a particular
material can be recycled and if there is a means of recycling it. For example, a
facility accumulates a sludge that is characteristically hazardous. The intent is to
recycle the sludge. If the nearest recycler is 500 miles away, the facility will
have to show that it is economically reasonable to send the sludge that far to be
recycled.
• We have just looked at the gray areas of sham recycling, waste derived products
and speculative accumulation. As stated earlier, there are other gray areas
related to determining if a material is a solid waste. Can you suggest other gray
areas you are aware of or have experienced?
IX-7
-------
RESOURCES FOR 'GRAY AREAS"
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Resources for Gray Areas
KEY POINTS:
• We've just briefly described some broad categories of gray areas that may
arise when determining if a material is a solid waste. As you can probably
imagine, there are as many scenarios as there are facilities and far too many
for there to be a definitive answer for every situation. The regulations are not
designed to address each and every situation or factor. That is why your
determination of whether a material is or is not a solid waste and how you get
to that decision is very important. For example, when determining whether
an activity is legitimate recycling vs. sham recycling, you will need to look at
the constituents in the secondary material that are being recycled and compare
them to the constituents found in the virgin ingredients. These factors and
others will be unique.
• To assist you in collecting information and expert opinions please refer to
your Participant's Manual. This is a compilation of both human resources and
written resources that can help you. Let's briefly walk through the handout.
IX-8
-------
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Resources for "Gray Areas" (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• The Resources for Gray Areas is divided into 2 sections—one for human
resources and one for written resources. This list of human resources is
further broken down into a section on Headquarter resources and a section on
Regional resources. You will notice that offices are listed, rather than specific
individuals. Individuals change positions but, for the most part, office
functions remain constant. Listed in the written resources section are
pertinent OSWER directives, regulatory development branch memos, RCRA
Hotline monthly report questions, Federal Registers, and other guidance
documents.
IX-9
-------
SOLID WASTE — YES OR NO?
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: Solid Waste—Yes or No?
KEY POINTS:
• The cases you debated were based on real cases. We modified some of the facts
to make the debates more even-handed. Here are the actual determinations of the
two cases:
Case 1 - Inorganic Recycling
In February 1989, EPA sent Inorganic Recycling (IR) a Section 3007
information request and made a field visit to the site. In April 1989, EPA
informed IR that the company's operation revealed characteristic properties of a
hazardous waste treatment operation. The Agency required IR to conduct a test
burn and analyze the results to determine whether IR was legitimately recycling
hazardous wastes into a commercially usable endproduct. In October 1989, the
U.S. EPA and the Ohio EPA approved IR's Work Plan, which defined the test
procedure for the test burn. The testing was structured into two phases. The
U.S. EPA and the Ohio EPA concurred that data generated during the Phase I
and II tests would lead to a technical basis for either accepting or rejecting IR's
claims for legitimate recycling. In April 1990, the U.S. EPA determined that
IR's operation represents a valid means of reprocessing waste materials for the
purposes of endproduct production, provided that IR adheres to certain
conditions. One of the conditions requires IR to perform certain tests and keep
detailed records demonstrating the extent of their recycling activities.
IX-10
-------
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: Solid Waste—Yes or No? (continued)
KEY POINTS:
Constituents to be sampled and tested for include benzene, vinyl chloride,
mercury, beryllium, total organic carbon, total cyanide, hexavalent chromium,
and total metal content. EPA's approach in setting these criteria was to divide
the hazardous constituents present in the F006 waste stream into two groups,
those that contribute to recycling, and those that do not. These tests and
associated records will allow IR to prove continued compliance with 40 CFR
§§261.2(e)and(f).
Case 2—American Brass Incorporated
ABI had been placing slag on the pile since at least 1984 with minimal removal.
Needless to say, ABI did not meet the 75% removal requirement under
speculative accumulation for quite a few years. Therefore, the pile was
considered a solid waste because of speculative accumulation, and a hazardous
waste because of the TC levels of lead. ABI further failed to properly manage
the baghouse dust. In March 1988, EPA filed a complaint against ABI. In June
1989, EPA, Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM), and
ABI entered into a Consent Decree. ABI was required to close the slag pile by
December 31, 1989 pursuant to the terms of a closure plan attached to the
Consent Decree. In addition, ABI was prohibited from placing newly generated
slag on the land and baghouse dust was to be properly managed. It was not until
1991 when ADEM and EPA conducted a joint inspection of the facility noting
that the requirements of the closure plan had not been completed, that ABI began
serious removal of slag from the slag pile. At the end of 1991, ABI had removed
more than 75% of the slag pile that existed in the beginning of the calendar year.
Since they removed at least 75% of the slag pile at that time, the pile ceased to be
a solid waste and, therefore, a hazardous waste at the beginning of 1991. ABI
had totally lifted the slag pile by February 29,1992 as per the modification to
Consent Decree.
• As revealed by the debates, general guidance cannot adequately clarify gray
areas. As you have all experienced, you have to make judgment calls in many, if
not most, situations. These decisions should be based on the facts of a particular
case, and should not be done quickly. Take time to fully examine all the facts.
• Additionally, there are human and written resources that are available to help you
in resolving these issues. A comprehensive list of resources is available in your
Participant's Manual. Use these resources.
IX-11
-------
-------
RESOURCES FOR "GRAY AREAS" IN SOLID WASTE
WRITTEN RESOURCES
FEDERAL REGISTERS
Date Citation Subject
April 11,1985 50 FR 14216 Technical Corrections to Solid Waste
Definitions
Technical corrections to the January 4, 1985 rule defining solid waste.
Indicates that an unlisted commercial chemical product (e.g., unused oil)
would be regulated as a listed Chemical Commercial Product.
January 4,1985 50 FR 614 Definition of Solid Waste
Modifications to definition of solid waste finalized and recycling regulations
promulgated. Discusses the entire basis for the definition of solid waste.
Further discusses the types of secondary materials and how the method of
recycling will determine if the material is a solid waste.
April 4,1983 48 FR 14472 Proposed rule on Definition of Solid Waste
Proposed regulations for determining which materials are hazardous wastes when
recycled.
OSWER DIRECTIVES
Date From/To Subject
April 29, 1989 Lowrance/Regions I-X Legitimate vs. sham recycling
OSWER Directive 9441.1989(19)
OTHER DOCUMENTS
RCRA Implementation Study Update: The Definition of Solid Waste: July 1992,
EPA/530-R-92-021
-------
-------
HOTLINE MONTHLY REPORT QUESTIONS
Date
May 1992
February 1992
August 1991
May 1990
March 1990
October 1987
Subject
Secondary Material Used as Effective
Substitutes for Commercial Products
Speculative Accumulation Calculation
Off-Specification Circuit Printing Board
Spent Material; Mercury Spilled from a
Thermometer
By-Product vs. Scrap Metal
Off-Spec Fuel Burned for Energy Recovery
HUMAN RESOURCES
REGIONS
Region 1
Office
Waste Management Division
Regional Counsel
Region 2
Office
Hazardous and Solid Waste Programs Branch
Hazardous Waste Compliance Branch
Regional Counsel - Air, Waste, and Toxics Branch
Phone Number
(617) 573-5700
(617) 565-3451
Phone Number
(212) 264-9469
(212) 264 8356
(212) 264-5340
-------
HUMAN RESOURCES (continued)
Region 3
Office
RCRA Programs Branch
RCRA Enforcement and UST Branch
Regional Counsel
Region 4
Office
RCRA and Federal Facilities Branch
Waste Programs Branch
Regional Counsel - Hazardous Waste Law Branch
Phone Number
(215)597-0980
(215) 597-2809
(215) 597-9822
Phone Number
(404) 347-3016
(404) 347-5059
(404) 347-2641
Region 5
Office
RCRA Office
RCRA Enforcement Branch
RCRA Program Management Branch
Regional Counsel- Solid Waste and Emergency
Response Branch
Region 6
Office
RCRA Enforcement Branch
RCRA Programs Branch
Regional Counsel
Phone Number
(312) 886-7437
(312) 886-4434
(312) 353-8512
(312) 886-0556
PJione Number
(214) 655-6745
(214)655-6655
(214) 665-2110
-------
HUMAN RESOURCES (continued)
Region 7
Office
RCRA Branch
Regional Counsel - Hazardous Waste/RCRA
Branch
Phone JNumber
(913) 551-7051
(913) 551-7010
Region 8
Office
RCRA Implementation Branch
RCRA Management Branch
Regional Counsel
Phone Number
(303) 293-1663
(303) 293-1513
(303) 293-7550
Region 9
Office
Waste Compliance Branch
Regional Counsel
Phone Number
(415) 744-2120
(415) 744-1364
Region 10
ice
Waste Management Branch
Hazardous Waste Policy Branch
Regional Counsel - Hazardous Waste Branch
Phone Number
(206) 553-2782
(206) 553-2871
(206) 553-6695
RCRA/SUPERFUND/OUST HOTLINE
(800) 424-9346
-------
-------
Debate Preparation and Conduct Rules
1. Select a lead debater and a note taker. (The lead debater may choose to be the
note taker, too. This decision is up to each team).
2. The Red and Orange teams each need to select one member to summarize
their respective enforcement cases at the time of the debates. If you are one of
these teams, select one member to present a brief summary (not to exceed 1
minute) of your assigned enforcement case. This person can also be the lead
debater and/or the note taker. The purpose of this summary is to introduce
the specific gray area scenario of the given debate to the rest of the participants.
3. Read the details of the case and the background materials. Discuss the case and
develop your team strategy for the debate.
4. Review with the lead debater the points to raise during the debate. The lead
debater will have 21/2 minutes to present your team's position and identify
supporting materials/references.
5. Adhere to the time frames listed below and on the flipchart at the front of the
room. Time is limited, and each team will need to adhere to the following
time constraints:
— Review of case and background materials, and discussion of team
approach and points you plan to make during the debate (30-35
minutes)
— Brief summary of the case and conduct of the debate (3 1/2 minutes per
team)
6. Send the lead debater from your team to the front of the room when the
instructor calls on your team to compete in a debate with the opposing team.
If you are the Red or Orange team, also send the member responsible for
introducing the case in question to the rest of the participants.
-------
-------
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS PACKET
FOR NATIONAL BRASS CASE STUDY
-------
-------
NATIONAL BRASS INCORPORATED
National Brass Incorporated (NBI) is an unpermitted, secondary brass smelter with a
facility located in Christmas Tree, Alabama. NBI smelts scrap metal from dealers
and industrial sources to reclaim brass and produce brass ingots. The smelting
process produces three additional materials: ambient air baghouse dust, zinc oxide
baghouse dust, and brass furnace slag ("slag"). The baghouse dust from flue gases,
mainly consisting of zinc oxide, is bagged and sold for reclamation. The baghouse
dust from charging gases is fed back into the furnace. A portion of the slag is
reprocessed in a ball mill producing a ball mill residue which may be sold as a
fertilizer. The slag exhibits a hazardous characteristic because of its lead content.
The slag does contain recoverable amounts of metals and may also be further
processed to produce another saleable product.
On December 17,1992, you visit the facility. NBI claims that their slag would be
classified as a by-product exhibiting a characteristic and when sent for reclamation
would not be a solid waste per 40 CFR §261.2{c) Table 1. NBI's records show that
they began accumulating the slag on the ground at its facility in June 1990. A closer
review of the facilities records show that 500 Ibs. of slag were accumulated from
June-December 1990. From January to May 1991, an additional 1000 Ibs. were
accumulated and on May 17,1991,1450 Ibs were sent off-site for recycling. On
December 31,1991, they had 400 Ibs on-site. During your visit NBI has 500 Ibs of slag
on-site. The facility that they usually send the slag to for recycling had a fire in
September and has not yet gone back into production.
Is the slag a solid waste?
-------
-------
BACKGROUND MATERIALS
-------
-------
fadotat Rafiatar / Val ». No. 3 / Friday, fuiuaryj. 1965 / Rule* and Rtguiationa
ibMqitanily uaad aa faadalock, Th
Cation It a aubaat of Iha ona Jual
acribad ao thai lhaaa naiariali
itaa unfU radalnad Thair lalar/
•adatock doaa not allar thia refill
Afancy acknowladfas. bowof ar.
tha^ita diacuaaion of tha racyclinj of
aulfuric acid in Iha propoall
ibla (footnota 30) craatad font
ion. Tha Afancy atill do* not
think Mia procaaa tovolvta ncjbmattoa,
To wlilMaala e»y uncartainty.
_ aadiAf|3eu(a)oftha
rcfvJatbea to atate that apanf aulfuric
add thai to raeydad to prodJea vlnto
aulfwfe Idd la not conaldaaM to bal
(Saa SactfoB L£alow.)
Products.
Propoaad a
to; ;
from" rulijlp IndJcata
prodocta najalmad froi
art not lub
rtftjaUocu
f if < nan ted
Slmilariy.
auitibla for
to bi raflaad to
not wattaa.
fairly avMant
cbalkaavd by an;
'a caution.
(WMLthat
ipplj to facia
ordinarily con*
proclvcta. tuefa
•tabitiud wai
doaii not appi;
rtdnmatioo
race vary or
acti'riria»
proiltiona
ualng basa;
in fuala or
inibuioa,
and bl«
that
ifytaf
(tha "darfvad
I ooooiardal
asardoua
waalaa. and ao
tothalCRASubtiUaC
4|FRll4aa.Thua.
vtnta fra not waataa.
tula that an
or that only hava
ablt an product*.
ladawnt aialaa a
aad WM not
tar.
aawadidtolha
pla doaa not
tariala that an not
to ba conihardal
ta-watan or
provlaion aiao
output of tha
foraaarfy
aead OB ha land. Thaaa
controDadby Iha
tha dtftnJftm daattaf with
oua waitaa i> InfradiaatB •
Par
esant aoivad) to baatod "
with oil to aal aa a bal
ivtdtolUljiOMbjactb
Tna pAndpla aiao doaa i
wrajtarafbai hava baao i
minunauy. or to tutarlaJa I
ba«A dJkrtiaUy radaiBad but I
1 furthar bafon i
, (Saa 44 FK at 14
For Ala laal aituBUoo~whara i
art tenialiy radaimad but mualba
racl^mad furthar untU racovtryl
conplctad—wa an proTidinf a '
l»durt for aitaatfoaa to which)
: aJly radaimad matarial la
^ooal prooaaaiof barbra M to i
. ThJ« varUaca to axpltl
P. Sactton ai^eK<): Waitta That An
Aecumulatad Spaoilattvaly
I. Grouping of Sffoihtivf
Accumulation ond Oy»rocetimuhtioH
fnnfioat. EPA propoaad that toy
aacondaiy autarial [U.. apaat autariaia.
•aludfat, or by-prediieta) baiaf
accuaitlalad apacolativaly wan aottd
waataa. Wa aald thaaa autariaia an
.tfrtly- whan Ifaay
^u.^..i>i.j - - * -
an oatof atond with a bfitiauto
axpacUtioa of avantual ncydlof bat
hava navar boaa ncydad i
a **rafulatory framawork" to anaun that
"haiardoua waita* (an not) dlapoaad of
In panda or lofoona or oa tha ground In
a aiannar that naulU in aubatandal and
aonatunaa Inavaraibla poUutlon of tha
anviroomant- (Id.) TWi aaandatad
"ngwlatory approach" would
-allnlnalfa) tha laal nraainlnf loephola
to anvtronaMntat law ..." (Id)
Although aocuffluladni haurdow
aaeondary Butartab an ordinarily .
rofardad at aolld aad hatardev waalaa,
t»U« hi MI hnwfebiy tfaa caaa. Aa notad
faaaibly ba ncydad Saa 41 PI 14am
Tba Afaocy furtfaar propoaad that
aacoodary aularlala dial arcaanJata at
a alto for ovar a yaar wdhout 71 paroaol
bainf ncydad an aolld waataa. 41 PR
14490. Tha aaua of thia provtatott waa
thai aO aacoodary autarlala that
ovtraccumolata bafon bataf ncydad
an aolld waataa. aroa tf thay an fotof
to ba ncydad to waya that ordtoaiay oo
net conattruta waata auaayaaMoi
Wa hava eoaAiaad thaaa eooeapta to
a aiaaia provtotoa to Iha final daflaJttoa.
Wa hava drafted tha provtaloB ao that
aacoodary outarlaia an conaidand to
baaoUd waataa tfthay an oecaanUattat
bafon batof ncydad Kowovar. OBI
natariah wffl aot ba oonriaatad aoBd
waataa (oDdartUapnviaioa of 0at •
daflaltlon] tf th* panoa aoooaraiattof
can ahow. on nouaat, that a) tha>
matariala hava kaowa neycQaf *
potantfat and can raaafbry ba locydod
and b) duriaa a ona-yaar
parted that tha amount o!
ncydad or traaifamd to a
aita for naydtoi, to at baaf»
of tha •• - - -
of Part 1 aad Saettoo H of Put 2)1 thaaa
atatariala would aot ba waataa tf Ifaay
can ba ncydad to eartain daaifnatad
waya. and tf (hay an not aeeumulalad
apoculaavaty bafon bolng racycUd.
Thaaa ataiadoaa npnaaol axeapttona to
Iha faaaral atatotory prohibition aaaiaat
uaraftUlad waata auuufaamt
•Tha fiaal rala Ihua atataa tba aaoaraJ
priadpla that hatardoua aaeoadary
aaatartala aeoiuMiladaf bafon ncydinf
an waataa aalaaa tha pwaoa
aceuBnlatlni at abb to ahow OB nquaat
that ha b todood neydlnj mffldaai
vohmaa of tha aaatarlala oa an anouat
baato, TW aroviaioai la aot aubatanttvaly
dlflanat from tba propoaad rula oo)
aspndoy,
dkatduataaa
laaaatalatatatory '
tta bordafi of ahowlng
ttaanbaiBai
thatauffldaeii
ncydad to OB dw i
tha malarial. (Boa aactfon J. of Ihto p*rt
rf Iha pnaaihlo )
Wattm not Am
XaauBuifotfhf With £xf*ctaoo* tf
MJM Which Hart Not «oao
Wtan adoptet la tha ftaat
t * - w * •• ^^ »•:•• '^* a ^B^BBaajawaav dom^^ajaBai ^ m^^f^^^^ -^ •-
to ba naardad aa ooBd aaat,^ fhaaa waataa aia autjatt lmm*r
wa^Cona^aaabaBaVatf «8 ipuHmMa ROtA Sohtida C
kaw) waataa an ranJy. tf r ttoadarda. Ordtoarihr. lhaaa an
.ardJattflytoha ramudad
ttutbastr^Mi
abbfotocydma.
•taadatod
Mataaiaaa duit an BBOWB to ha
-------
-------
Fadaral Rafjatar / Vol. ao. No. 3 / Friday. Janaary 4. 1985 / Rulaa and Regulation*
•3!
naaraat ncyclar I* fOO nllai away. ih«
paraon aennulartRf tba batafdoua
aacondary autartaJ woaid hava ta ihow
that It la aeonomleaUy aiaaonabla to
aand kit M cartel that far to ba racy clad.
Tha moal camrtadnf damonatntlon
claarly would ba that lha hasardoua
aacondanr malarial actually has bata
Moat oooaMfltf aupporlad l*»
£fQpQ6AL TWO fomjiidilfff^ D0W
aufjaatodAataMtortal ferwbJal
malarial* an aeounalatad btfon baliaj
neydad la an tmportaot indicator af
whathar or not Aay an wattat (or. to
tha eaaa of pradoua antal wattaa.
whathar thay ahoald ba aubfact to
rtfulaflon). This la boma oat by Aa
laraa oumbar of ncycHni daraaaa eaaaa
whan aacondary material Aat 1
ovanccuanitatad <
axtoaatva ban
atetodAatfawwl
ncycMaaala htoradato aboald aot b*
apacaiattvaty. Wa diaapaa. Wa Atot
that BMteriala that an aot aaowa to ba
neydabla (or aot toaafbly ncydabto to
Aa baada of a pafttcaJar aoantor) an
waatoa bamadlataly. Tba axampla to Aa
pnambto to Aa aropoaad tate al •
whil* to avaaratar aadaavond tofiad a
maaaa toneyek ft todkataa Aal
eondaettafnaaaKb toto ncjdtoa.
poaafbUtttaa to auiab diBanat thaa bttof
abia to ncyctoa waato. to addfttoa, Aa
Aaaacy b) aataaj«ipead to avalaato
wbalbar aa HBpravaa davaioonaatal
waalaa uaJaa* lha
tfea waata ft aUoto
parontar
accunulatlnf tfca
AffNotX»eyfitdl»Saffieitat
Xowtmtt. a. lha ftupuaarfftortafaa.
EPA propoaad that taooadaiy matarltli
aot alnady dafiaad aa waatoa Aal
accumulated at a lita lor avar a yaar .
wtihout n paroaat batof neydad. ar
tmuiarrad to a diOaiaBtalte for
recycling, an aolid waataa. (Ua
material* moat, at cowaa, han a know
poteadal lor ncydiag, at Aay will ba
eoojidarad to ba waalaa imaadiatoty.)
EPA alao propoaad Aal eaatato, 1
which wan i
WOuld BO I
toauf^^aal amov&ta i
yaar.
Wa eouphd Ala pfwtotoB wA aa
.axoapfioe aflowjaa. panoaa wba Uad
to facjua TVpanaat to a a^vaayaaf to
padttoa Aa Raftoaal AdmiBiattmtor (ar
autborteird atoto ba^naf Ato amiatoBJ
auffidant aaaaaBto f ""
year. V Aa patfOaa
accBBHialadantBrMwia
or naalaad axasapt boaii
burdaaafpraaCaaiAto
BotnajHiftogapadlan
aabmJttad to Aa
particular noorta
noarda Aal would aaJbaV Aa
AaatpraaoaaLAI
to all apaat material
prodacU aot already drfaa
Jia«^| ^^^ftrdOUft WAfltM ^Da4
^•••BBBBB*
ney
•utariaJa that an
looppradacdaapi
aladfaaaad
ara ovaraecuaiilatad. lhay no lonftr art
condfKoaafly axampt from ftfulaflen
(•at | mi**)}.
Tito Dravfaloa doaa «oi apsi'
aacondary auUriaU that airtt
waalaa whan thay an racyclad. ^»
axaaplt acrap natal aaoondafy
BMlarlala bumad M niala. or •panl bud-
add battartaa baing nelaimad. Tha.
rt»uiad«ula|»t4aadP»rt»a
ba OBBavltad to datamlna IT tbaaa
waataa an najulatad Rate of I
ftaa • aec a fijetor BI datoratolot *a
axtoaf of nfidtttoa far tbaaa waatoa.
at laapaaaa to manaant, wa aaa
addlBf thai fta> pteviatoB alao doaa a«i
apptytooatarialiaaMratadlna
« thaaa aalta IB lha
cakulattoa would ba toeonauitoBt wllk
tba naaooa EPA bftiafly axaaptad
waatoa aonmuhiad to tbaaa typae af
•nfto. 8aa 41 PK 72DO (Octobat XL
SPA prnpfiaait Ibal Aa 73%
rato ba caJculatod baaad OB votuaw. to
Baal anh aa that n to of tumovar eaai ba
aakolatod baaad oa aitbar waifttt at
Tohtaia. Btbac awaaacs appaan to ba a
naaonhh way to calculate hmonat.
Wa aM BMktaf ooa otbar cbar — 1»
tba propoaad mla>bf nquiiiat *
al tba accoMilatad awiariaJal
raeydad duriaaj tba oaluiaferyaai.
•tarttoa aa |aaumiy 1. 1964. Tha paopoaal
woatd bava aOowad Iba panoo>
olaUofl to caooaa aaaoof Iba
'. fiacai, aad tovaoiary yaaa» aa
which 7S» tHnevar
ha acMiTad OB rafUcMoa. wa
ilMBBMBBl aad to achina
'AbaUmatbatlf
wttb«dOhtia« atoftiat •*** al aaab
hrttTT-»" I " M'
Tf*tHat*naliif
aattaba Soma W<**»
rand apart nrnnnaal am li
Tbfatnar.
a wajto.
. L to black BajM« and, apaat prapoaakwa>tofiaa«aAa«ttaalioBaf
auffute acffbatof ladafawdTJaa»« wbaAaa Aa aimaaiumulattoa arenriaiaa
Oaoa tfM Bntarlal
afaarwitfaovt
bowavar, tt'
ulatodAayweainm ereaabaaht
' IP ba baurdooa waatoa aaaT boa\AataMai
would baooBH tBbfact to
aadar appBeaUi
-------
-------
HOTLINE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
RCRA
1. Speculative Accumulation
Calculation
In March 1991. a facility generated 200 kg
of sludge that exhibited the toxictry
characteristic (TC)for lead (D008). The
operator of the facility placed these materials
in storage to await reclamation of lead. At
that time, the facility was not accumulating
any other recyclable materials. Since the
sludge will be reclaimed, it is not considered a
solid waste while stored prior to reclamation
(40 CFR S26l3(cX3». On December 31.
1991, the facility still had not recycled any of
this material. Is the sludge accumulated
speculatively under §26LI(cX8), since 75
percent was not recycled in the year, and
therefore subject to management as a solid
and hazardous waste?
No, the sludge would not be accumulated
speculatively. Although it is accumulated
before being recycled, it is not accumulated
speculatively if the person accumulating it can
show that (1) the material is potentially
recyclable anoThas a feasible means of being
recycled, and (2) during the calendar year
(commencing on January 1) the amount of
material that is recycled or sent for recycling
equals at least 75 percent of the amount of that
material accumulated at the beginning of the
period (f26U(c)(8)). A facility owner/
operator must show that he or she has recycled
75 percent of the material in storage on
January 1 of that year. "Under this provision,
the amount of material turned over in a year is
critical, not the total amount accumulated at
the end of the year" (48 EE 1449ft April 4,
1983). For the above facility, the amount of
material in storage on January 1,1991, was
zero, so on December 31,1991. the operator
does not have to show that any amount was
recycled during the calendar year. On
January 1.1992. however. 200 kg of D008
sludge art in storage. Thus, the facility must
be able to show that 75 percent of this
material, or 150 kg, has been recycled or sent
for recycling by December 31.1992. If the
operator cannot demonstrate this 75 percent
recycling rate, the sludge remaining in storage
is said to be accumulated speculatively and
becomes subject to regulation as a solid waste.
Because it exhibits a characteristic, the
generator must begin to handle the material as
a hazardous waste. The Agency notes that
"this approach could allow essentially a free
year to accumulate where a generator starts a
year with link or no was*" (48 EE14490:
April 4.1983). Tte period of one calendar
year starting on January 1 was selected.
however, to facilitate enforcement and achieve
uniformity (SO EE 635; January 4,1985).
In making the above calculation, the 75
percent requirement applies to all materials of
the same class being recycled in the same
way. If this facility also generated a by-
product that exhibited the TC for chromium
(D007) and reclaimed it, the owner/operator
would make a separate speculative
accumulation calculation for this by-product
(SO EE 635-6; January 4,1985).
-------
Hotftw QucftloAt and Antwtn
Fttxuary 1992
The RCRA regulations provide that certain
materials, which would otherwise be
considered hazardous waste, will not be
regulated as solid waste (and therefore
hazardous waste) when they are reclaimed
(|261.2(c)(3)). The requirement that materials
accumulated speculatively be regulated as
solid waste was intended to prevent abuse of
this exemption. It is only applicable to certain
situations, including the reclamation of
characteristic sludges and by-products.
materials used or reused as ingredients.
commercial product substitutes, black liquor.
sulfuric acid, and precious metals reclamation.
The rule is not applicable to spent materials
being reclaimed, listed sludges being
reclaimed, or listed by-products being
reclaimed, because these materials are already
considered solid wastes when awaiting
recycling (50 £R 635; January 4.1985). It
also does not apply to commercial chemical
products that are stored prior to reclamation.
because, by definition, these materials are not
regulated as solid wastes until they are
abandoned or intended for discard (48 ER
14489: April 4.1983).
Medical Wasta Tracking Act
imonstration Program
Ls the status of the Me
demonstration p
I Waste
from, laid out
In response d^he Medical Waste Tracking
Act of 1988 (whkr\afended RCRA by
adding Subtitle J),l$*established a two-
year demonstration program to track medical
waste. The program begarNune 22, 1989. and
ended June if, 1991. Five Sara participated
in the program: Connecticut. wW Jersey.
New Ypft, Puerto Rico, and RhoAJsland,
The Dfogram has expired and only sok*e of the
I recordkeeping regulations are
stuly in effect.
1 1008 of RCRA required EPA
submit to Congress two interim reports ,
final raport on medical waste manager
the demonstration program. The first i
second
1990
report su
available f
outlined an
each of the
medical
kterim reports were submitted i
iber 1990. The first ini
ay
then
The second ini
update and
areas. The third
summarize alt
evaluate the
program, and out!
medical waste. The
under Agency review1
expected late in 1991
final report. Congress
the two-year program
appropriate course of
management
information that
the tracking program
for additional research on
specific areas concerning
were identifier the ACL
report providJo a research
on each of tfese subject
finali
of the
'for managing
; is currently
ipletion is
•EPA submits the
I review the results of
1 determine the most
for medical waste
EMERGEN JY PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY RIGHT-1O-KNOW
3. Thrashc
Section
rDattrmlnatk
13
Under
AfacUirfcovered under §313 otthe
Emergencyflanning and CommunOu Right-to-
Know Actitanufactures and repairs\rplanes.
Prior to Beginning any repair work, ay fuel
remaining in the airplane's fuel tanks
ey service personnel at the fa
repairs are completed, the airpbjne is
with fuel removed from the airpl
and/or new fuel Should the owr
ator of the manufacturing and repair
faflity consider the toxic chemicals present
tjefuet when making $313 threshold and
lease calculations?
-------
DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS PACKET
FOR KELLY RECYCLING CASE STUDY
-------
-------
KEtLY RECYCLING
Kelly Recycling, Inc. (KR) is an unpermitted recycling facility located in Slapout,
Montana. KR recycles F006 wastes from commercial glass production and ceramic
industries by burning the waste in a mobile vitrification unit to produce an
aggregate. KR markets the aggregate as an endproduct with the following potential
uses: 1) an ingredient in ceramic tiles; and 2) an ingredient in abrasives. At one
time, KR also cited roadbased material as a potential use but, due to the inconsistenl
results in meeting LDR treatment standards, KR no longer markets their
endproduct for use as roadbased material.
In December 1992, you make a field visit to Kelly Recycling. Facility personnel claim
that they are recycling F006 waste, not treating it, because they meet the criteria
found in 40 CFR §261.2(e)(ii). KR claims that the metals present in the F006 waste
(primarily lead and cadmium) are necessary for the formation of bonds in the
production of the aggregate. (Typically, the raw material used in aggregr'
production contains iron as the metal responsible for the bonding.) The KR
operation does not make use of a process diagram describing exact amounts of raw
materials needed and there are no specifications for the final aggregate product (this
is due in part to the variability of the F006 waste that KR uses, and the fact that
industrial specifications for aggregates are very basic, such as specific gravity,
strength, weight, etc.). They are using the F006 waste as an effective substitute for a
commercial product. They have contacted a broker for the marketing of their
aggregate product.
Is the aggregate a solid waste?
-------
-------
BACKGROUND MATERIALS
-------
*>
-------
9441.1939
•.VA$H;r.GTO\ 0 C 20463
APR 26 198S
a*.; ••'
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT; F006 Recycling
FROM: Sylvia K.
Office of Solid Wastje (OS-300)
i
TO: Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
Regions I-X
It has come to the attention of EPA Headquarters that many
of the Regions and authorized States are being requested to make
determinations on the regulatory status of various recycling
schemes for F006 electroplating sludges. In particular,
companies have claimed that F006 waste is being recycled by
being used as: (1) an ingredient in the manufacture of
aggregate, (2) a/i ingredient in the manufacture of cement, and
(3) feedstock for a metals recovery smelter. The same company
may make such requests of more than one Region and/or State.
Given the complexities of the regulations governing recycling
vs. treatment and the definition of solid waste, and the
possible ramifications of determinations made in one Region
affecting another Region's determination, it is extremely
important that such determinations are .consistent and, where
possible, coordinated.
TWO issues are presented. The first issue is whether these
activities are legitimate recycling, or rather just some form of
treatment called "recycling" in an attempt to evade regulation.
Second, assuming the activity is not sham recycling, the issue
is whether the activity is a type of recycling that is subject
to regulation under sections 261.2 and 261.6 or is it excluded
from our authority.
With respect to the issue of whether the activity is sham
recycling, this question involves assessing the intent of the
owner or operator by evaluating circumstantial evidence, always
-------
a difficult tasx. 3as:ca;;y, the determination rests on whet
the secondary material is "corjnodity-liXe." The main
environmental considerations are (1) whether the secondary
material truly has value as a raw material/product (i.e., is it
likely t* be abandoned or mismanaged prior to reclamation rathe^
t^an being reclaimed?) and (2) whether the recycling process
(including.ancillary storage) is likely to release hazardous
constituents (or otherwise pose risks to human health and the
environment) that are different from or greater than the
processing of an analogous raw material/product. The attachment
to this memorandum sets out relevant factors in more detail.
If the activity is not a sham, then the question is whether
it is regulated. If F006 waste is used as an ingredient to
produce aggregate, then such aggregate would remain a solid
waste if used in a manner constituting disposal (e.g., road-base
material) under sections 261.2(c)(l) and 261.2(e)(2)(i) or if it
is accumulated speculatively under section 261.2(e)(2){iii).
Likewise, the F006 "ingredient" is subject to regu:-tion from
the point of generation to the point of recycling. The
aggregate product is, however, entitled to the exemption under
40 CFK 266.20(b), as amended by the August 17, 1988, Land
Disposal Restrictions for First Third Scheduled Hastes final
rule (see 53 FR 31197 for further discussion). However, if the
aggregate is not used on the land, then the materials used to
produce it would not be solid wastes at all, and therefore
neither those materials nor the aggregate would be regulated
(see section 261.2(e)(1)(i)).
Likewise, cement manufacturing using F006 waste as an
ingredient would yield a product that remains a solid waste if
it is used in a Banner constituting disposal, also subject to
section 266.20(b). There is an additional question of whether
the cement kiln dust, remains subject to the Bevill exclusion.
In order for the cement kiln dust to remain excluded from
regulation, the owner or operator must demonstrate that the use
of F006 waste has not significantly affected the character of
the cement kiln dust (e.g., demonstrate that the use of F006
waste has not significantly increased the levels of Appendix
VIII constituents in the cement kiln -dust leachate). [NOTE:
This issue will be addressed Bore fully in the upcoming
supplemental proposal of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule,
which is pending Federal Reels tar publication.]
For F006 waste used as a feedstock in a metals recovery
smelter, the Agency views this as a recovery process rather than.
use as an ingredient in an industrial process and, therefore,
considers this to be a form of treatment that is not currently
regulated (see'sections 261.2(c) and 261.6(c)(1)). Furthermore,
because this is a recovery process rather than a production
process, the F006 waste remains a hazardous waste (and must be
-------
rar.agel as such prior to ir:. reduction :o *ne rrcce«s>, and ve
slag from this process would normally be considered a "derived
from" F006 waste. However, for primary smelters, the siac inav
sa considered subject to the Bevin exclusion provided that the
cvner or operator can demonstrate that trie use - f 'F006 waste has
not significantly affected the hazardous constituent content of
the slag (i.e., maXe a demonstration similar to the one
discussed above for the eemen*. kiln dust). [NOTE: In the
supplemental proposal of the Boiler and Industrial Furnace rule
noted a-bove, the Agency will be proposing a definition of
•indigenous waste" based on a comparison of the constituents
found in the waste to the constituents found in an analogous raw
material. Should the F006 waste meet the definition of an
"indigenous waste,* the waste would cease to be a waste when
introduced to the process and the slag would not be derived from
a hazardous waste.]
Also, you should be aware that OSW is currently reevaluating
the regulations concerning recycling activities, in conjunction
vith finalizing the January 8, 1988 proposal to amend the
Definition of Solid Waste. While any major changes may depend
on RCRA reauthorization, we are considering regulatory
amendments or changes in regulatory interpretations that will
encourage on-site recycling, while ensuring the protection of
human health and the environment.
Headquarters is able to serve as a clearinghouse to help
coordinate determinations on whether a specific case is
"recycling" or "treatment" and will provide additional guidance
and information, as requested. Ultimately, however, these
determinations are made by the Regions and authorized states.
Attached to this memorandum is a list of criteria that should be
considered in evaluating the recycling scheme. Should you
receive a request for such a determination, or should you have
questions regarding the criteria used to evaluate a specific
case, please contact Mitch Kidwell, of my staff, at FTS
475-8551.
Attachment
-------
L'Ki'i'LKlA ! OK LVM'JATlNC WHKTIII.H A WA.STL
M». IN';
The differ r.ce Between recyciir.c and treatrer.t is ••jrot
difficult o iistincuicv.. Ir. 3CT.e cases, on« :s »ry.n-3
interpret r.tent from Circumstantial evidence showing 17
-otivation always a difficult proposition. Tne potential for
abuse is such that great care must be used when making a
deterr--nation that a particular recycling activity is to 90
unregulated (i.e., it is one of those activities which is beyond
the scope of our jurisdiction). In certain cases, there may be
few clear-cut answers to the question of whether a specific
activity is this type of excluded recycling (and, by extension,
that a secondary material is not a waste, but rather a raw
material or effective substitute)? however, the following list of
criteria may be useful in focusing the consideration of a
specific activity. Here too, there may be no clear-cut answers
but, taken as a whole, the answers to these questions should help
ilrav t^e distinction between recycling and sham recycling or
treatment.
(1) Is the secondary material similar to ait analogous raw
material or product?
o Does it contain Appendix VIII constituents not iouncl
in the analogous raw material/product (or at higher
levels)?
o Does it exhibit hazardous characteristics that tn
analogous raw material/product would not?
o Does it contain levels of recoverable material
similar to the analogous raw material/product?
o Is much more of the secondary material used as
compared with the analogous raw material/product it
replaces? Is only a nominal amount of it used?
o is the seondary material as effective as the raw
material, or product it replaces?
(2) What degree of processing is required to produce a
finished product?
o can the secondary material be fed directly into r.he
process (i.e., direct use) or is reclamation (or
pretreatment) required?
o How much value does final reclamation add?
-------
What 13 the value of the secondary material''
? Is it listed :.-. industry news letters, trade
;ourr.als, etc.?
o Does tne.secondary material nave ecor.c-.c value
comparable to t.ne raw material that norrally enters
the process?
U) is there a guaranteed market for the end product?
o Is there a contract in place to purchase the
"product" ostensibly produced fron the hazardous
secondary naterials?
o If r.r>e type of recycling is reclamation, ;r. -.Me
predict 'js?S by the reciain^r1* TJ'e 9er.?rat'cir!< rs
there a satch toiling agreement? (Note tiiar si •-.re-
reclaimers are normally TSDFs, assuring they store
before reclaiming, reclamation facilities present
fewer possibilities of systemic abuse).
o Is the reclaimed product a recognized commodity?
Are there industry-recognized quality specifications
for the product?
(5) Is the secondary material handled in a manner
consistent with the raw material/product it replaces?
o Is the secondary material stored on the land?
o Is the secondary material stored in a similar manner
as the analogous raw material (i.e., to prevent
loss)?
o Are adequate records regarding the recycling
transactions kept?
o Do the companies involved have a history of
mismanagement of hazardous wastes?
(6) Other relevant factors.
o What are the economics of the recycling process?
Does most of the revenue come from charging
generators for managing their wastes or from the
sale of the product?
o Are the toxic constituents actually necessary (or of
sufficient use) to the product or are they just
"along for the ride,"
These criteria are drawn from 53 FK at 522 (January 8, 1988); 52
FR at 17013 (May 6, 1987); and 50 FR at 638 (January 4,
-------
-------
NON-NOTIFIER INITIATIVE
Background
• Interagency Coordination
• Investigatory Tools
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: Non-Notifier Initiative
KEY POINTS:
« During this presentation, we will discuss:
— Non-Notifier Initiative—its history, objectives, and importance
— Roles that Headquarters, Regions, and states play or can play to make the
Initiative successful
— Methods used to identify violators of the notification requirements.
X-l
-------
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE
Purpose of the Inftiative Is to identify and bring
into compliance entities that disregard RCRA
requirements
A Non-Nottfier is a hazardous waste generator or
transporter, and/or a facility owner or operator,
who fails to notify authorities of Its activities as
required by RCRA, or falsifies any notification
provided
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Historical Perspective
KEY POINTS:
• Before we begin this discussion, let's look at the history behind the Non-Notifier
Initiative and the events that led up to its implementation.
— The Non-Notifier Initiative was launched in winter 1991-1992 to identify
and bring into compliance generators and transporters of hazardous waste
and owners and operators of facilities who disregard RCRA requirements,
especially the Toxicity Characteristic and the Boiler and Industrial Furnace
rules. Because in September 1990 the TC rule expanded the number of
chemicals that qualify as characteristic hazardous waste for large generators,
EPA predicted that several violators of this rule existed. Entities that fall
within the scope of the Non-Notifier Initiative include those that hide their
mismanagement of hazardous waste by failing to notify authorities as
required under RCRA, or falsifying any notifications they do provide.
— The universe of non-notifiers includes facilities that have failed to file
Section 3010 notices and Part A permit applications or necessary permit
modifications. It also includes those who fail to notify regarding individual
units, even though a facility may have interim status or a Part B permit for
other units. For the purpose of the Initiative, if an owner or operator notifies
EPA or the state only after being contacted by a regulating agency, it will
still be considered a non-notifier.
X-2
-------
AN INTER-AGENCY SUCCESS STORY
EPA
STATE
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: An Inter-Agency Success Story
KEY POINTS:
• In February 1992, as part of the Initiative, the EPA and nine states, including
Maryland, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Ohio,
Colorado, and Washington, initiated more than 45 civil enforcement actions,
assessing over $20 million in penalties, against non-notifiers. In addition, EPA
announced several criminal enforcement actions it had taken to halt criminal
hazardous waste activities.
Of the actions filed in early 1992, 23 were taken by the states under RCRA. The
first initiative under RCRA to include state-lead cases highlights the cooperative
strategy between EPA and the states to crack down on illegal operators.
— Example of a civil case: Inspections by the State of North Carolina of a dry
cleaning facility located in Charlotte revealed the facility had open drums of
ignitable hazardous wastes, some of which had been dumped onto the ground.
Other waste was contaminated with tetrachloroethylene. In addition,
groundwater supplies within one-half mile of the facility were found to contain
traces of tetrachloroethylene and related organic contaminants.
X-3
-------
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: An Inter-Agency Success Story (continued)
KEY POINTS:
— Example of a criminal case: In January 1992, one company and three of
its officers pled guilty in Washington to the illegal storage, transportation,
and disposal of hundreds of drums of paint waste. The three individuals
agreed to serve one year in prison, and the company agreed to pay
$500,000 in restitution for the cost of cleanup and proper disposal of the
paint wastes. Three additional individuals were also charged in a separate
indictment.
X-4
-------
IDENTIFYING VIOLATORS
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Identifying Violators
KEY POINTS:
• The states and EPA use a wide variety of investigatory techniques to locate
facilities that fail to notify authorities of hazardous waste facilities, including:
— Cross-referencing various databases, including Dunn & Bradstreet reports
and EPA databases from hazardous waste and other media, to identify
specific facilities likely to generate, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous
wastes
— Researching data from other criminal and/or civil cases
— Following up on tips and complaints received from the general public
— Pinpointing facilities that EPA and state workers observed during routine
activities
— Using the yellow pages of local telephone directories to locate businesses
under specific headings (i.e., machine shops, printers).
X-5
-------
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Identifying Violators
KEY POINTS:
In your Participant's Manual, you will find background materials relating to the
Initiative.
X-6
-------
Prvt«ti«> nfcile Afalrt
U-10T)
SEPA Environmental News
FOR RELEASES TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1992
EVA TARGETS HAZARDOUS WASTE "ILLEGAL OPERATORS"
XN LATEST ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVE
wendy Butler (202) 2CO-437C
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and nine states today
announced a major nationwide campaign against those who have been evading
the nation's hazardous waste management system and handling such waste in
a potentially dangerous Banner. EPA and the states together*have issued
more than 45 civil enforcement actions, assessing over $20 million in
penalties, against generators and transporters of hazardous waste and
owners and operators of facilities who have disregarded the requirements
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the law that governs the
disposal of hazardous wastes. In addition, EPA announced that it has
taken several criminal enforcement actions to halt criminal hazardous
waste activities.
The states participating in the initiative are: Maryland, Alabama,
Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Ohio, Colorado, and
Washington.
"The Bush Administration is committed to vigorously enforcing the
nation's hazardous waste regulations," EPA's Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste, and Emergency Response, Don R. Clay, said, "and we will
continue to use the full weight of our authority against those who seek
to operate toutside of our hazardous waste laws."
Some of these companies have been mismanaging hazardous waste and,
in effect, hiding that activity by failing to notify authorities as they
are required to under RCRA or falsifying such notifications. For
example, on Jan. 29, 1992, Kenneth R. Nugent, an environmental consultant
for the Evergreen Construction Co., was indicted for allegedly submitting
a backdated permit application in an effort to mislead EPA that Evergreen
was legally handling hazardous wastes under EPA's Toxicity Characteristic
(TC) Rule. Citing the Nugent indictment, EPA's Assistant Administrator
R-19 (more)
-------
for Enforcement, Herbert H. Tate, Jr., stated, "Because we consi
reporting to be the cornerstone of our regulatory system, EPA will not
tolerate those who submit false reports or fail to report in violation of
our nation's environmental laws. He are committed to protect the U.S.
taxpayer against the costs polluters impose on the environment."
Some of the facilities included in this initiative have created the
potential for substantial harm to human health and the environment. The
mismanagement of hazardous waste represented in many of these cases has
resulted in releases to the environment. Many of today's cases involve
the disposal of hazardous waste on the ground, down sewer drains, in
garbage dumpsters destined for disposal at municipal landfills, and in
leaking tanks or containers.
"These violations could lead to serious environmental problems; they
are not mere paperwork violations," said EPA's Don R. Clay. "He intend
to make sure that legitimate businesses have a level playing field by
eliminating the competitive advantage illegal operators might have in not
complying with environmental laws."
The initiative announced today is part of an intense, long-term
effort to identify illegal operating facilities and to bring them into
compliance. EPA and the states have increased the focus of their
inspections on finding facilities that have not notified the appro-
priate government agency of hazardous waste management activities. T-
addition to the actions announced today, EPA is in the process
investigating other illegally operating facilities which may be sub;
to future enforcement initiatives.
"By taking coordinated enforcement actions against non-notifiers,
EPA and the states are sending a clear message 'of their commitment to
assure compliance with hazardous waste management requirements," said
Tate. "Facilities that have failed to notify EPA or the state of
regulated hazardous waste management activities, and thus are operating
illegally, are on notice that they too could become the subject of an
enforcement action."
Half of today's federal administrative actions are brought against
illegal handlers of waste that became hazardous under RCRA's TC
regulation. Effective in September 1990 for large quantity generators as
well as treatment, storage, and disposal facilities, the TC Rule expanded
the number of chemicals that qualify as characteristic hazardous wastes.
Of the actions filed, 23 are actions taken by the states under RCRA.
The first initiative under RCRA to include state-lead cases highlights
the cooperative strategy between EPA and the states to crack down on
illegal operators.
R-19
(more)
-------
-3-
"Maryland has received high narks from EPA Region III for our
enforcement efforts on hazardous waste," said Maryland Secretary of the
Environment Robert Perciasepe. Maryland is one of several states that
participated in the development of this initiative. "It is important
that Maryland and other states continue to aggressively enforce hazardous
waste laws to assure that these materials are handled properly," he
continued.
Among the state cases announced as part of today's initiative, is a
case brought by N.C. against Ram Leather Care (Ran), a dry cleaning
facility located in Charlotte, North Carolina. Inspections revealed that
the Ram facility had open drums of ignitable hazardous wastes, some of
which had been dumped onto the ground, and that other waste was con-
taminated with tetrachloroethylene, a RCRA hazardous waste. In addition,
groundwater supplies within one-half mile of the facility were found to
contain traces of tetrachloroethylene and related organic contaminants.
As part of the federal administrative actions announced today, EPA
is bringing an enforcement action against Alfab Inc., a West Virginia
truck manufacturer, for dumping paint and solvent waste on the grounds of
its facility for the past 10 years. EPA also has notified the owner and
an operator of the Hawaiian Western steel Facility on the island of Oahu
that they have violated RCRA by illegally storing and disposing of
hazardous waste and other actions. EPA has informed the owner and an
operator of the Hawaiian Western Steel facility that the Agency may bring
a civil enforcement action against them if they do not promptly enter
into an agreement providing for the relief sought by EPA, including the
clean up of contamination posing a threat to human health or the
environment.
There are several criminal developments involving illegal operators
included in the initiative, in addition to the Nugent indictment.
On Jan. 21, 1992, three individuals and one company pled guilty in
Washington to the illegal storage, transportation and disposal of
hundreds of drums of paint waste. - Panama Machinery and Equipment Co.
Inc., doing business as The Everett Steel Companies, and three company
officers, Manney Berman, Leonard Berman and Leon Berman, each pled guilty
to participating in a conspiracy to illegally dispose of the paint waste.
The three individuals agreed to serve one year in prison, and the company
agreed to pay $500,000 in restitution for the cost of cleanup and proper
disposal of the paint wastes. Three additional individuals were also
charged in a separate indictment.
On Jan. 16, 1992, a federal grand jury in Dallas, Texas, indicted
Robert M. Brittingham, former Chairman of the Board and part owner of
Dai-tile Corp. and John J. LoMonaco, former Board member and president of
Dai-Tile, for felony violations of RCRA and conspiracy to violate RCRA.
The charges arose from the alleged dumping of lead-contaminated hazardous
waste into a sand and gravel pit in Dallas County, which was not a
permitted treatment, storage or disposal facility.
R-19 (more)
-------
-4-
~ <
Also, on Jan. 17, 1992, Ronald William Meyers, President and Chief
Executive Officer of Sutherlin Industries Inc., pled guilty to charges of
illegal storage of ignitable waste at .an unpermitted facility in
Sutherlin, Ore.
The states and EPA regions used a wide variety of investigatory
techniques to locate facilities that failed to notify authorities of
hazardous waste activities. A number of databases, including Dunn and
Bradstreet reports and various EPA databases were cross-referenced in an
effort to identify specific facilities likely to generate, treat, store
or dispose of hazardous wastes. other investigatory tools included
following up on tips received from the general public or pinpointing
facilities that EPA and state workers observed during routine activities.
R-19
-------
THE SUN
WEDNESDAY,
FEBRUARY 5, 1092
City firm jolted
with big one for
waste st(
fined $1.2 miliioi
•PA, from IB ""'••
btoa. or they
-L
50 other U.S. companies cited
on hazardous-material counts
day. aaatBtant EPA
tbjabd waate and emergency ra-
eponee. These are people who haw
ndt juat been breaking the law but
harming the cnvtronmeot at the
af the
tended that
rirvta
- .
Some of the fBRipanlea cttad wevv
itf toxic waatea on the 0vund>
aewer dimiAa and to tnak
WASHINGTON—A tl J mfltton fine haa been tarta*
againat a Baltimore dectropiaUnf company, one af SI
ftnni named yesterday by federal and atate envtranneatal
Bflldala at part at a month-king crackdown on haaaidoua
'BsVBkaafav •wJ^AtwlvJtM aMaaBiaeka} tv^et wtawtZaiak
The Environmental Protection Agency atld 23 u.
iateaandtwoggvei'iimenttidlidealnl6atateahad
charged la the put month wfth fflegal storage and dupoe»
idofhManfau»w»j^aixli
are not Juat paperwork noladana,' aald DOB H
' - v - SeetPA,2aCetl
-------
fEPA says
Pepco
evaded ^
waste laws
ft~2S£tt
«y was one or 43 coopantes
• cj*llo«n«a
OH
for • M5&000 fine in the
•dfltinistmlw •"^p>«»''« filed tstiofi
the ntHatr ycnerdiy. oonxidend • ftwp
' ttae br aceocr oAcUU. UK EM *iw
wantj P«poo *> abut dowa the •ocumul^
wHtiiy was bmkini aar IIWB.
"
paint thinner and lafl
jBna
be ahippnd to — .r-i—
dispMalbdiirr, shewed.
AUaewwantfekicf*dtotoa._OT.
book, p'jead to aaaled netal drum* and
anrad i-i * anal! ••ccomuleaoo" bofld-
iof at the Bcnanit Road piaat.
Mate is rarely aurad tor aw
Tbe EM has aecaaad Pcpeo of oparai-
•V theatDnfe facility wtthoot aoafytai
«T thu acdnty, and
EPA, pa& C9
^WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARYS, 1992
natter aerimul*
and we believe we will be able
pmndlnf prope i aispoaal r
atnctioo notices ft, outside fi
ttaa that raoaiw Pepoo^
tued tt> tatv tor-
» «o the Pepco nor. e
* at a mdal feotox alts.
"Pepco has alwayi carafoOf and rtiattttTtoiSei
J"USS2.-arSshS HSSSar****
•*HtwanwiB( IHHOS, mavf or «Pdonmi>itTaBdBBbjactiBtntiii|iia
^•/•••jMa< §ja;wf aw^HM aw fwiUfBap flOfl tBOawaaV
*oa Darrick. Peo- I"-*—4 to. 15t9 the
tts
eutt rap iprand with* aoiwnt
bat if ntwu i§
Road ptaat after reccMot
eonpiaiBts about the
•la the•
ttoni waathar PH and the PUtria
If Bepev is io fialadoa, ra flad to
i^^e* 4baw/ •WMtkai iai
part ofabrMder eflbrt to get kw«h
tfaa% iMiardmu waata dispoaal
-------
£
«£
I
ii
I \\i\\l
11
mail
mi
i if! i!
mm
e«».S
-------
*)
-------
triet isx OIM
PBU DITIS1QH
2*02/0*3
A-2
fell*; the Mf*7 bout
lor dl
to a NRBtfiff
TOM UNDCTIOU
A 0.^2^u^^__^ll — <* *M
A
-------
-------
Ol/PI/tl l»:0i OI02 242 01M
PIE3S
1003/089
«Bow wrsi u
«f tte
tut ku tea
_^,. .
ct pvfatic UadfiD* (fact
Utl. IPA MM, M
IB Bttlad IPA ttet
fioptante MM to l«i|0^uiiiUli WMte jiii ••!!••
ovudod Oo ranter of eteaktOi tte* qnnfr M
AccortUog to EPA, tetf of t*» tafcnl
ttrt
P
ttelCnte.
T«to told neortv* itet oat of tbo U.MO tucMetm
w * *—"*~ " * • •£ •^HH^B«I> ^^ ^M^^^ •—• «Jr
• vo pcrtfns v Bwrv m oc
Itet tevo aotUSod EPA ttet ttey
«tt«Hpted*«*npfr ^y kw- ••t'*•!•*• b»
TktoaUltt*
ootnh," Mantel
owe HAZAJtoeus WASTE MONBUTOfi Mec&ves
FERurr CHAMas TO nauiM coMsmuenoN
CDNO«NAII-(By * BRA
EmlojumuUl
-------
-------
AIR EMISSIONS
OVERHEAD#1
TITLE: Air Emissions
KEY POINTS:
EPA has established standards limiting organic air emissions from specific
sources at all TSDFs that require permits under Subtitle C.
During this module we will be discussing:
— The equipment and processes covered by the air emissions requirements
— What the regulatory requirements are.
Xl-1
-------
WHEN DO ORGANIC AIR
EMISSIONS HAPPEN?
Storage
• Transfer
Treatment
OVERHEADS
TITLE: When Do Organic Air Emissions Happen?
KEY POINTS:
• Organic air emissions can occur any time a volatile is released to outside air,
such as during storage, transfer, or treatment.
• The principal concern about air emissions from hazardous waste comes from
volatile organic compounds (VOCs), some of which are toxic or carcinogenic.
During the first phases of regulation, organics are regulated as a class, rather
than setting individual standards for each toxic constituent.
XI~2
-------
PHASED REGULATORY APPROACH
PHASE!
Final
PHASE II
Proposed
PHASE III
Not Dtvaloped
«ub»«rt AA - PIVCM* V«nu
iMfc D>toe««n
RMMurt Ruin
Inpmmdnwib
Tom*
Unto
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Phase I, II & III
KEY POINTS:
Section 3004(a) of HSWA requires EPA to promulgate standards for the
monitoring and control of air emissions from TSDFs.
The resulting regulations are aimed at controlling air emissions at new and existing
hazardous waste TSDFs and they are divided into three phases.
The first phase, sometimes referred to as "the Accelerated Rule," was published
June 21,1990 and became effective on December 21,1990 for interim status
facilities. It consists of Subpart AA, covering air emissions from process vents, and
Subpart BB, covering air emissions from equipment leaks. (§§264.1030 - 264.1065
or §§265.1030-265.1064)
Phase II, sometimes referred to as the Comprehensive Rule, was proposed on June
22, 1991. Phase II will set standards for organic emissions from surface
impoundments, tanks, containers, and miscellaneous units in a new Subpart CC.
The third phase, the Individual Constituents Rule, will use new data from TSDFs to
perform site-specific modeling of facilities predicted to have high resiuual risk after
Phases I and II. This will be constituent specific.
Compliance with Subparts AA and/or BB does not exempt a facility from
applicable Clean Air Act (CAA) standards or any state requirements.
Xl-3
-------
WHICH FACILITIES ARE AFFECTED?
n
• Permitted facilities
• Recycling units
• Interim status facilities
• New facilities
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Which Facilities are Affected?
KEY POINTS:
• It is important to recognize that some facilities are affected by Subpart AA while
others are affected by Subpart BB.
• Recycling units at interim status facilities, even if exempt, must comply with
AA. (§265.1030 (b)(2))
• Permitted facilities must be in compliance when their permit is reissued.
(§264.1030 (c))
New facilities must have the required devices and monitoring programs in place
when they begin operations.
With respect to Subpart BB, ail interim status facilties subject to the permitting
requirements of 40 CFR part 270 must comply. (§265.1030(b)(l))
As is the case with Subpart AA, all permitted facilties must be in compliance
when their permit is reissued (§264.1030(c)), and all new facilities must have
the required devices and monitoring programs in place when they begin
operations.
-------
SUBPART AA - PROCESS VENTS
SEPARATION
PROCESSES
4 Distillation
Fractionation
Thin-Film
. Evaporation
V Solvent
. Extraction
V Steam
Stripping
V Air Stripping
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Subpart AA - Process Vents
KEY POINTS:
Subpart AA covers the process vents associated with six specific separation
processes common at TSDFs for recycling of hazardous waste. These are
distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, and steam or
air stripping. (§264/or §265.1030(5))
About 350 units nationwide are subject to Subpart AA. More than half of these
are batch distillation units (as determined from the 1987 TSDF Survey).
• Process vents associated with any of the six separation processes are subject to
Subpart AA requirements if they handle wastes with 10 parts per million by
weight (ppmw) or greater of total organic compounds. The concentration is a
time-weighted annual average for each unit. (55 FR 25459)
Vents on tanks "associated with" an affected unit are also covered if emissions
from the process unit are vented through the tank. Thus, the requirements
cannot be avoided by rerouting emissions to a subsequent tank to be vented.
• A schematic of a thin-film evaporation system has been included with these
learning materials to illustrate the application of Subpart AA to process vents.
Xl-5
-------
EMISSIONS STANDARDS
Emission
Rates
10
3 Ibs/hr or
3.1 tons/year
Facility 1
Facility 2
ME
OMftlMdCol 19
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Emissions Standards
KEY POINTS:
Once the process vents subject to the requirements are identified, the discharges
from each must be added to provide a facility summation of emissions.
(§§264/5. K32(a)) The emission determinations can be based on either
engineering calculations or testing (§§265.1032 (c) or 264.1032 (c)) with
performance tests meeting the requirements of §§265.1034 (c) or 264.1034 (c).
For the entire facility, emissions are not to exceed 3 Ibs/hour and 3.1 tons/year.
(§§264/5.1032(a)(l)) The standards apply to the entire facility, regardless of the
number of vents at that facility. Therefore, as illustrated here, Facility 1, with
10 vents with high emissions, could exceed the standard, while Facility 2, with
12 vents but lower emissions, is within the standards.
If the standard is exceeded, the facility must install control devices to get the
summation value below both standards or reduce the summation value by 95
percent. (§§264/5.1032 (a)(2))
If vents are below 3 Ib/hr and 3.1 tons/yr. without control devices added on
(other tha^ internal devices, which are not regulated), the facility is only subject
to a recordkeeping requirement, specifically, §§264/5.1035 (f)-
XI-6
-------
CONTROL DEVICES
CONTROL DEVICES
264.1033/
265.1033
Vapor incinerators
Boilers/Process
Heaters
Flares
Condensers
Carbon Adsorption
Systems
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: Control Devices
KEY POINTS:
There are no specific requirements dictating which types of control devices
should be used to reduce emissions. TSDFs may choose one of the devices
provided for in §§264/5.1033 or may select an alternative device.
Facilities using control devices listed in §§264/5.1033 must follow the operating
requirements for those controls found at §§264/5.1033(b) through (i).
(§§264/5. 1032(b) and 264/5.1033 (a))
Facilities using other control devices should have a description, including
operating parameters, in the operating record in accordance with
§§264.5/1033(3).
It is important to understand the regulatory difference between a control device
and a device that is part of the process. Devices that are intended to recover or
capture solvents or other organic compounds for use, reuse, or sale are
considered to be a component of the process and are not control devices.
Closed-vent systems have a no-detectable emission limit of 500
must be tested annually.
which
XI-7
-------
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
OVERHEADS
TITLE: What Reports Have to be Filed?
KEY POINTS:
• Facilities with RCRA permits incorporating Subpart A A must report
serniannually all exceedances longer than 24 hours. (§264.1036)
• Interim status facilities are not required to report control device exceedances.
XI-8
-------
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Emission Rates
Monitoring Results
| Control Devices
cess Units
tes
OVERHEAD #9
TITLE: Documentation
KEY POINTS:
TSDFs must document process vent emissions and emission reductions achieved
by control devices. (§§264/5.1035)
TSDFs must keep records of:
— The emission rate for each vent and for the entire facility
(§§264/5.1035(b)(2))
— The throughput and operating hours of each affected process unit.
Documentation must show whether control devices achieve the emission rate
limits by design and during operation. (§§264/5.1035(b)(2) and (c))
Control devices must be monitored for specific parameters and the results
recorded in the facility operating record. (§§264/5.1035(b)(4))
A careful review of the facility's operating record is an important component of
an air emissions inspection.
XI-9
-------
SUBPART AA APPLICABILITY
Subp*rtAA
requirement*
«pp«y
OVERHEAD #10
TITLE: Subpart AA Applicability
KEY POINTS:
To recap the Subpan AA requirements:
• Subpart AA applies to process vents associated with six separation processes:
distillation, fractionation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction, and steam or air
stripping.
• Only vents associated with units that handle wastes with 10 ppmw or greater of
organics are subject to the regulations. Areas with only seals or gaskets are not
vents. (§§264/5.1030(b))
The entire facility must not exceed the regulatory standard of 3 Ibs/hour and 3.1
tons/year of organic emissions. (§§264/5.1032(a)(l))
• If the facility exceeds the standard, it must install control devices to bring emissions
below the hourly and annual standards or reduce overall emissions by 95 percent.
(§§264/5.1032(a)(2))
• Facilities with affected vents that never exceed the emission rate limit are not
required to install controls or monitor process vent emissions to comply with the air
emissions requirements. However, they must verify that the procedure used is
allowed under §264.1034(d)(2) or §265.1034(d)(2) and that this data is recorded in
a log that is kept in the operating record. (§264.1035(1) or §265.1035(1))
XI-10
-------
SUBPART BB — LEAK DETECTION
• Valves
• Pumps
• Compressors
• Pressure relief devices
• Sampling connection systems
• Open-ended valves or lines
• Flange
• Subpart AA control devices
OVERHEAD
TITLE: Subpart BB — Leak Detection
KEY POINTS:
• Subpart BB is a program for detection and repair of equipment leaks that are
likely to result in organic air emissions.
• The equipment leak standards apply to the types of devices listed on the
overhead when they contain or contact wastes that are composed of at least 10%
by weight of organics (or 100,000 ppmw). (§§264/5.1050(b))
• EPA estimates that approximately 1,300 TSDFs handle waste streams with 10%
or greater organics.
• The heart of Subpart BB is the Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) program
which focuses on monitoring and timely repair of identified leaks.
• Equipment subject to Subpart BB requirements is not necessarily associated
with Subpart AA units. The two subparts are independent and are not directly
related.
Note that the waste concentration cutoff for Subpart BB is not an annual average
as for Subpart AA. Instead, if the hazardous waste concentration is ever
expected to exceed the 10% by weight measure, the equipment involved is
potentially subject to Subpart BB.
XI-11
-------
LEAK DETECTION AND REPAIR
OVERHEAD #12
TITLE: Leak Detection and Repair
KEY POINTS:
• As with Subpart AA, the first step in Subpart BB is identification of the equipment
subject to the regulations.
* All equipment such as valves, pumps, etc. that contain or contact hazardous wastes
that are at least 10 percent by weight organics (> 100,000 ppmw) are affected.
Note that the waste concentration cutoff for Subpart BB is not an annual average as
for Subpart AA. Instead, if the hazardous waste concentration is even expected to
exceed 10 percent by weight, the equipment is potentially subject to Subpart BB.
(§264.1031 and §264/5.1050(b))
• All equipment must be monitored using Reference Method 21, a copy of which is in
your Participant's Manual. This monitoring is instantaneous, as opposed to that
under Subpart AA, which involves emissions over an hour or year.
(§§264/5.1063(b))
• A device may be exempt from monthly monitoring requirements under certain
conditions, such as being identified as unsafe-to-monitor, difficult-to-monitor, or
No Detectable Emissions (NDE) (this will be the most common d ..Ignation that is
exempt from monthly monitoring). (§§264/5.1052(e), §§264/5.1053(i) and
§§264/5.1057(f), (g), and (h))
XI-12
-------
OVERHEAD #12
TITLE: Leak Detection and Repair (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• Unsafe-to-monitor means that personnel would be exposed to immedi;.; danger as
a consequence of monitoring.
• A difficult-to-monitor determination is warranted if personnel would have to be
elevated more than 2 meters above a support surface to perform monitoring or the
device is in an existing hazardous waste management unit.
XI-13
-------
LEAK DETECTION
10,000 ppm for most equipment
500 ppm for No Detectable Emissions
JUEimm
t lltf 11
OVERHEAD #13
TITLE: Leak Detection
KEY POINTS:
The monitoring requirements are dependent upon the type of equipment, the
designation of the equipment, and the fluid type.
For most equipment, the level of air emissions signifying a leak is 10,000 ppm.
(§§264/5.I052(b), 264/5.1057(5), 264/5.1058(5), 264/5.1061(c)(2))
For equipment designated as having no detecti5!e emissions (NDE), a leak is
defined as an emission that exceeds 500 ppm above 5ackground levels. An
example of an NDE device is a leakless valve, such as a sealed-bellows valve.
(§§264/5.1052
-------
REPAIRS
First repair
attempt within 5
days
Repair completed
within 15 days
Repair may be
delayed If certain
conditions are
met.
OVERHEAD #14
TITLE: Repairs
KEY POINTS:
In most cases, leak repair must be initiated within 5 days of detection and
completed within 15 days. (§§264/5.1052(c) and (d)(6), 264/5.1053(g).
264/5.1054(b), 264/5.1057(d), 264/5.1058(c), and 264/5.1064(c) and (d)) The
regulations give examples of appropriate "first attempt" at repair for most
equipment, such as tightening the packing gland on a compressor.
Facilities may claim a "delay of repair" if it can be justified properly in the
operating record. This is allowed if the repair is technically infeasible without a
hazardous waste management unit shutdown. (§264.1059)
Waste streams must be analyzed each time the waste changes and when the
facility wants to prove that a waste no longer has organic concentrations high
enough to require performance of the leak detection and repair program. As
with Subpart A A, organic concentrations may be determined by testing (as
specified in §§264/5.1063(d)), or applying knowledge.
XI-15
-------
RECORDKEEPING REQUIREMENTS
Closed-Vent
Systems
LDAR
Equipment
Identification
OVERHEAD #15
TITLE: Recordkeeping Requirements
KEY POINTS:
• The following information must be documented in the facility's operating
record:
— Equipment subject to the requirements, organics concentration of waste
stream, state of waste (gas/vapor or liquid), and method of compliance
with standards (§§264/5.1064(g), (h), (i), and (j))
— Leaks identified, dates and methods of repair, reasons for any delays, and
documentation of successful repair and (§§264/5.1064(d))
— Design, monitoring, operating, and inspection information for closed-vent
systems and control devices. (§§264/5.1064(e) and (f))
Remember that Subpart BB applies to all TSDFs. Even if no equipment
contains or contacts waste with organic concentrations over allowable levels,
records demonstrating that fact must be maintained. (§§264/5.1064(k)(3))
XI-16
-------
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Control device
exceedances
uncorrected for
>24 hours
Leaks not
repaired as
required
tofnmmom
J 1C d 19
OVERHEAD #16
TITLE: Reporting Requirements
KEY POINTS:
Permitted facilities must submit a semiannual report of exceedances of
equipment emission limits that go uncorrected for over 24 hours. The duration
and cause o. the exceedance and corrective measures taken must also be
reported. (§264.1065)
• A semiannual report is not required if all leaks are repaired as required and
equipment does not operate outside of design specifications for more than 24
hours.
• Interim status facilities are not required to submit a semiannual report.
XI-17
-------
SUBPART BB REQUIREMENTS
APPLY
OVERHEAD #17
TITLE: Subpart BB Requirements Apply
KEY POINTS:
• Subpart BB applies to all TSDFs that are subject to the permitting requirements
of 40 CFR Part 270. (§§264/5.1050(a))
• Regulated equipment types include valves, pumps, compressors, pressure relief
devices, sampling connection systems, and open-ended valves and lines, flanges,
and any control devices used on Subpart AA units. (§264.1031)
• The equipment is subject to the requirements if it contains or contacts wastes
with an organic concentration over 10 percent by weight and the waste is
managed in units subject to permitting under 40 CFR Part 270.
(§§264/5.1050(b))
Regulated equipment must be monitored regularly by the facility owner/operator
to detect any leaks and repairs that must be completed within specified
timeframes. (§§264/5.1052-§§264/5.1063)
• Interim status facilities were required to be in compliance with Subpart BB
requirements by December 21, 1991. Permitted facilities are required to
incorporate the appropriate requirements into their permits when they are
renewed and must be in compliance when the revised permit becomes effective.
XI-18
-------
SYNOPSIS
AA
Process vents
10 ppmw organics
Facility-wide
emission standards
BB
Equipment leaks
10% organic by
weight
Leak detection and
repair
OVERHEAD #18
TITLE: Synopsis
KEY POINTS:
Subparts AA and BB both address the control of organic air emissions from
TSDFs.
Subpart AA regulates process vents associated with separation units handling
wastes that are 10 ppmw or greater organics and requires that facility-wide
emissions from affected process vents be kept below specified levels.
Subpart BB covers leaks from a variety of equipment types that contain or
contact wastes that are 10 percent organics by weight or greater and requires
regular monitoring to detect leaks and timely repairs. Equipment does not have
to be connected to a Subpart AA unit to be subject to Subpart BB.
Xl-19
-------
CATEGORIES OF VIOLATIONS
CLASS I
VIOLATIONS
CLASS il
VIOLATIONS
Permit requirements are not met, application
not updated
Emission level* exceeded
Central* not Instilled or run properly
Analysis method! and performance testing are
Monitoring (Method 21) not done correctly
Irandi
I maintenance inadequate or
Improperly delayed
Reporting Incorrect or overdue
Incomplete or falsified reeordkeeptng
Equipment incorrectly or Improperly Identified
Inspections and monitoring done lele
OVERHEAD #19
TITLE: Categories of Violations
KEY POINTS:
• We have assumed a great deal of knowledge on your part regarding enforcement
considerations and how to conduct inspections.
• We want to briefly discuss air emissions violations. There is a wide range of
actual violations, and it is important for you to know how to classify them.
If the TSDF has a violation that results in a release or potential release of
hazardous waste into the environment, then a Class I violation has occurred.
• A Class II violation, on the other hand, identifies non-compliance without an
actual or potential release.
• If any of you have questions regarding enforcement strategy or the conduct of
inspections, now is a good time to discuss them.
• Now that you are all "experts" on air emissions, we are going to break into
color-coded teams to work on a case study.
XI-20
-------
OVERHEAD #19
TITLE: Categories of Violations
KEY POINTS:
• The case study will help you take the knowledge that you have just acquired and
understand how to practically apply it. You have the next 30 minutes to work on
the case study. Spend only the first few minutes reviewing the case study and use
the majority of time discussing the answers to the questions.
Xl-21
-------
-------
INSTRUCTIONS: Please spend a few minutes reading this case study. Devote the majority of your time
to working within your group to discuss and answer the questions on page four of this packet. We will
reconvene in 30 minutes to discuss the exercise.
AIR EMISSIONS CASE STUDY
WASTE AWAY, INC.
Waste Away, Inc. is a permitted TSD facility. Applicable portions of Subparts AA and
BB were included when their permit was re-issued on April 17,1991. Their original
permit was issued November 1990. They have two units in operation, an incinerator
and a distillation unit. The wastes are generated off site and transported to Waste
Away Inc. by rail car and tank truck.
The date of your inspection is January 14,1993.
A diagram of the facility is illustrated below and permit information is given on
the following pages.
VENT A
UNIT 1—DISTILLATION UNIT
VEMTC
VENTD
VENTB
VEMTE
UNIT 2—INCINERATOR
VEKTF
PRO©
VENTG
VENTH
— « — ffi — 1
S2 J
V
A
B3
y
i_i
$
n
a
A
•MWilHIKI^I
LEGEND:
l_ x Svrpling oonnaolion aytlam
fi Pump
X Vriv.
t~| Opvn-wxtad In*
|^ Pr»»ur« nM
-------
PERMIT INFORMATION
Issued: April 17,1991
Unit Operations:
1. distillation
2. incineration
Storage Tanks:
1. TOC = 120,000 ppm, light liquid, 200 million gallons/yr
2. TOC = 8 ppm, light liquid, 56 million gallons/yr
3. TOC = 450 ppm, heavy liquid, 35 million gallons/yr
4. TOC = 150,000 ppm, light liquid, 98 million gallons/yr
5. TOC = 160,000 ppm, light liquid, 45 million gallons/yr
Vents at Facility: 8 Pressure Relief Devices: 2
Pumps: 5 Sampling Connection System: 1
Valves: 3 Open-ended Line: 1
OPERATING RECORD
Pumps:
1. no detectable emissions
2. no detectable emissions
3. mechanical dual seal
4. general
5. general
Valves:
1. general
2. general
3. leakless
PRD: both are closed vent/control device
TOC Analysis:
initially conducted April 1,1991
last one was April 1,1992
method used: 9060
-------
Fluid type analysis conducted at the same time as TOC based on vapor pressure knowledge
Statement that control device reduces emission by 95%
Monitoring:
flow indicator records daily
temperature at two locations, recorded daily, inspected weekly
all correct general device information is included
design avg. exhaust temperature is 150°; recorded on device at 175°
weekly visual inspection of pumps and valves
monthly monitoring of all pumps and valves
Valve 2 was found leaking on December 12 and repaired by
January 1
4
-------
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
QUESTIONS*
On what date is Waste Away, Inc. required to comply with Subparts AA and BB?
Which units fall under the Subpart AA process vent rule?
Which specific vents are subject to Subpart A A requirements?
If the operating record only listed TOC values (or documentation) for units
above 10 ppm, would *hey be in compliance?
How often do waste stream analyses have to be performed? Is Waste Away in
compliance? What if the distillation unit processes batch waste streams?
List the equipment subject to Subpart BB. Is PRO #1 covered? If not, when
would it be covered?
The facility adds a third operating unit that is subject to the process vent rule.
The following are the hourly and yearly emissions rates for the two units subject
to Subpart AA:
Unit!
Unit 2
Hourly
1.61bs/hr
2.51bs/hr
4.1 Ibs/hr
Yearly
1.7tons/yr
2.6 tons/yr
4.3 tons/yr
If the facility installs only one control device on one of these two units, is it
possible for the facility to be in compliance?
8. During your walk Lirough of the facility, you observe the following:
• no tags on any equipment
• dripping from Pump #4
• flow indicator measurements for the distillation unit control device
recorded daily
• temperature indicator measurements for the distillation unit control
device recorded hourly
• exhaust temperature from the distillation unit control device is 175° and
has been for 48 hours
• Valve #2 was found to be leaking on December 12,1992 and was repaired
on January 1,1993.
What violations have you found?
* For questions 1-6, assume the condenser is associated with the distillation unit.
For question 8, assume the condenser has been added as a control device.
-------
ANSWERS
1. April 17,1991 (264.1030(c))
2. Unit Number 1 (264.1030(b) & 264.1032(a))
3. Just the vents from the distillation condenser (264.1031)
4. No, they must show results for all waste stream lines (265.1063(d))
5. Annually, when waste stream changes, and at times specified by the Regional
Administrator; yes; test TOC for each batch (264.1064(k)(3))
6. Pumps: 1,4, and 5
Valves: 2 and 3
PRD may be subject - will be dependent upon how they are drawing from tanks
Sample connection system (264.1050(b))
7. Yes, if the facility installs a condenser with a 95 percent removal efficiency on
Unit 1, the facility will be below the emissions rates listed in the process vent
rule. Unit 1 emissions will be .08 Ibs/hr (.085 tons/yr) and the overall facility
emissions rates will be 2.58 Ibs/hr (2.685 tons/yr).
8. No tag on valve #2 (264.1052(b)(2) and 264.1064(c))
Flow indicator records daily, should be hourly (264.1033(0(1))
Exhaust temperature is too high above design average temperature
(264.1033(0(2)(vi)(B) and 264.1035(c)(4)(vii)(A))
-------
-------
Inspection Checklists for
Process Vents and Equipment Leaks
The following inspection checklists pertain to process vents and equipment that should be used
during inspections. The first two pages of each checklist require general information concerning the
facility, its processes and equipment that can be completed from information available in the file material
for the facility in the EPA offices, supplemented by information available in the file material at the facility.
A summary sheet is given for listing all the control devices or pieces of equipment that you want to look
at during your inspection. Finally, a worksheet is given for each type of control device and for equipment.
Process Vent Checklist
The Subpart AA process vent checklist requires information for process vent control equipment
located at the facility being inspected. One form should be completed for each separate control device
present at the facility. In most cases only one ortwo control devices will be present, and so the other pages
are not needed.
ioment Leak Checklist
The table at the end of the Subpart BB checklist requires information for pieces of equipment
covered by the Phase I Air Rule located at the facility being inspected. Each piece of equipment that you
wish to check can be given one column on the checklist. Information for this table is obtained from the
facility records or operating log and from the individual pieces of equipment.
-------
-------
2.
Checklist
Process Vents Applications
Part 264/265 Subpart AA
ibilitv 264/5.1030
Does the facility have units permitted under Part 270 or is it permitted under Part 270 ?
1 a. What is the ef<«*ctive date* for this facility ?
ib. For interim status facilities, have these requirements been incorporated into Part B
application submittal?
Are there any of the following separation processes at the facility ?
distillation, fractbnation, thin-film evaporation, solvent extraction,
air stripping, or steam stripping
Standards 264/5.1032
Waste Streams
3. Are there waste streams associated with any separation processes thai contain 10 ppmw or
greater organics concentration? 264/5.1032(a)
3a. If they claim waste streams below 10 ppmw, did they use proper means to
determine concentration ? 264/5.1034(d)(1 or 2)
3b. Was date of initial determination before their effective date ?
264/5.1034(6)
3c. Where other analysis performed annually or upon change lo waste streams ?
264/5.1034(e)(2or3)
Facility Emissions Rates
4. Is the hourly process vent organic emission rate > 3 Ib/hr ?
Is the yearly process vent organic emission rate 2. 3.1 tons/yr ?
4a. If performance tests were made, were they according to 264/5.1034(C)* ?
4b. If engineering calculations were used, were they according to 264/5.1035 (b)(ii) ?
4c. Has owner/operator signed statement that test conditions portray worst case
actual operating conditions?
4d. Were the facility emissions rates determined by the effective date ?
Facility Emission Rates After Control Devices or Change in Operations
5a.
5b
Are the process vent organic emission rate for the facility < 3 Ib/hr and < 3.1 tons/year gi
are they reduced by 95% ?
If performance tests were used, were they in accordance with 264/5.1034(c) and was
test plan in accordance with 264/5.1035(b)(3) ?
5c. If engineering calculations were used, were they in accordance with 264/5.1035(b)(4) ?
-------
Checklist
Process Vents Applications
Part 264/265 AA
5d. For facilities without the control devices installed, do they have an installation plan
(264.5/1033(a)(2) and 264/5.1035(bj(1) ?
5e. Will the control devices be installed by 18 months after the effective date ?
Reporting (264.1036)
6. For facilities with final permits incorporating this rule, have they sent in semi-annual reports of exceedances
lasting longer than 24 hours?
(Use Individual control device worksheets to continue inspection)
Vent # Control Device
Condenser
Adsorber (Regen)
Adsorber (Nonreg)
Process Heater
Boiler
Catalytic Vapor Incinerator
Thermal Vapor Incinerator
Air Assisted Flare
Steam Assisted Flare
Nonassisted Flare
Summary Sheet for Control Devices (CD)
CD # On Unit #
For Vents*
-------
Checklist
Condenser
Part 264/265 AA
Operating Parameters:
List the operating parameters and the limits set for each in the permit or for interim status facilities, the limits the
facility gave based ontheir engineering calculations 264/5.1035(b)(4){iii)(E}or performance tests 264/5.1035(b)(2)(ii).
Operating Parameter
Limit
Have they met these limits
Are all design documentation, monitoring, operating, and inspection information in the facility operating record ?
264/5.1035 (c)
Yes or No
Monitoring: A and either B or C
A. flow indicator 264/5.1033 (f)(1)
records hourly
installation point correct
daily inspection 264/5.1033 (f)(3)
A.MQ
B. [organic compound] in condenser exhaust vent stream
continuously record 264/5.l033(f)(2)(vi)(A)
daily inspection 264/5. 1033(f)(3)
C. temperature monitoring device 264/5. l033(f)(2)(vi)(B)
continuously record
two locations:
exhaust vent stream from condenser
coolent fluid exiting the condenser
accuracy:
+/- 1% of Temp being monitored or
.5 degrees C (whichever is greater
inspect daily 264/5.i033(f)(3)
immediately upon daily inspection 264/5. 1033(1) (3)
Repair:
Exceedances: 264/5.1035 (c)(4)(vi or vii)
if monitoring [organic] in exhaust:
when [organic] > 20% above design outlet [organic]
if monitoring T:
either T exhaust > 6 deg above design avg exhaust T
or T coolent out > 6 deg above design avg coolent T
cause of exceedance given
measures taken to correct cause provided
Closed-vent systems associated with the control device 264/5.1033(J)
standard: No Detectable Emissions and no visual emissions
monitor:* At facility effective date
Annually
RA requested times
repair: start by 5 days /complete by 15
3
-------
Checklist
Thermal Vapor Incinerator
Part 264/265 AA
Operating Parameters:
List the operating parameters and the limits set for each in the permit or for interim status facilities, the limits the
facility gave based on theirengineering calculations. 264/5.1035(b)(4)(iii)(B)orperformance tests 264/5.1035(b)(2)(ii)
Operating Parameter
Limit
Have they met these limits
t
Are all design documentation, monitoring, operating, and inspection information in the facility operating record ?
264/5.1035(c>
Yes or No
Monitoring: A and B
A. flow indicator 264/5.1033 (f)(l)
records hourly
installation point correct
daily inspection 264/5.1033 (1)(3)
B. temperature monitoring device 264/5.1033(f)(2)(i)
continuously record
one location:
in combustion chamber downstream of combustion zone
accuracy:
•»•/-1% of Temp being monitored or..5 degrees C (whichever is greater)
inspect daily 264/5.1033(1)(3)
Repair:
immediately upon daily inspection 264/5.1033(f)(3)
Exceedances: 264/5.1035 (c)(4)(i or ii)
it monitoring RT min:
when T<760deg. C
if standard 95% eff:
when T comb, zone > 28 deg. C below given design avg. comb, zone T
cause of exceedance given
measures taken to correct cause provided
Closed-vent systems associated with the control device 264/5.1033(J)
standard: No Detectable Emissions and no visual emissions
monitor:* At facility effective date
Annually
RA requested limes
repair: start by 5 days /complete by 15
-------
Checklist
Catalytic Vapor incinerator
- .. „ Part 264/265 AA
Operating Parameters:
.nK Pa?Jmters and lhe limits set for each in the P6™" or for interi"i status facilities, the limits the
taoirtygavebasedontheirengineering calculations 264/5.1035(b)(4)(iii)(C)orperformancetests264/5.l035(b)(2){ii).
Operating Parameter Limit
Have they met th<=»«=e limits
Are all design documentation, monitoring, operating, and inspection information in the facility operating record ?
264/5.1035 (c)
Yes or No
Monitoring: A and B
A. flow indicator 264/5.1033 (f)(l)
records hourly
installation point correct
daily inspection 264/5.1033 (f)(3)
B. temperature monitoring device 264/5.l033(f)(2)(i)(B)
continuously record
two locations:
exhaust vent stream from condenser
coolenl fluid exiting the condenser
accuracy:
+/-1 % of Temp being monitored or
.5 degrees C {whichever is greater
inspect daily 264/5.1033(f)(3)
Repair:
immediately upon daily inspection 264/5.1033(f)(3)
Exceedances: 264/5.1035 (c)(4)(iii)(A or B)
T inlet > 28 deg C below design avg. T inlet
T diff. across bed < 80% design avg. T difference
cause of exceedance given
measures taken to correct cause provided
Closed-vent systems associated with the control device 264/5.1033(J)
standard: No Detectable Emissions and no visual emissions
monitor:* At facility effective date
Annually
RA requested times
repair: start by 5 days /complete by 15
-------
Checklist
Boiler/Process Heater
Part 264/265 AA
Operating Parameters:
List the operating parameters and the limits set for each in the permit or for interim status facilities, the limits the
facility gave based on theirengineering calculations 264/5.1035(b)(4)(iii)(C)orperforrnancetests264/5.1035(b)(2)(ii
Operating Paramet<"
Limit
Have they met these limits
Are all design documentation, monitoring, operating, and inspection information in the facility operating record ?
264/5.1035 fci
264/5.1035 (C)
Monitoring: A and either B or C
A. flow indicator 264/5.1033(f)(l)
records hourly
installation point correct
daily inspection 264/5.1033(f}(3)
B. If design heat input capacity < 44 MW
temperature monitoring device 264/5.1033(?)(iv)
continuously record
one location:
in furnace downstream of combustion zone
accuracy:
+/-1% of Temp being monitored or
.5 degrees C (whichever is greater)
inspect daily 264/5.K33(f)(3)
C. If design heat input capacity => 44 MW
continuously record 264/5.1033(<)(v)
parameter that indicates good combustion practices
inspect daily 264/5.1033(1)0)
Repair:
immediately upon daily inspection 264/5.1033(f)(3)
Exceedances: 264/5.1035(c)(4)(iv)
T flame zone > 28 deg C below design avg. flame zone T
position changes where vent stream is introduced
cause of exceedance given
measures taken to correct cause provided
Closed-vent systems associated with the control device 264/5.1033(J)
standard: No Detectable Emissions and no visual emissions
monitor;* At facility effective date
Annually
RA requested times
repair start by 5 days/complete by 15
Yes or No
-------
Checklist
Flares
Part 264/265 AA
ating Parameters:
List the operating parameters and the limits set for each in the permit or for interim status facilities, the limits the
facility gave based on their engineering calculations 264/5.1035(b)(4)(iii)(D) and 264/5.1033(d) or performance tests
264/5.1
Operating Parameter
Limit
Have they met these limits
Are all design documentation, monitoring, operating, and inspection information in the facility operating record ?
264/5.1035 (c)
Yes or No
Standard:
no visible emibStons > 5 minutes/any consecutive hrs
flame present at all times
if steam-assisted:
Ve < 60 ft/s and Ht > 300 BID or
60 tt/s 1000 BTU
Ve < Vmax < 400 and Ht > 300 BTU
if air-assisted:
Ve < Vmax and Ht -> 300 BTU or
Ve < 60 ft/sec and Ht => 300 BTU
if non-assisted:
Ve < 60 ft/sec and Ht => 200 BTU or
60 < Ve < 400 ft/sec and Ht > 1000 BTU
Ve < Vmax < 400 and Ht > 200 BTU
Monitoring: AandB
A. flow indicator 264/5.1033(f)(l)
records hourly
installation point
daily inspection 264/5.1033(f}(3)
B. heat sensing device for continuous ignition of pilot flame
continuously record
inspect daily 264/5.1033(f)(3)
Repair:
immediately upon daily inspection 264/5.1033(f)(3)
Exceedances: 264/5 I035(c){4)(v)
period when pilot flame is not ignited
cause of exceedance given
measures taken to correct cause provided
Closed-vent systems associated with the control device 264/5.1033(J)
standard: No Detectable Emissions and no visual emissions
monitor: At facility effective date
Annually
RA requested times
7
-------
repair: start by 5 days/complete by 15
Checklist
Carbon Adsorbers - Regenerative
Part 264/265 AA
Operating Parameters:
List the operating parameters and the limits set tor each in the permit or for interim status facilities, the limits
facility gave based on their engineering calculations.
264/5.1035(b)(4)(iii)(D) and 264/5.1033(d> or performance tests 264/5.1035(b)(2)(ii).
Operating Parameter
Limit
Have they met these limits
Are all design documentation, monitoring, operating, and inspection information in the facility operating record ?
264/5.1035 (c)
Yes or No
Monitoring: A, B or C, and D
A. flow indicator 264/5.1033(f)(1)
records hourly
installation point
daily inspection 264/55.1033(f)(3)
B. [organic compound] in carbon bed exhaust vent stream
continuously record 264/5.1033(f){2)(vii)
daily inspection
C. device to measure a parameter that indicates regeneration
on a regular, predetermined time cycle
continuously record
inspect daily
D. replace carbon at regular, predetermined time interval
that is < carbon service life 264/5.1033(g)
Repair:
immediately upon daily inspection 264/5.1033(0(3)
Exceedances: 264/5.1035(c)(4)(viii and ix)
if [organic compound]:
[org] exhaust > 20% above design exhaust vent
stream [org]
if parameter for regen. on regular cycle
flow continuous past predetermined reg. time
cause of exceedance given
measures taken to correct cause provided
what about .1035(c){6) or (7)Yes or No
Has 264'5.1035(c)(6) or (7) been met?
Closed-vent systems associated with the control device 264/5.1033(J)
standard: No Detectable Emissions and no visual emissions
monitor: At facility effective date • •
Annually
RA requested times
repair: 5/15
8
-------
Checklist
Carbon Adsorbers - Non-Regenerative
Part 264/265 AA
Operating Parameters:
• List the operating parameters and the limits set for each in the permit or for interim status facilities, the limits the
facility gave based on their engineering calculations.
264/5.l035(b)(4)(iii)(D) and 264/5.1033(d) or performance tests 264/5.l035(b)(2)(ii).
Operating Parameter
Limit
Have they met these limits
Are all design documentation, monitoring, operating, and inspection information in the facility operating record ?
264/5.1035 (c)
Yes or No
Monitoring: A and either B or C
A. flow indicator 264/5.1033(f)(1)
records hourly
installation point
daily inspection 264/5.1033(f}(3)
B. [organic compound] in exhaust vent stream
monitor on regular basis
inspect daily or at time < 20% time cartoon life (which is longer)
replace carbon when this indicates need
C. replace carbon at regular predetermined time interval less
than design carbon replacement interval
Repair:
immediately upon daity inspection 264/5.1033(f)(3)
Exceedances: 264/5.1035(c)(4)(viii) and (ix)
if monitoring [organic] in exhaust:
date and time when monitored for breakthru
and [ ] reading
date when carbon is replaced with fresh carbon
cause of exceedance given
measures taken to correct cause provided
Closed-vent system
standard:
•nonitor:
repair:
No Detectable Emissions and no visual emissions
At facility effective date
Annually
HA requested times
5/15
-------
-------
1 .
2.
Checklist
Equipment Leak Applications
Part 264/265 Subpart BB
Uily. 264/5. 1 050
Is the facility permitted under Part 270 or does it have units permitted under Part 270 ?
1 a. Facility status: interim status or permitted?
1 b. What is the effective date* for this facility ?
Are any of these units exempt* ?
Waste Streams 264/5.1063 (d)
3. Are there waste streams that contain at least 10% organics by weight?
3a. Method of determination? knowledge, ASTM Methods D2267-88. E169-87, E168-88, E260-85 or Method
9060 or 8240
3b. If knowledge, is it documented?
3c. Date of initial determination
3d. Dates of other analysis? change, batch
For each waste stream that does qualify, determine fluid type.
gas/vapor service, light-liquid service, heavy liquid service
4a. Method for determining light liquid service.
vapor pressures of constituents from standard texts
ASTM D-2879-86
Facility Operating Record 264/5.1064 (g)
5. Does the facility have a list of the equipment and identification numbers that is affected by this rule ?
6. Is there a list of the id numbers of NDE pumps, valves, and compressors with signature of owner/operator ?
7. Is there a list of all affected equipment by designation ?
7. is there a list of PRO in gas/vapor service?
8. Dates of tesi for NDE
Background level
Maximum instrument reading
9. Is there a list of ID numbers for equipment in vacuum service?
List of ID numbers of "unsafe-to-monitor" and "difficult-to-monitor" valves, with explanation for each and plan for
monitoring or schedule.
-------
Checklist
Equipment Leak Applications
Part 264/265 Subpart BD
(Cont'd)
11. Is there a list of valves using the skip period alternative monitoring schedule, with schedule for monitoring and % le
determined ?
12. For dual mechanica1 -eal pumps or compressors with barrier tluid systems with sensors, is the criteria and explanation
of the criteria for determining sensor failure given ?
13. Is there an analysis of design capacity, influent/effluent for each unit subject to these requirements, and an up-to-date
analysis either by testing or knowledge to determine if the equipment is covered or not ?
Equipment
Identification of Equipment Covered by Rule
Equipment Id # Waste Stream #
Fluid
Pumps
genera!
dual mechanical
NDE (sealtess)
closed vent/control devices
Compressors
general
NDE Sealless
CV/Control Device
Pressure Relief Devices
general
CV/Control Devices
Sampling Connecting Systems
general
insitu
Valves
general
teakless (NDE)
unsafe to monitor
difficult to monitor
alter allowable %
alter, skip period LDRP
Open-ended valves, pr lines
Flanges and other connectors
-------
Requirements for Subpart BB Pieces of Equipment
Gas/Vapor or Liquid Service
general
1.
2.
3.
monitored monthly by Method 21
10,000 ppm means a leak
two successive months without a leak, monitor first month or each quarter, after leak return to
mo-'hly monitoring
repair 5/15 or delay or repair
NDE
1.
2.
3.
4.
designated NDE in operating record
has no external actuating mechanism in contact with HW
meets NDE by Method 21 (500 ppm + bkgd)
initially tested by Dec. 21,1990 and annually (or as RA specifies)
"Unsafe to Monitor"
1. designated as such in operating tog
2. appears that monitoring personnel would be exposed to immediate danger
3. owner has a written plan to monitor during sate times
"Difficult to Monitor"
1. designated as such in operating record
2. valve location requires personnel to climb over 2 meters above support
3. unit was in operating before June 21,1990
4. owner has written plan to monitor at least once a year
Percentage % Allowed to leak (2%)
1. owner has notified RA that they will use this method
2. a performance test ol all valves in unit during the same week by Dec. 21,1990 by Method 21
3. repair 5/15 or delay of repair
4. % leaking calculated by:
# valves subject to rule leaking
# valves subject to rule within the unit
Skip Period
1. owner notified RA to use this portion
2. can skip one quarterly leak detection after 2 consecutive quarterly monitoring with 2% or less leaking
3. after 5 consecutive monitoring periods at 2% or less, can skip 3
4. return to monthly monitoring if exceed 2%
Heavy Liquid Service
general
1.
2.
3.
Monitored by Method 21 within 5 days of indication ol leak by sight, smell, or alarm
10,000 ppm means a leak
repair 5/15 or delay of repair
Pumps. Light Liquid...Seryice
general
1. monitor monthly by Method 21
2. inspect visually weekly for leaks
3. leak is 10,000 ppm or above or a visual indication
4. repair 5/15 days
-------
Requirements for Subpart BB Pieces of Equipment (Cont'd)
mechanical seal system
1. has one of the following:
a) barrier fluid pressure above stuffing box pressure
b) has barrier fluid degassing reservoir to CV-CD
c) purges barrier fluid into HW stream with NDE to air
2. barrier fluid must not be HW with organics > 10%
3. barrier system must have sensor for failure of sys or seal system
4. visual inspection weekly
5. daily check on sensor or audible alarm checked monthly
6. criterion must be set for failure for sensor
7. failure of sensor means a leak
8. repair 5/15 days
no detectable emissions
1. have no externally actuated shaft penetrating the pump housing
2. operate with NDE by Method 21 (500 ppm + bkg)
3. tested initially, annually and any other time by RA
equipped with closed vent system to control device
1. meets control device requirements of the process vent rule
Heavy Liquid Service
1. monitor within 5 days of potential leak determination by visual, audible, or olfactory method
2. leak is 10,000 ppm by Method 21
3. repair 5/15
Sampling Connecting System
1. does it have closed vent or closed purge system
2. do these systems (pick one)
a) return purged HW to process line with NDE
b) collect and recycle purged HW with NDE
c) capture and transport all purged HW to control device
(see control device for requirements)
3. has design, documentation, monitoring, operating and inspections been recorded and kept up to
date in operating record
Open-ended valves or lines
general
1.
2.
3.
is it equipped with cap, blind flange, plug or second valve which is on at all times except during the
use of the line or valve
if second valve is used, must be closed after open-ended vafve is closed
if double block and bleed system is used, the bleed valve or line may remain open during operations
that require venting the line between the block valves, but must be closed at all other times.
Flanges and Other Connectors
general
1. have they monitored within 5 days of evidence of potential leak by visual, -uund or smell.
2. 10,000 ppm means a leak
3. repair 5/15 or delay of repair
-------
Requirements tor Subpart BB Pieces of Equipment (Cont'd)
Pressure Relief Devices
gas/vapor service
1. operating with NDE as measured by Method 21
2.
3.
or
2.
3.
after release, return to NDE within 5 days
monitor within 5 days of release by Method 21
is it equipped with closed-vent, control device (Hooded)
design, monitoring of control device in facility operating record
light liquid or heavy liquid service
1.
2.
3.
monitored by Method 21 within 5 days of visual, smell, audible indications of potential leak
over 10,000 ppm means a leak
repair 5/15
Closed-vent systems
1.
2.
3.
4.
meet NDE emissions requirements of SOOppm + bkgd using Method 21
monitor initially by Dec 21,1990 (or when control devices installed) and annually or other by RA
detectable emissions by method 21 or visual
repair 5/15
Compressors
general
1. has a seal system with barrier fluid system
2. a) barrier fluid pressure greater than compressor stuffing box pressure or
b) barrier fluid system with closed-vent to control device (see CVCD) or
c) has a barrier fluid purge system for NDE
3. barrier fluid is not HW with 10% by weight or greater organics
4. equipped with sensor to detect failure of seal system and/or barrier fluid system
5. a) sensor checked daily or
b) sensor with audible alarm checked monthly or
c) sensor with audible checked daily if at unmanned site
6. operator has set criterion for sensor failure
7. sensor indicates failure means leak
8. repair 5/15
Closed-vent and control device (Hooded!
1. see 264/265 Subpart AA requirements
NDE
1.
2
is it meeting NDE by Method 21
was ft certified NDE initially
-------
-------
1
^
0
1
E
Z
c
;
i
!
1
C
t
E
ll
K
^
b
I
1*
<>j
j=.
^
rs»
^5
%
8 c
'> «
fis:
•5 =
^ s
•
c
(3
E
W
(2
u
s
1
•
V,
Z
u-
LL
Q£
5
LU
Oi
z a = ^ s y
S- t- -^ := w t—
r~ ^ = -G E <=
fe ~ •% ,? .£• S
^ o - "i 5 £
5f •£ — — ~ tc
C E £ ^ UJ Z
S^Elf*
fl
ii c
3 S
1/5 £
a
•^
u
.X •= =<
- E uT:
CJ
11111
J E
-------
-------
AIR EMISSIONS POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS
264.13
265.13
General requirements
Failure to identify and use proper waste analyses
methods.
264.15
265.15
requirements
Failure to develop an inspection schedule meeting the
terms and frequencies outlined in 264.1033(0(3),
264.10S2(aK2)/ (d)(4) and (d)(5), 264.1053(e) and
264.1058(a) and 265.1033(0(3), 265.1052(a)(2), (d)(8)
and (d)(5), 265.1052(e) and 265.1058
265.1032(a)
Process Vents
Failure to reduce total organic emisr ions to less than
1.4 kg/h (3 Ib/h) and 2.8 Mg/yr (3.1 tons/yr) or use
of a control device to reduce total organic emissions
from affected vents by 95% weight.
264.1032(6)
265.l032(b)
Process Vents control equipment
Failure to install control equipment to meet
requirements in 264/265.1032(a)
264.1032(c)
265.1032(c)
Process Vents
Failure to prepare and place in operating record an
implementation schedule for installation of closed-
vent system and control device.
264.1033(3)
265.1033(3)
Closed-vent systems and control devices
Failure to prepare and place in operating record an
impkmenfation schedule for installation of closed-
vent system and control device.
264.10330?)
265.l033(b)
Control devices
Failure to design and operate control devices to
recover organic vapors with an efficiency of at least
95% weight unless provisions of 264/264.1032 (aXD
are met.
264.1033(c)
265.1033(c)
Enclosed Combustion Device
(a) Reduction of VOCs by less than QSSi, or
(b) Total organic compound concentration greater
than 20 ppmv on a dry basis corrected to 3%
oxygen; or
(c) Residence time less than 0.5 seconds, or
(d) Combustion temperature lower than 750 C; or
(e) Meet facility emission rate limits.
-------
264.1033(d)(l)
265.1033(d)a>
264.l033(d)(2)
265.1033{d)(2)
Flares
Flares
No visible flare emissions shall occur.
Flame not present at all times.
264.l033(d)(3)
265.1033(d)(3)
Flares
Flares used if the net heating value of the gas is less
than 11.2 MJ/SMC (300 Btu/scf), if thr lare is steam-
or air-assisted or if the net heating value of the gas is
less than 7.45 MJ/SCM (200 Btu/scf) if non-assisted.
264.l033(d)(4)
26S.l033(d)<4>
Flares
Steam- and non-assisted flares nor designed for an
operated with an exist velocity greater than 18.3 m/s
(60 ft/s) except as noted in
265.l033(d)(6)
Flares
Failure to use flares which are steam-, air - or non-
assisted .
264.1033(e)
265.1033(e)
Flares
Failure to use approved methods to determine
compliance of flares with provisions of regulations.
264.1033(0
265.1033(0
Control devices
Failure to monitor and inspect monitoring readings
daily for all control devices to comply with
regulations to ensure proper operation and
maintenance and failure to implement all
requirements in 264/265.1033(0.
264.1033(g)
265.1033(g)
Control devices
For carbon adsorption systems with direct on-site
regenerating carbon beds, failure to replace existing
carbon with fresh carbon at a regular, predetermined
time interval that is no longer than the carbon service
life established as a requirement of
264/265.1035(b)(4)(iii)(F).
264.1033(h)
265.1033(h)
Control devices
For carbon adsorption systems that do not regenerate
the carbon bed directly on-site, failure to replace a
carbon canister on a regular basis using one of the
procedures outlined in 264/265.1033(h).
264.1033{i)
265.1033(0
Control devices
Failure to provide sufficient documentation for
devices other than those identified in 264/265.1033 to
comply with the provisions of 264/265.1033.
264.1033(10(1)
265.1033(k)U>
Closed-vent systems
Total organic emissions greater 500 ppm (method 21).
264.1033(k)(2) Closed-vent systems
265.1033(k)(2)
Failure to monitor to determine compliance with
264/265.1033(k)(l) on the schedule set for in this
paragraph.
264 1033(k)(3)&(4> Closed-vent systems
265.1033(k>(3)&(4)
Failure to comply with the repair and control
requirements for no detectable emissions from closed-
vent systems.
-------
264.1033QO
265.1033(k)
264.1034
265.1034
264.1035
265.1035
264.1036
265.1036
264.1050
265.1050
264.1052O)
265.1052(a)
264.1052(b)
265,1052(b)
264.1052(c)
265.l052(c)
264.1052(d)
265.1052(d)
264.1052(e)
265.l052(e)
264.1052(0
265.1052(0
264,1053(a)
265.1053(3)
264.1053(b)
265.1053(b)
264.1053(d)
265.1053(d)
264.1053(e)
265.1053(e)
264.1053(g)
265.1053(g)
Closed-vent systems
Closed-vent systems - Test methods and
procedures
Record*.eeping
Reporting
General requirements
Pumps in light liquid service
Pumps in light liquid service
Pumps in light liquid service
Pumps in light liquid service
Pumps in light liquid service
Pumps in light liquid service
Compressors
Compressors
Compressors
Compressors
Compressors
Failure to operate closed-vent systems at all times
when emissions may be vented to them.
Failure to use approved test methods, procedures and
performance tests outlined in this section.
Failure to comply with the recordkeeping
requirements outlined in this section.
Failure to comply with the reporting requirements
outlined in the section.
Failure to incorporate the requirements of
264/265.1052 - 264/265.1065 when facility permits is
re-issued. Failure to property mark or identify each
piece of equipment subject to these requirements.
Failure to monitor monthly to detect leaks by the
methods specified in 264/265.1063(b) and to visually
inspect each calendar week for dripping liquids from
the pump seals.
None
Failure to repair or attempt to repair within 15 days or
specified time frames.
Failure to meet provisions to exempt dual mechanical
seal systems from monitoring requirements.
Failure to meet provisions to exempt from monitoring
requirements any pump that is designated for no
detectable emissions as indicated by an instrument
reading of less that 500 ppm above background.
Failure to equip pumps with a closed-vent system if
exemption from monitoring requirements is sought.
Failure to equip compressors with seal system.
Failure to equip compressors with seal system
meeting requirements set forth in this paragraph (c).
Failure to install the seal system with a sensor that
will detect failure of seal system and barrier fluid
system.
Failure to inspect sensors daily or to equip sensors
with audible alarm that is checked monthly.
Failure to attempt to repair or to repair leaks once
detected within time frame.
-------
264.1053(h)
265.1053(h)
264.1053(0
265.1053(i)
264.1054(a)
265.1054(a)
264.1054(b)
265.1054(b)
264.l054(c)
265.l054(b)
264.1055(3)
265.1055(a)
264.l056(a)
265.1056(a)
264.1057(3}
265.1057(3)
264.1057(b)
265.1057(b)
264.1057(d;it(e)
265.1057(d)&(e)
264.1057(0
265.l057(f)
264.1057(g)&(h)
265.1057(g)&(h)
264.1058(a)
265.1058(3)
264.1058(b)
265.10580?)
264.1058(c)
265.1058(c)
264.1039
265.1039
Compressors
Compressors
Pressure Relief Devices in gas
Pressure Relief Devices
Pressure Relief Devices
Sampling Connecting Systems
Open-ended Valves or Line
Valves in gas/Vapor or in light liquid
service
Valves in gas/Vapor or in light liquid
service
Valves in gas/Vapor or in light liquid
service
Valves in gas/ Vapor or in light liquid
service
Valves in gas/ Vapor or in light liquid
service
Pumps and Valves in Heavy Liquid
Service; Pressure Relief Devices
Pumps and Valves in Heavy Liquid
Service; Pressure Relief Devices
Pumps and valves in Heavy Liquid
Service; Pressure Devices; and Flanges
and Connectors
Delay of repair
Failure to install a closed -vent and control device
system if exemption from these requirements arc
sought.
Failure to operate any compressors designated for no
detectable emissions to ensure no reading 500 ppm
above background is measured.
Instrument reading of 500 ppm or greater is
measured.
Failure to attempt or to repair leaks within specified
time frames.
Failure to install a closed-vent system for pressure
relief devices for which exempts are sought.
Failure to install, and /or operate closed-purge system
or closed-vent system.
Failure to install, operate, and maintain cap, blind
flange, plug or second valve.
Failure to monitor monthly to detect leaks.
Instrument reading of 10,000 ppm or greater, if the
owner/operator uses this as a performance standard
for valves.
Failure to attempt to repair or to repair leaks within
specified time frames and by the practices outlined in
the paragraph.
Failure to comply with requirements for designation
of a valve with no detectable emissions.
For unsafe- or difficult-to-monitor valves, failure to
comply with specified requirements
Failure to monitor these pieces of equipment within
five days if evidence of a leak is found.
None
Failure to attempt to repair or to repair leaks detected
on these pieces of equipment within the specified time
frames. First 3ttempt within 5 days, repair to be
completed no later than 15 days.
Failure to meet specifications permitting delays in
repair of equipment leaks if repairs are not carried out
within 5 or 15 days of the detection of the leak.
-------
264.1060
265,1060
Closed-vent systems and control devices
Failure to comply with provisions of 264/265.1033 for
closed-vent systems and control devices.
264.1061
265.1061
and
264.1062
265.1062
Alternative standards
Failure to comply with the alternative standards and
performance test requirements of this paragraph if an
owner/operator requests permission to use the
alternative compliance standards for valves in
gas/vapor service or in light liquid service. The
alternative standards are the allowance of 2 percent of
the valves to leak and the allowance of leak detection
and repair skip periods. More than 2 percent of tb -
valves leaking is a violation and requires monthly
monthly monitoring.
264.1063
265.1063
Equipment leaks - tests methods and
procedures
Failure to use approved test methods and procedures
and performance tests outlined in this section.
264.1064
265.1064
Record keeping
Failure to comply with the recordkecping
requirements outlined in this section.
264.1065
265.1065
Reporting
Failure to company with the reporting requirements
outlined in this section.
270.24
Part B Application
Failure to include the specified information for
process vents in the Part B application for the facility.
270.25
Part B Application
Failure to include the specified information for
equipment in the Part B application for the facility.
-------
t
-------
FEE 01 '93 ee:
ee:3B*1
United Stitw
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Triangle Part NC 27711
P.7/18
EPA-450/3-80-032b
June 1982
'Air
Benzene Fugitive
Emissions—
Background
Information for
Promulgated
Standards
EIS
CPA-QAQPS Library
-------
-------
..V
Comnent: Twq coramenters remarked about the costs associated with
dual seal systems. One commenter reported that one of the refineries
contacted in the area estimated a minimum cost of $200,000 for
installation of secondary seals with an estimated $35.000 annual
maintenance and monitoring cost (IV-0-10). One commenter evaluated
the use of dual mechanical seals with a barrier fluid and controlled
degassing vents. The commenter concluded that safe Installation of
this type of system is very expensive and would only control minor
amounts of benzene (IV-D-29).
Response: Since proposal, a monthly leak detection and repair
program has been selected for control of benzene fugitive emissions
from new and existing pumps (see Section 2.3). For new and existing
compressors, EPA has selected equipment control. EPA has estimated
costs of installing safe systems and has concluded that they are
reasonable.
2.4.1.3 Sampling Systems. Four comraenters submitted the following
comments on the sampling system requirements:
Comment: One commenter recommended that the last five words of
paragraph (2), Sec. 62.112{c) of the proposed standard, "without
benzene emissions to atmosphere/ should be changed to, "with minimal
emissions to atmosphere." The commenter noted that designing sampling
systems with zero benzene emissions would require using a benzene-free
purge. The commenter recommended that only specially designed sampling
valves should be required (IV-D-20). One commenter recommended that
other sampling systems besides a purge system be allowed, for example,
venting to a control device with 95 percent recapture (IV-0-Z1).
Another commenter stated that sampling systems are not state-of-the-art
for worker protection. The commenter also recommended that a definition
of In-situ sampling systems be added to the standard (IV-D-24).
Response; In the BID for the proposed standard, 1t was estimated
that closed-loop sampling systems are almost 100 percent effective
in eliminating sampling purge emissions. As noted in the preamble
of the proposed standard (46 PR U80, January 5, 1981), however, no
available data indicate that application of any control technique
would be able to comply with a "no detectable emissions" standard
(500 ppnv or less VQC concentration above background). Sorae benzene
2-57
-------
P.9/18
could be emitted during sample transfer to • closed collection
device.
The Intent of the standard 1$ to eliminate sample line purging
to atmosphere, ground, or sewer drain. A "zero" (no detectable)
emissions limit Is not practicable as noted by the establishment of
an equipment standard Instead of an emissions limit because sampling
systems can have detectable emissions. Reference Method 21 would
not be practicable for determining emissions from these systems.
EPA recognizes that closed-loop sampling systems have limitations
with respect to low-pressure processes or tankage and. In some Instances,
safety requirements. The regulation, therefore, does not specify it
"closed-loop sampling system,* but It does require a "closed-purge
system." This will allow any system that collects all benzene purged
during sampling and recycles or destroys the collected benzene.
Closed-loop sampling systems are used 1n the 610 for the proposed
standard to evaluate the cost of controlling fugitive emissions from
sampling systems (closed-loop sampling systems are generally the most
costly system to Implement a closed purged system).
The Intent for sampling systems has been clarified In the final
standard with the changes presented 1n response to other comments.
By elaborating on the requirements for "closed-purge systems" and
"1n-situ" sampling systems, the proper equipment design criteria
for sampling systems have been better described:
"Closed-purge system" means the equipment comprising a closed-loop
sampling system or any system that collects benzene purged In the
sampling process and either recycles or disposes of benzene.
"In-s1tu sampling systems" are non-extractive or 1n-l1ne sampling
systems that Involve measurement or sampling of process stream
conditions without extraction of the sample from the process stream,
resulting in no purged emissions of benzene.
In addition to closed-purge sampling, EPA has considered since
proposal allowing a closed-vent vacuum system connected to a control
device. Closed-vent vacuum systems connected to a control device
collect the sample purge and then transport the sample purge to a
control device. If these systems are not open to atmosphere, then
their reduction 1n emissions of benzene would be equivalent to
2-58
-------
FEE 01 '93
collecting the purge In a collection system that 1s not open to
atmosphere. Rased on these considerations, EPA has decided to
allow closed-vent vacuum systems connected to control devices.
Comment; One commented stated that there were the following
probiere in controlling emissions of benzene In accordance with the
proposed regulations:
(1) Attempts to perform closed-loop sampling of nitration batches
at one plant were unsuccessful.
(2) One plant anticipated problems with closed-loop sampling of
raw material deliveries and reactor content measurements (IV-D-29)*
Response; As stated 1n the previous response, EPA specifies in
the proposed and promulgated regulations "closed-purge systems" as the
control equipment for sampling systems, not "closed-loop sampling
systems." Requiring "closed-purge systems" allows any system that
collects all benzene purged during sampling and recycles or destroys
the collected benzene. An example system 1s that of the Fetterolf-"ftam-
seal" presented 1n Docket A-79-27-II-D-S6.
2.4.1.4 Continuous Benzene Emissions Control. Comment; One
commenter expressed concern for the requirement that all control
systems be operated 100 percent of the time when benzene emissions
may occur. The commenter was concerned that the provision does not
allow for expected or unexpected maintenance or repair of the
control system. The commenter recommended that a bypass of emissions
be allowed where the control systems must be taken out of service
for maintenance or an emergency only where the next emissions that
will be bypassed would not exceed the excess emissions that would
result from a shutdown and start-up of the process unit (IV-D-21).
Response; The standard requires that control devices be operated
when emissions of benzene are vented to them. TMs means that closed*
vent systems transporting the benzene emissions to control devices
can not be vented uncontrolled to atmosphere. For larger emissions.
current Industry practices do not allow uncontrolled venting of
emissions from closed-vent systems. Thus* alternative control
devices will be available to control these emissions. For smaller
emissions, such as those from dual mechanical seal systems, the
2-59
-------
-------
SERA
United Statts
Environmental Prot»ct>on
Aoency
Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards
Research Trtongto Park NC 27711
EPA-450/3-80-O32*
November 1980
Benzene Fugitive
Emissions —
Background Information
for Proposed Standards
Draft
-------
-------
I ,
of an open-ended valve, they are effective in preventing leaks through
the seat of the valve from reaching atmosphere. Open-ended valves,
about 20 percent of the total valves handling benzene, are used
mostly in Intermittent service for sampling,-venting, or draining. If
a cap or plug Is used downstream of a valve when It 1s not In use,
benzene emissions can be reduced* No test data are available to
support a control efficiency for these devices. However* the control
efficiency will depend on such factors as frequency of valve use.
valve seat leakage, and material that Bay be trapped In the pocket
between the valve and cap or plug and lost on removal of the cap or
plug. For the purposes of emission calculations, 100 percent control
efficiency of these emissions has been Assumed. The Installation of a
cap, plug, or second valve does not prevent the leakage that may occur
through the valve stem seal. The attachment of a second valve down-
stream of the open-ended valve provides a double block and bleed
arrangement. In this system. It 1s Important that the upstream valve
be closed first. Otherwise, product will remain in the line between
the valves, and expansion of this product will cause leakage through
the valve stem seals.
4.3.5 Closed-Loop Sampl1ng
A frequent operation in most refining and organic chemical production
operations Is to withdraw a sample of material from the process for
analysis. To ensure that the sample 1s representative, purging of the
sample lines and/or sample container 1s often required. If this
purging 1s done to atmosphere or to open drains, or 1f there are
Incidental handling losses, benzene emissions can result. A closed-loop
sampling system 1s designed so that the purged VOC Is returned to the
system or sent to a closed disposal system and so that the handling
losses are minimized. Figure 4-7 gives two examples of closed-loop
sampling systems where the purged VOC Is flushed from a point of
higher pressure to one of lower pressure in the system and where
sample-line dead space 1s minimized. Other sampling systems are
available that utilize partially evacuated sampling containers and
21
require no line pressure drop.
4-24
-------
-------
PROCESS. UWS.
'PROCESS
— «a
U
T
o
•AMPUE.
Figure 4-7, Diagram of Two Closed-loop Sampling Systens
4-25
-------
-------
MS/IE
Response;
As noted in the preamble to the proposed regulations (46 FR 1143-1145),
performance standards based on emission Units were not possible for pumps
and compressors because of technological and economic limitations. More-
over, 1t was not possible to set concentration Unit performance standards
based on concentration Units. Even pumps and compressors using the
equipment required by the standards have the potential to leak and any leak
would be a violation of such a performance standard* Additionally, there
are too few pumps and compressors to set a meaningful percent leaking
performance standard.
EPA has provided a work practice standard for pumps and has established
the equipment standards as alternative control techniques for pumps. In
addition, the equipment standards as proposed allow for several options.
Dual mechanical seals of any configuration with pressurized or non-pres-_
surlzed barrier fluid systems or an enclosed and vented seal area were all
offered for pumps. Compressors can be controlled by using any type seal
with a barrier fluid or enclosed and vented seal areas.
EPA believes that the standards for pumps and compressors are
reasonable and allow all owners or operators of affected facilities to
comply. The standards Incorporate provisions for complying by using
seal less equipment, dual seals with barrier fluid systems, or vented seal
areas without requesting permission or an equivalency determination. EPA
has also provided equivalency procedures for these standards that permit an
owner or operator of a process unit to comply with other requirements 1f the
other requirements are shown to provide emissions reductions equivalent to
the required equipment standards. The technical problem cited by the
comnenter 1n Docket Item No. IV-0-6 is addressed 1n Sections 4.8 and 4.12.
3.5.5 Perfonaance Standard for Sampling Systems
Cement;
One coonenter (IV-0-6) recommended that a performance standard be
established for sampling systems. He felt there were better methods of
sampling which could not be used under the proposed regulations which could
be used without discussion 1f a performance standard were established.'
3-24
-------
-------
Comment?
One cownenter (IV-D-26) pointed out that the words "stuffing box
pressure" should be followed by the word "or" 1n the proposed Section
60.482
-------
- If
Slnetnly,
^ Richard S. Colytr
Standards Dtvelop^nt Branch
Prink McAl liter* Ktt/DStf (OS-341)
by: OAQPS'.ESD:SD^RCo1y»nND03:(2fi-5262:9/13/90
-------
-------
t
-------
CASE DEVELOPMENT AND SUPPORT
Quality Inspections
Documentation of Evidence
RCRA Civtl Penalty Policy.
OVERHEAD #1
TITLE: Case Development and Support
KEY POINTS:
• The RCRA Enforcement Inspection Program serves two critical functions:
determining compliance with the RCRA regulations, and supporting enforcement
actions. Because of this, it is imperative that inspections be performed in a
manner that is both technically and legally correct; flaws in either the technical
or legal conduct of an inspection may hamper, prevent, or invalidate the use of
inspection results for these critical functions.
• During this presentation, we will discuss the importance of conducting and
documenting quality inspections and how inspections impact case development.
• We will discuss the importance of breaking down each relevant statute and
regulation into its component elements, as a means of identifying whether a
facility is in violation of it and, if so, the necessary elements for proving a
violation. We will briefly engage in an interactive exercise documenting
evidence necessary to prove a federal regulatory violation.
• In addition, we will briefly discuss the RCRA Civil Penalty Policy and explain
how a penalty is calculated.
XII-1
-------
CASE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
Inspection
Inspector
Organizes
Documentary
Evidence Into
an Inspection
Rle
Inspection FHe
is Forwarded to
Regional Case
Development
Officer (RCDO)
RCDO
Reviews
Inspection
Rle
Decision Made
to Pursue or
rtr/\n
IJTOp
Enforcement
Action
Pursuit of
Either Judicial
or
Administrative
Enforcement
Action
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Case Development Process
KEY POINTS:
* This is a basic flowchart of the case development process.
• While some of the process is undoubtedly familiar to you, some parts of the
process may not be, so let's take a few minutes to look at the process and see
where you, as inspectors, fit in.
• Obviously, the process starts with you and the inspection file you put together.
After the inspection, however, if you take a closer look at the process, you'll see
how it all hinges on your actual visit to the facility, the evidence you observed, and
the manner in which you document it.
• After you forward the file to the Case Development Officer, he or she is going to
review the file with four things in mind:
— Have the samples and documents been properly identified?
— How significant is the violation identified?
— What is the past history of the facility?
— Is the documentation of the evidence adequate?
XII-2
-------
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Case Development Process (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• While all four factors are important to the development of a case, if the
documentation of evidence is inadequate, the pursuit of an enforcement action,
whether it is judicial or administrative, will be impossible.
• Whether or not evidence is adequate is based not just on whether or not the
evidence exists, but on the validity and quality of the evidence, and the level and
detail of documentation.
• We will talk more later about gathering and substantiating evidence that is
adequate to prove the substance of a violation by proving each element of the
violation.
• As was evident from our earlier discussion, depending on the particular approach
of a Region or state, attorneys' involvement in the enforcement process can begin at
various points. They may introduce litigation concerns into the deliberations over
whether or not to pursue an enforcement action.
XII-3
-------
INFORMATION-GATHERING
AUTHORITIES
• Information Requests
• Administrative Warrants
• Subpoenas
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Information-Gathering Authorities
KEY POINTS:
• As inspectors, you are obviously familiar with inspections as a type of
information-gathering authority, but there are three others that I would like to
discuss.
• The first is the information request. An information request, whether it is made
using the telephone or by letter, is authorized by §3007(a) of RCRA. Section
3007(a) allows you, as an inspector or a case development officer, to contact a
hazardous waste handler with regards to existing or required information
concerning their hazardous waste.
• Another information-gathering authority is the administrative warrant, which some
of you may have used in the past. An administrative warrant can be used to gain
entry into a facility when facility officials have denied entry to an inspector or
have withdrawn their consent to an inspection that is taking place. In certain
circumstances, such as when previous contact or correspondence with the facility
to be inspected provides reason to believe that entry will not be allowed, a
pre-inspection warrant can be granted. A warrant is really just a judicial
authorization for an appropriate official to enter a specifically-described location
and perform clearly-defined functions. In your case, it would allow you into a
facility to conduct an inspection.
-------
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Information-Gathering Authorities (continued)
KEY POINTS:
• If you are ever in a situation where you feel a warrant is needed, you first will
need to contact the Regional Counsel's office. After discussion, a joint decision
will then be made whether or not to seek a warrant. Regional Counsel will then
notify Headquarters and will also contact the U.S. Attorney for the district in
which the property is located. Once the application for the warrant is prepared
and signed by the appropriate magistrate, the warrant can be served. The
inspection may then take place strictly in accordance with die warrant. Once the
inspection is over, the inspector must sign the return of service form indicating to
whom the warrant was served and the date of service. The warrant must then be
given to the U.S. Attorney, who will return the wamant to the issuing magistrate.
• The last information-gathering authority well talk about today is the subpoena.
A subpoena is a legal tool that requires the attendance of witnesses or the
production of documentary evidence in court or at a hearing. RCRA subpoenas
are only allowed in the context of a hearing held pursuant to a §3008 order, and
because of that, are not used in conjunction with actual inspections, though they
may be used later in the enforcement process.
XII-5
-------
GOING BEYOND CHECKLISTS
• Take Holistic Approach to Facility
• Kaap Eyas and Ear* Opan During
Visual Inspection
• Make Uaa of All Relevant Resources
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Going Beyond Checklists
KEY POINTS:
• Certainly, inspectors should make use of checklists when preparing for and
conducting inspections. They provide a useful mechanism for organizing an
inspection, and they ensure that all basic information will be obtained. However,
checklists can be limiting, as we have already discussed earlier in the Institute.
Reliance on them can lead to a near-sightedness that makes visual inspections
less effective than they could be - the inspector is more worried about checking
boxes than in really seeing what is happening at the facility.
• By all means, use checklists when inspecting facilities. But also attempt to do
the following:
— Take a holistic view of a facility. Make sure that you understand, to the
extent possible, the different processes and operations relating to waste
generation, transportation, and storage, and management's approach to
compliance.
— While referring to a checklist to make sure that you obtain information that
you know is important, be sure to pay attention to the goings-on at the
facility. Be alert to any visual or verbal triggers that may, for example,
lead you to identify violations or areas in which pollution prevention
techniques could be beneficial.
XI1-6
-------
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Going Beyond Checklists (continued)
KEY POINTS:
— Ensure that, prior to making a site visit, you have reviewed all relevant
materials that your office or other offices may have accumulated about a
company or one of its facilities. Also, familiarize yourself with the
industrial processes you are likely to find at a facility—you can do this by,
among other things, referring to guidance available, such as in The
Commercial Painting Industry (referred to earlier during the Waste
Minimization presentation).
— The importance of "going beyond checklists" cannot be overemphasized.
XII-7
-------
REGULATORY ANALYSIS
Identify
Applicable
Regulations
Determine If
Regulations
Have Been
Amended
Identify and
Break Down
Necessary
Elements of
Regulation
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: Regulatory Analysis
KEY POINTS:
Though the material we are about to cover may seem a bit basic, the reason it has
been included in the Institute is that certain attorneys and other enforcement
personnel have noted that a number of enforcement cases in the past were lost
due, at least in part, to the lack of available evidence, or weak evidence,
documenting the relevant elements of a violation. If you do not properly break
down a regulation, ultimately, there may not be a case.
The purpose of reviewing applicable regulations is to refresh the inspector's
knowledge of standards that apply to a facility and what constitutes a violation of
those standards.
Inspectors can determine which regulations apply to a facility in two ways: 1) by
focusing on the purpose of the inspection (i.e., is this inspection required by a
compliance order issued to that specific facility?); and 2) by referencing the
agency's facility file to see what regulations have previously been focused on
with regard to that particular facility.
XII-8
-------
REGULATORY ANALYSIS
Identity
Applicable
Regulations
Determine If
Regulations
Have Been
Amended
Identify and
Break Down
Necessary
Elements of
Regulation
Identify
Evidence
minimum-
OVERHEAD #6
TITLE: Regulatory Analysis
KEY POINTS:
As inspectors, you need to be aware of regulatory changes that have occurred
following previous inspections and how those amendments may impact on the
compliance status of a facility. Facility activities that may have complied with
standards previously in effect may not comply with current standards.
You may want to check with sources outside your office to determine if the
regulation in question has been amended. Sources that are recommended are
the RCRA/Superfund/UST Hotline, your Regional RCRA contact, or the
RCRA Inspection Manual, which is currently under revision.
XII-9
-------
REGULATORY ANALYSIS
Identify
Applicable
Regulations
Determine If
Regulations
Have Been
Amended
identify and
Break Down
Necessary
Clement* of
Ion
OVERHEAD #7
TITLE: Regulatory Analysis
KEY POINTS:
The purpose of breaking a regulation down into discrete sections or elements is not
only to make the inspection process easier to manage overall, but also to allow for
easier identification of the specific types of evidence that are needed to prove each
element of a violation.
Similarly, in utilizing the RCPP, you need to break down the policy and make sure
you address each aspect of it with respect to a given facility.
Of course, in breaking down a regulation, you may discover that a facility is in
violation of only a portion of a regulation; enforcement actions can be taken for
such partial violations.
In light of everything we discussed, we are now going to look at two examples of
Federal regulatory language in the Participant's Manual, and discuss what will
constitute a violation and what types of evidence will prove a violation.
XII-10
-------
HISTORY OF THE RCRA CIVIL
PENALTY POLICY
• RCRA Ctvll Penalty Policy (RCPP) Developed
in 1984, but Implemented Inconsistently.
• 1089 Inspector General Report end RCRA
Implementation Study Documented
Inadequacies In RCPP Implementation.
• RCPP Revised In 1990
OVERHEAD #8
TITLE: History of the RCRA Civil Penalty Policy
KEY POINTS:
• The original RCPP was developed to provide guidelines by which penalties
should be assessed. However, in the RCRA Implementation Study (RIS), EPA
determined that the RCPP was implemented inconsistently, resulting in wide
variations in the penalties assessed. The RIS recommended, among other
things, that penalties be made higher.
• In 1989, the Inspector General issued a report finding, among other thing;;, the
following inadequacies in the existing policy:
— Insufficient gravity-based penalties
— No penalties for multi-day violations
— Failure to consider/recover economic benefits of noncompliance
— Failure to apply case-specific factors
— Improper (or non-existent) documentation of penalty calculations.
XII-11
-------
OVERHEAD #8
TITLE: History of the RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (continued)
KEY POINTS:
The revised RCPP was intended to strengthen the elements of the 1984 RCPP by:
— Providing a new system to calculate multi-day penalties
— Requiring use of the BEN computer model to calculate economic benefit
— Adding an "adjustment factor" for environmentally beneficial projects and
litigation risk
— Re-emphasizing mandatory penalty documentation
— Improving the consistency of RCPP application.
XII-12
-------
IMPORTANCE OF RCPP TO RCRA
ENFORCEMENT
CIVIL
PENALTIES
MSPECTOR
RCRA
ENFORCEMENT
GOALS
OVERHEADS
TITLE: Importance of RCPP to RCRA Enforcement
KEYPCINTS: (RCPP pp. 5-6)
• Civil penalties provide EPA with one of the means to achieve overall RCRA
enforcement.
• Civil penalties contribute to achieving RCRA enforcement by:
— Deterring violations
— Recovering violator's economic benefit from noncompliance
— Expeditiously resolving environmental problems.
XII-13
-------
STATE USE OF THE RCRA CIVIL
PENALTY POLICY
RCRA implementation Study
State Authorization
OVERHEAD #10
TITLE: State Use of the RCRA Civil Penalty Policy
KEY POINTS:
* The RCRA Implementation Study of 1991 recommends that states adopt the
RCPP, or a penalty policy comparable to the RCPP, in order to develop a strong
enforcement program.
• Although EPA will not withdraw authorization from, or refuse to authorize, a
state program solely because it does not have a penalty policy equivalent to the
RCPP, effective deterrence is one characteristic of an adequate state enforcement
program that is necessary to obtain and maintain EPA authorization.
• We hope that all of you here from the states will have had some exposure to the
RCPP or a comparable policy.
XII-14
-------
THE INSPECTOR'S ROLE IN
PENALTY CALCULATION
* Perform Initial Site Visit
• Identity Violations
• Document Violation Information
• Completely and Accurately Fill Out
Worksheets Used to Calculate the Penalty
OVERHEAD #11
TITLE: An Inspector's Role in Penalty Calculation
KEY POINTS:
• "he inspector is the initial contact between EPA and the violator. Usually, he or
} he will also be the first identifier of potential or actual violations. The critical
nature of the inspector's role cannot be overemphasized.
• The penalty is calculated based largely upon the inspector's observations
' depending on the nature of the violation). Accuracy and completeness in all the
nspector's paperwork is essential for a fair and legally supportable penalty
:alculation.
XI1-15
-------
t
PENALTY CALCULATIONS
There Are Three Penalty Calculations:
• Initial Calculation Based on Complaint
• Recalculation Based on New Information
• Final Calculation Reflecting Penalty Agreed
to at the Settlement
OVERHEAD #12
TITLE: Penalty Calculations
KEY POINTS:
The inspector has an impact on all three calculations through the inspection
report. In addition, in some Regions, the inspector does the initial calculation.
The initial calculation is made up of the Gravity-Based, Multi-Day, Economic
Benefit, and Good Faith or History of Non-Compliance Factors. The other
adjustment factors (Willfulness/Negligence, Ability to Pay, Environmental
Projects, Litigation Risk) are usually used at the time of settlement, because the
information is not available at the time of initial calculation.
XI1-16
-------
COMPONENTS OF THE CIVIL PENALTY
tsss |,
Ora M«l 13 « 38
OVERHEAD #13
TITLE: Components of the Civil Penalty
KEY POINTS: (RCPPp.l)
The Penalty Calculation System established through EPA's RCRA Civil Penalty
Policy consists of:
— Determining a gravity-based penalty for a particular violation, using a
penalty assessment matrix
— Adding a multi-day component to the penalty as appropriate, to account for
a violation's duration
— Adjusting the sum of the gravity-based and multi-day components, up or
down, for case-specific circumstances, and
— Adding to this amount the economic benefit determined to have been
gained through non-compliance.
« Expressed as an equation, the calculation looks like (what you see on the
overhead). Every penalty calculation should address these components.
• In reality, Regions usually calculate the economic benefit of noncompliance
prior to making adjustments. This process will be described later in the session.
• Keep in mind that you must make sure to address each aspect of the RCPP with
respect to any given facility.
—J /
-------
CALCULATING THE GRAVITY-BASED
COMPONENT
PENALTY .
AMOUNT
GRAVITY-
BASED
COMPONENT
I
•
•
MULTI-DAY
COMPONENT
ADJUSTIIEWTS
ADJUSTMENTS
ECONOMIC
BENEF|T
• Gravity-Based Component Considers:
— Potential for Harm
— Extent of Deviation from Requirement.
OVERHEAD #14
TITLE: Calculating the Gravity-Based Component
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 12-19)
• The first step is to calculate the gravity-based component, which is based on
assessment of the potential for harm and a measure of the extent of deviation
from the RCRA requirements.
• The gravity-based penalty amount is for Day 1 of a violation. There are separate
procedures, which will be discussed later, for dealing with violations that extend
beyond one day.
XII-18
-------
DETERMINING PENALTIES FOR
MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS
Separate Penalties Should Be Sought for Each
Violation of a RCRA Requirement That Results from an
Independent Action or Failure to Act.
OVERHEAD #15
TITLE: Determining Penalties for Multiple Violations
KEY POI> TS: (RCPP pp. 19-21)
• Penalties for multiple violations are distinct from multi-day penalties, which
have to do with the longevity of violations.
• The RCPP is clear that penalties should be sought for each violation of a RCRA
•equirement that results from an independent action or failure to act, including
/iolations that occur:
— On different occasions (e.g., improperly manifested waste for two different
shipments)
— In different locations (e.g., violations in two separate container storage
areas for the same facility)
— Of different sections of RCRA (e.g., improperly manifested and improperly
stored waste)
— Of the same section of RCRA (e.g., multiple manifest violations).
Each multiple penalty is calculated separately and the amounts totalled.
XI1-19
-------
OVERHEAD #15
TITLE: Determining Penalties for Multiple Violations (continued)
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 19-21)
• A given charge is substantially distinguishable from another when it requires a
separate element of proof. For example, failure to record weekly inspections in
October would lead to a separate charge for each week not recorded, because
each entry (or blank) is a separate element of proof.
XII-20
-------
DETERMINING POTENTIAL FOR HARM
Potential Harm to Human Health and
Environment Is Based on:
— Risk of Human or Environmental
Exposure to Hazardous Waste
— Adverse Effect Noncompliance
May Have on Regulatory Program
Emphasis Is Placed on Potential for
Harm, Not Actual Harm.
POTENTIAL NON-
FOR HARM COMPLIANCE
WITH
REQUIREMENTS
OVERffiAD#16
TITLE: Determining Potential for Harm
KEY PO1 NTS: (RCPP pp. 13-14)
• Potential for harm has two components: risk of exposure to hazardous waste,
and adverse effect on the RCRA regulatory scheme.
• Potential for harm is weighted heavier than the extent of deviation by a
violator from RCRA requirements.
• The policy takes into account that some violations, while not likely to give rise
directly or immediately to significant risks of contamination, nonetheless
strike at the continued integrity of the RCRA program. Examples of these
violations include:
— Failure to notify as a generator or transporter of hazardous waste, and/or
owner/operator of a hazardous waste facility pursuant to RCRA Section
3010
— Failure to comply with financial assurance requirements
— Failure to submit a timely/adequate Part B application
— Failure to respond to a formal information request
— Operating without a permit or interim status
— Failure to prepare or maintain a manifest.
XII-21
-------
OVERHEAD #16
TITLE: Determining Potential for Harm (continued)
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 13-14)
• Factors to consider in determining potential for harm include: evidence of
releases, evidence of waste mismanagement, adequacy of provisions for detecting
and preventing harm, quantity and toxicity of wastes, likelihood of environmental
transport, and existence, size, and proximity of receptor population.
* Potential for harm is considered major, moderate, or minor.
— Major potential is when the violation poses a substantial risk of exposure of
humans or other environmental receptors to hazardous waste or constituents;
or when the actions have or may have a substantial effect on statutory or
regulatory purposes or procedures for implementing the RCRA program;
— Moderate potential poses a significant risk; and
— Minor potential poses a relatively low risk.
• Potential for harm is determined by the person assessing the penalty. This could
be the inspector or it could be a member of the Case Development Team, using the
information the inspector provided in the inspection report.
XI1-22
-------
C ATEGORIZING EXTENT OF DEVIATION
MAJOR
MODERATE
MINOR
Substantial Noncompllance
Significant Noncompllance
Minimal Noncompllance
OVERHEAD #17
TITLE: Categorizing Extent of Deviation
KEY PO[NTS: (RCPPp.19)
* Enforcement personnel should categorize the extent of a deviation as minor,
moderate, or major. These categories will have significance in using the penalty
assessment matrix. To assist in identifying into which category non-compliance
falls, use the following guidelines:
— Major noncompliance would occur when most applicable requirements are
NOT met (e.g., failure to have a closure plan).
— Moderate noncompliance would occur when some RCRA requirements,
but not all, are not met (e.g., failure to modify a closure plan, which was
developed, for increased decontamination activities after a spill).
— Minor noncompliance would mean that most requirements have been
followed (e.g., closure plan was developed but omits one step involving
decontaminating machines).
XII-23
-------
GRAVITY-BASED PENALTY
ASSESSMENT MATRIX
t
Extent of Deviation
Potential
for
Harm
MAJOR
MODERATE
, ...'.',, ::;.;i;v:.!.:v. ,. •.;.-•...;..
MINOR
MAJOR
$25,000
to
20,000
$10,999
to
8,000
$2,999
to
1,500
MODERATE
$19,999
to
15,000
$7,999
to
5,000
$1,499
to
500
MINOR
$14,999
to
11,000
$4,999
to
3,000
$499
to
100
OVERHEAD #18
TITLE: Gravity-Based Penalty Assessment Matrix
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 18-19)
* The penalty assessment matrix makes calculating the gravity-based component
fairly straightforward after the previously-discussed assessments have been
made.
• The exact penalty is determined by enforcement personnel based on the gravity
of the violation.
• The inspector assists in this process by gathering data and communicating the
observed violations on the worksheets submitted after the inspection.
* The selection of the exact penalty amount from the range within each cell is left
to the discretion of the Case Development Team, which is composed of different
people from state to state and Region to Region, usually attorneys and technical
program staff.
XII-24
-------
CALCULATING MULTI-DAY
PENALTIES
PENALTY
AMOUNT
GRAVITY-
BASED 4
COMPONENT
MULTI-DAY
COMPONENT
I
± ADJUSTMENTS
Multi-Day Component Reflects Duration of a Violation.
OVERHEAD #19
TITLE: Calculating Multi-Day Penalties
KEY PO [NTS: (RCPP pp. 19-25)
• The second step in the process is to calculate the multi-day component for
continuing violations. This is based on the duration of the violation, rather than
the number of violations.
XII-25
-------
DETERMINING PENALTIES FOR
MULTI-DAY VIOLATIONS
t
MULTI-DAY MATRIX
Extent of Deviation
Potential
for
Harm
j
MAJOR
MODERATE
MINOR
MAJOR
$5,000
to
1,000
$2£00
to
400
$800
to
100
MODERATE
$4,000
10
750
$1,600
to
250
$300
to
100
MINOR
$3,000
to
550
$1.000
to
150
$100
OVERHEAD #20
TITLE: Determining Penalties for Multi-Day Violations
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 22-25)
• RCRA authorizes daily assessment of penalties on a continuing violation. The
equation is expressed as:
Penalty Amount x Duration of Violation - Multi-Day Component
• Assessment of multi-day penalties begins on Day 2 of a continuing violation.
• The multi-day matrix makes calculating penalties for multi-day violations fairly
straightforward.
• Matrix cell is from 5% of low end to 20% of high end of corresponding
gravity-based cell, with minimum penalty of $100.
• You need factual evidence to support multi-day penalties, but reasonable
assumptions are permitted. For example, you may, in some cases, assume the
violation began on the effective date of the violated requirement. For example,
for a facility not in compliance with B1F requirements, the inspector may assume
that the violation began on the date the BIF rule went into effect.
XI1-26
-------
DETERMINING WHETHER MULTI-DAY
PENALTIES ARE MANDATORY,
PRESUMPTIVE, OR DISCRETIONARY
MULTI-DAY MATRIX
Extern of Deviation
Potential
lor
Harm
MAJOR
MODERATE
MINOR
Major
/ f / f f
V 400 S^
* * *.* •* •-" •" *.' •' •„* •" '.
..\ $soo :•. •.
to '-.' '.
•'. 100 >. V
Moderate
\*v?\\>
x'« 750 vV
/ f * , t 4
':•. iiieoo^/
'*• 1* *V •**.""
$300
to
100
Minor
•• ••n.booVv-.-v
'• ."•' to >'•.">•'•;
$1.000
to
150
$100
KEY:
£7| Mandatory
£2 Presumptive
P"j Discretionary
#21
TITLE: Determining Whether Multi-Day Penalties Are Mandatory, Presumptive, or
I )iscretionary
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 23-25)
• New to the revised RCPP is the methodology for determining whether multi-day
penalties are mandatory, presumptive, or discretionary. To do this, determine
gravity-based designation. Then multiply penalty amount by the number of days
the violation continues (beginning on Day 2). Multi-day penalties for day 181 +
are always discretionary. Multi-day penalties for up to $25,000/day per violation
may be proposed in appropriate cases.
• The mandatory designation in "highly unusual cases" may be waived with prior
Headquarters consultation and documentation in the File. For example, a
violation of a medical waste tracking act that, although it was in effect at the time
of the violation, is no longer in effect at the time of the penalty calculation,
would be considered an unusual case.
• The "presumption" in the 2nd tier of cases may be overcome with documentation
in the case file.
• In "discretionary" cases, document the decision in the case file. Documentation
might include an explanation that a penalty without a multi-day component is
sufficient to deter the violator and other potential violators.
XII-27
-------
OVERHEAD
TITLE: Determining Whether Multi-Day Penalties Are Mandatory, Presumptive, or
Discretionary (continued)
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 23-25)
* To make a determination, look at the RCPP goals, the seriousness of violation in
regard to other violations in the same cell, promptness of remediation,
cooperation of facility, size/sophistication of violator, and length of violation.
XII-28
-------
MULTIPLE/MULTI-DAY VIOLATIONS-
SPECIAL CASES
* Multiple Violations Resulting from a Single
Violation
• Treatment of Certain Multiple Violations as
Multi-Day Violations
OVERHEAD #22
TITLE: N' ultiple/Multi-Day Violations—Special Cases
KEY POI?rrS: [RCPP pp. 22-23,89 (Footnote)]
• The RCPP provides some discretion for enforcement personnel to forego
separate penalties in special cases to produce more equitable penalty
calculations. A special case could include a situation where multiple violations
resulting from a single transgression produce distinguishable violations and
result in a penalty amount which is disproportionately high. For example, failure
to make a hazardous waste determination will violate storage, manifest, and
inspection requirements. However, one penalty could be assessed, not four.
• Multiple violations that are similar and resemble multi-day violations may be
treated as multi-day violations. For example, failure to sign the manifest for five
waste shipments could be assigned one penalty at the gravity-based rate, and four
penalties at the lower multi-day rate. (For more information on these types of
violations, see RCPP p. 89, footnote 13.)
X1I-29
-------
CALCULATING ECONOMIC BENEFIT ™
OF NONCOMPLIANCE
PENALTY „ jsE' „ MULTVDAY ADJUSTMENTS +
AMOUNT COMPONENT COMPONENT * ADJUSTMENTS +
• Delayed Costs and Avoided Costs
• Cumulative.
OVERHEAD #23
TITLE: Calculating Economic Benefit of Noncompliance
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 25-30)
• Although shown as the final step on the chart, Regions generally calculate the
economic benefit prior to making any adjustments.
• Economic benefit consists of delayed costs and avoided costs of compliance.
• Recovering any significant economic benefit that a violator enjoys from
noncompliance is mandatory under the RCPP unless:
— The economic benefit is an insignificant amount (<$2,500)
— There are compelling public concerns mitigating against taking a case to
trial, should that become necessary
— It is unlikely that EPA will be able to recover the economic benefit in
litigation (litigation risk)
— The company has documented an inability to pay the penalty.
• Economic benefit is cumulative, meaning that if there are several violations that
are individually less than $2,500. but cumulatively equal $2,500 or more,
economic benefit must be assessed for all the violations.
XII-30
-------
OVERHE\D#23
TITLE: Calculating Economic Benefit of Noncompliance (continued)
KEYPOIVTS: (RCPP pp. 25-30)
• Types of activities generally producing economic benefit significant enough to
recover benefits include: ground water monitoring, financial assurance
requirements, closure/post-closure, surface impoundment retrofitting, improper
land disposal of restricted wastes, clean up of discharges, Part B submittals,
minimum technology requirements.
• Use the BEN computer model to calculate economic benefits from
noncompliance. Decisions regarding economic benefit should be documented in
the case file.
• The information used in the BEN model is provided by inspectors on their
submitted worksheets.
XII-31
-------
CALCULATING THE ADJUSTMENT
FACTORS
PENALTY
AMOUNT
GRAVITY-
BASED
COMPONENT
MULTMMY
COMPONENT
DJUS1NBI
ADJUSTNBfTa
ECONOMIC
BENEFIT
Adjustments Reflect the Individual Circumstances of the Violator
OVERHEAD #24
TITLE: Calculating the Adjustment Factors
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 3CMIO)
* The final step for Regions is to calculate any adjustments to the penalty
appropriate to circumstances of the violation or violator. The RCPP recognizes
six adjustment factors. These include:
— Good Faith/Lack of Good Faith
— Willfulness/Negligence
—» History of Noncompliance
— Ability to Pay
— Environmental Projects
— Other Unique Factors (Litigation Risks).
• Prior to applying the adjustment factors, enforcement personnel should
recalculate the penalty amount where new information has become available
since the original calculation was done. The new information may affect the
gravity-based and/or economic benefit components.
• Good-faith and History of Non-Compliance are the only two factors taken into
account at the time of the initial penalty calculation. The other adjustment
factors are taken into account at the settlement stage and are reflected in the final
penalty.
XII-32
-------
APPLYING THE ADJUSTMENT
FACTORS
PENALTY CALCULATION
ADJUSTMENT
OVERHEAD #25
TITLE: Applying the Adjustment Factors
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 32-33)
• I Enforcement personnel should apply appropriate adjustment factors to the total
< f gravity-based and multi-day penalty amounts; adjustment factors do not apply
to economic benefit from noncompliance.
• Adjustment factors may increase, decrease, or have no effect on the penalty
5 .mount. They may be applied to the sum of the gravity-based and multi-day
components of penalty or they may be applied cumulatively.
• !iach adjustment factor is limited to 25% of the total being adjusted in ordinary
i:ircumstances, 26%-40% in unusual circumstances. For example, a plant that
lad fully intended to comply, and had only one violation due to an employee not
icting in capacity, might be considered to have unusual circumstances and,
herefore, have its penalty adjusted downward.
• ^itigation risk and inability to pay may cause the penalty amount to vary up to
100%.
XII-33
-------
GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO COMPLY/
LACK OF GOOD FAITH
""1
* Good-Faith Efforts of Violation to Comply May
Adjust Penalty Downward
• Lack of Good-FaHh May Adjust Penalty Upward
• No Downward Adjustments Should Be Made
For:
— Merely Coming Into Compliance After
Detection
— Claim of Lack of Knowledge of the Law.
OVERHEAD #26
TITLE: Good Faith Efforts to Comply/Lack of Good Faith
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 33-34)
• Now let's focus on the individual adjustment factors.
• Good-faith efforts should be taken into account at the initial penalty assessment
stage. In the complaint penalty, consideration of good faith is required under
§3008a.
• Evidence of good faith efforts to comply may adjust the penalty downward. A
violator may demonstrate good faith by:
— Reporting noncompliance before EPA discovers a violation
— Remedying noncompliance prior to EPA detection
— Good-faith reliance on written statements by EPA or a State agency.
• Lack of good faith may result in adjustment of the penalty upward (e.g., failing
to achieve compliance after detection).
• Lack of knowledge of pertaining laws can not be used as a reason to adjust
penalties downwards.
XII-34
-------
DEGREE OF WILLFULNESS
AND/OR NEGLIGENCE
unw
4-
WILLFULNESS/NEGLIGENCE
PENALTY CALCULATION
,1. l.i.Li. l.i.l.*. l.t.Li. L.-l.i. l.i.l j. l.t.l.i. l.i. I a. l.iJ.i. Li.l.i. l.i-t.i. 1.1.1.
C
LACK OF WILLFULNESS
OVERHEAD #27
TITLE: E egree of Willfulness and/or Negligence
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 34-35)
• Evidence of willfulness may adjust a penalty upward. There are several factors
to consider as evidence of willfulness:
— Violator's control over the events constituting the violation/remedying
violator
— The foreseeability of the events constituting the violation
— Whether the violator knew or should have known of the hazards involved
— Whether the violator knew or should have known of the legal requirement
violated (upward adjustment only).
• Alternatively, lack of willfulness may adjust the penalty downward. For
instance, if a violation occurred due to a minimal amount of carelessness, it
would be appropriate to lower the penalty amount.
XI1-35
-------
HISTORY OF NONCOMPLIANCE
•niiiTiMBiii
4-
HISTORY OF NONCOMPLIANCE
PENALTY CALCULATION
Q»iimM a a J£
OVERHEAD #28
TITLE: History of Noncompliance
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 35-36)
• Evidence of a history of noncompliance may result in adjustment of a penalty
upward. Look for factors such as:
— Similarity of a previous violation to the one in question and how recently it
occurred
— The number of previous violations and pattern of disregard for the
environment.
• For violations by corporate divisions, subsidiaries, or new ownership, look for
who had control and/or oversight responsibility. Assume that if the same
corporation was involved in prior violations, there is a history of noncompliance.
* The history of non-compliance is generally taken into account in the complaint
penalty.
XII-36
-------
ABILITY TO PAY
-fr
UN mom
CM*Di Mfewnwilwtf
H 1 2B of 3£
OVERHEAD #29
TITLE: AliilitytoPay
KEY POINTS:
* The violator's ability to pay is taken into account at the settlement stage.
• Evidence of inability to pay may adjust a penalty downward, but the burden is on
t ic violator to prove that inability (e.g., by providing copies of tax returns).
• I Enforcement personnel must have adequate documentation of inability to pay
tefore adjusting the penalty downward.
• Payment alternatives should be considered in the following order:
— Installment payment plan with interest
— Delayed payment schedule with interest
— Penalty reduction as a last recourse.
• "he ABEL computer model is used to analyze inability to pay claims. Each
Kegion should have a BEN/ABEL expert who has the model if inspectors need
i ccess to do their own adjusting.
XII-37
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
t
uuuRmm
A
PENALTY CALCULATION
ENVIRONMENTALLY BENEFICIAL PROJECTS
OVERHEAD #30
TITLE: Environmental Projects
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 37-39)
• Environmentally-beneficial projects are taken into account at the settlement stage.
• Environmentally beneficial projects engaged in by a violator may lead to
adjustment of the penalty downward:
• Projects must:
— Go beyond mere compliance
— Be related to the cause of the violation or the resulting environmental harm.
— Conform to EPA criteria that are laid out in the 2/12/91 Policy on the Use of
Supplemental Environmental Projects in Enforcement Settlements. There are
five categories of projects that will be considered as potential Supplemental
Environmental Projects:
•• Pollution prevention projects
•• Pollution reduction projects
•• Projects remediating adverse public health or environmental consequences
•• Environmental auditing projects; and
•• Enforcement-related environmental public awareness projects.
XII-38
-------
OVERHEAD #30
TITLE: Environmental Projects (continued)
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 37-39)
• For specific examples, you should review the superseding cross-media guidance
on environmental projects which supersedes the section in the RCPP on SEPs.
• Economic benefit and substantial gravity-based penalties should still be collected.
XII-39
-------
OTHER UNIQUE FACTORS
«a>R«m
a
a
a
OVERHEAD #31
TITLE: Other Unique Factors
KEY POINTS: (RCPP pp. 39-40)
• Other factors are taken into account at the settlement stage.
• Adjustment must be made on a case-by-case basis to reflect individual
circumstances.
• This determination is usually made by an attorney; however, the inspection report
has a great impact on the strength of the case. If the inspector, for example, does
not sufficiently record evidence of a continung violation, no multi-day penalty
can be assessed without being subject to litigation risk.
• Litigation risks represent the final adjustment factor for a penalty. Consider:
— Government resources needed to litigate
— Strengths of government's legal arguments
— Strengths of violator's defense(s)
— Strength of the evidence
— Precedential value of case.
-------
OVERHE\D#31
TITLE: Other Unique Factors (continued)
KEYPOI^JTS: (RCPP pp. 39-40)
* Enforcement personnel must document the legal analysis underlying the litigation
risk adjustment.
• Penalty usually should still recoup economic benefit and act as an economic
disincentive to violate, regardless of individual circumstances.
XII-41
-------
SUMMARY
Information Gathered by Inspectors Is Used to
Determine:
— Gravity-Based
— Multi-Day Com
— Economic Ben
Component
Component
Benefit
— Any Adjustment Factors.
Penalties Are Assessed Using Information
Provided by Inspectors.
OVERHEAD #32
TITLE: Summary
KEY POINTS:
Although penalties may be assessed by the Case Development Team, the
inspector plays a critical role in making the RCPP effective. The information
gathered and reported by inspectors is crucial to the proper application of the
RCPP and strength of the penalty calculation.
The actual penalties are calculated by the Case Development Team, using the
information provided by the inspectors, or the inspector alone may calculate the
initial complaint penalty.
The RCPP requires that penalty data be based on documentation, so the
inspection reports the inspectors file are of vital importance.
XII-42
-------
Ch. I
if
i .Ij,
a^n
lH&te
tdition)
I
requirn |
plan be submiu«
•ermit application.)
Office of Management
control number lose.
Ag«ney
19, 1980, as amended at
2, 1981: SO FR 4514, ju
637, Nov. 7, 1886; 53 PR
.8; 54 FR 33394. Aug. U
5. June 1, 1990: Si PR
90: 57 FR 8088, Mar, I
or operator must pre-
ving entry, and mini-
lity for the unauthor-
-sons or livestock onto
tion of his facility.
•monstrate to the Re-
ctor that:
mtact with tti e waste,
quipment within the
f the facility will not
ing or unauthorized
;ock which may enter
n of a facility; and
ce of the waste or
le unknowing or unau-
if persons or livestock
portion of a facility,
a violation ol: the re-
-v, -^^,—, ' requira
ow.-ator who wishes u
tration referred to above
art B of the permit appll-
owner or operator hu
essful demonstration
TS(a)(l)and<2)ofthU
y must have:
r surveillance system
monitoring or surveil-
> or facility personnel)
usly moniton. and con-
) the active portion of
icial or natural barrier
good repair or a fence
a cliff), which com-
ds the active portion of
i
to control entry, at all
the gates or other en-
ictive portion of the !»•
. attendant, television
locked entrance, or con-
access to the faculty).
__»• THB reouirements of paragraph
«^T^ .ertiorTare satisfied if the facility
l»'rf^5fr;.,hiCh the active portion is
"SS^ with the requirement*
SSRSxlJor (2) of this section.]
is the owner or operator has
• ade a successful demonstration
« Oder paragraphs (a)(l) and (2) of this
• teUon. » si*11 with the legend.
• Danger—Unauthorized Personnel
lleep Out", must be posted at each en-
trance to the active portion of a facili-
ty and at other locations, in sufficient
i lumbers to be seen from any ap-
imch to this active portion. The
Itfend must be written in English and
ID any other language predominant in
ib« area surrounding the facility (e.g..
; 'acuities in counties bordering the Ca-
ladian province of Quebec must post
rignt In French; facilities in counties
Bordering Mexico must post signs in
Spanish), and must be legible from a
Alliance of at least 25 feet. Existing
rifns with a legend other than
-Danger—Unauthorized Personnel
Keep Out" may be used if the legend
oh the sign indicates that only author-
toed personnel are allowed to enter the
active portion, and that entry onto the
active portion can be dangerous.
(OmmenC See } 264.117(b> for discussion of
Mcurtty requirements at disposal facilities
Airing the post-closure care period.]
Unproved by the Office of Management
and budget under control number 2050-
•011)
(41 FA 33221. May 19. 1980, as amended at
44 FR 2848. Jan. 12. 1981; 48 FR 14294. Apr.
i, 1M3; SO FR 4514. Jan. 31.1985}
IM4.15 General inspection requirements.
lia) The owner or operator must in-
Ipeet his facility for malfunctions and
•Httioratlon, operator errors, and dis-
•faarges which may be causing—or
M9 lead to—U) release of hazardous
•»Ut« constituents to the environment
* (3) a threat to human health. The
JjKner or operator must conduct these
• »«g«ctions often enough to identify
,.pr*«ms in time to correct them
they harm human health or
§264.15
(bxi) The owner or operator must
develop and follow a written schedule
for inspecting monitoring equipment,
safety and emergency equipment, se-
curity devices, and operating and
structural equipment (such as dikes
and sump pumps) that are important
to preventing, detecting, or responding
to environmental or human health
hazards.
(2) He must keep this schedule at
the facility.
(3) The schedule must Identify the
types of problems (e.g., malfunctions
or deterioration) which are to be
looked for during the inspection (e.g..
inoperative sump pump, leaking fit-
ting, eroding dike, etc.).
(4) The frequency of inspection may
vary for the items on the schedule.
However, it should be based on the
rate of deterioration of the equipment
and the probability of an environmen-
tal or human health incident if the de-
terioration, malfunction, or any opera-
tor error goes undetected between in-
spections. Areas subject to spills, such
as loading and unloading areas, must
be inspected daily when in use. At a
minimum, the inspection schedule
must include the items and frequen-
cies called for in {$264.174, 264.193.
264.195, 264.226, 264.254, 264.278,
264.303, 264.347, 264.602. 264.1033.
264.1052, 264.1053. and 264.1058, where
applicable.
[Comment: Part 270 of this chapter requires
the inspection schedule to be submitted
with part B of the permit application. EPA
will evaluate the schedule along with the
rest of the application to ensure that it ade-
quately protects human health and the en-
vironment. As part of this review. EPA may
modify or amend the schedule as may be
necessary.]
(c) The owner or operator must
remedy any deterioration or malfunc-
tion of equipment or structures which
the inspection reveals on a schedule
which ensures that the problem does
not lead to an environmental or
human health hazard. Where a hazard
is imminent or has already occurred,
remedial action must be taken immedi-
ately.
(d) The owner or operator must
record Inspections in an inspection log
or summary. He must keep these
records for at least three years from
'•• "•'••**,
161
-------
§264.16
the date of inspection. At a minimum.
these records must include the date
and time of the inspection, the name
of the inspector, a notation of the ob-
servations made, and the date and
nature of any repairs or other remedi-
al actions.
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 2050-
0012)
MS FR 33221, May 1ft. 1*80, as amended at
48 FR 14294. Apr. 1. 1983: 50 FR 4514. Jan.
31,1985; 57 FR 3486. Jan. 29.1992]
EmcncE DATE NOTE At 57 FR 3486. Jan.
29. 1992. i 264.15 was amended by revising
paragraph • * *
<4> The frequency of inspection may vary
for the items on the schedule. However. It
should be based on the rate of possible dete-
rioration of the equipment and the proba-
bility of an environmental or human health
incident if the deterioration or malfunction
of any operator error goes undetected be-
tween inspections. Areas subject to spills.
such as loading and unloading areas, must
be inspected dally when in use. At a mini-
mum, the inspection schedule must Include
the terms and frequencies called for in
II 264.114. 264.194. 264.226. 264.253, 204.254.
264.303. 264.347. 264.602. 264.1033. 264.1052.
264.1053. and 264.1058. where applicable.
S 264.16 Personnel training.
(a)(l) Facility personnel must suc-
cessfully complete a program of class-
room instruction or on-the-job train-
ing that teaches them to perform
their duties in a way that ensures the
facility's compliance with the require-
ments of this part. The owner or oper-
ator must ensure that this program in-
cludes all the elements described in
the document required under para-
graph (d)(3) of this section.
(Comment Part 270 of this chapter requires
that owners and operators submit with part
B of the RCRA permit application, an out-
line ol the training program used (or to be
used) at the facility and a brief description
of how the training program is designed to
meet actual Job tasks.)
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-92 Edition)
(2) This program must be directed
by a person trained in hazardous
waste management procedures, and
must include instruction which teach-
es facility personnel hazardous waste
management procedures (including
contingency plan Implementation) rel-
evant to the positions in which they
are employed.
(3) At a minimum, the training pro-
gram must be designed to ensure that
facility personnel are able to respond
effectively to emergencies by familiar-
izing them with emergency proce-
dures, emergency equipment, and
emergency systems, including, where
applicable:
(i) Procedures for using, inspecting,
repairing, and replacing facility emer-
gency and monitoring equipment;
(U) Key parameters for automatic
waste feed cut-off systems;
(111) Communications or alarm sys-
tems:
(iv> Response to fires or explosions;
(v) Response to ground-water con-
tamination incidents; and
(vi) Shutdown of operations.
(b) Facility personnel must success-
fully complete the program required
in paragraph (a) of this section within
six months after the effective date of
these regulations or six months after
the date of their employment or as-
signment to a facility, or to a new posi-
tion at a facility, whichever is later.
Employees hired after the effective
date of these regulations must not
work in unsupervised positions untQ
they have completed the training re-
quirements of paragraph (a) of thtt
section.
(c) Facility personnel must take part -<
in an annual review of the initial
training required in paragraph (s) of
this section.
(d) The owner or operator must
maintain the following documents and
records at the facility: "
(1) The Job title for each position*
the facility related to hazardous wr
management, and the name of the
ployee filling each Job:
(8) A written Job description
each position listed under P»ra«T*S*!o
(d)U> of this section. This descripUg;
may be consistent in its degree of
ificity with descriptions for other
lar positions in the same company w.
orbargaini
^™-,' the requisit
*&U)uar qualification
yees assigned t
> A written de
I amount of be
ling trainii
_t person t i
..•paragraph
i Records ttw
or Job
• paragraph
section has
by.fac
(Training re
_ must be
s facility; trair
oyees must
t years fronr.
_t worked a
.training rec
Itransl
i last
by th<
F •Budget und<
I)
t FR 33221, Us
I FR 3*48, Jan.]
}••*»
JOF*>-451
m
s) The owne
sautionsto
tor reaction
te. This wi
I protected)
^reaction in<
.open flame
f, hot s
(static.
tgpontane
'produclni-
1 Jadlant h
wast*
'oroper
Uudopen
locatioi
_
, .Where
lOTdisp
.or mix
Jble
,tak
iwhi<
162
-------
ii
-
I
§ 26530
which could result Irotn fires, explo-
sions, or releases at the facility.
(b) Where State or local authorities
decline to enter into such arrange-
ments, the owner or operator must
document the refusal in the operating
record.
Subport D—Contingency Plan and
Emergency Procedures
§265.50 Applicability.
The regulations in this subpart
apply to owners and operators of all
hazardous waste facilities, except as
i 265.1 provides otherwise.
§265.51 PurpOK and implementation of
contingency plan.
(a) Each owner or operator must
have a contingency plan for his facili-
ty. The contingency plan must be de-
signed to minimize hazards to human
health or the environment from fires.
explosions, or any unplanned sudden
or non-sudden release of hazardous
waste or hazardous waste constituents
to air. soil, or surface water.
(b) The provisions of the plan must
be carried out immediately whenever
there Is a fire, explosion, or release of
hazardous waste or hazardous waste
constituents which could threaten
human health or the environment.
(Approved by the Office of Management
mnd Budget under control number 2050-
0002)
(45 FR 33232, May 19. 1980. as amended at
SO FR 4514. Jan. 31, 1885)
9 2(5.52 Content of contingency plan.
(a) The contingency plan must de-
scribe the actions facility personnel
must take to comply with it 265.51
and 265.56 in response to fires, explo-
sions, or any unplanned sudden or
non-sudden release of hazardous waste
or hazardous waste constituents to air.
soil, or surface water at the facility.
(b) If the owner or operator has al-
ready prepared a Spill Prevention,
Control, and Countermeasures (SPCC)
Plan in accordance with pan 112 of
this chapter, or part 1510 of chapter
V, or some other emergency or contin-
gency plan, he need only amend that
plan to incorporate hazardous waste
management provisions that are suffi-
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-92 Edition)
cient to comply with the requirements
of this part.
(c) The plan must describe arrange-
ments agreed to by local police depart-
ments, fire departments, hospitals.
contractors, and State and local emer-
gency response teams to coordinate
emergency services, pursuant to
i 265.37.
Thei
(c) Tht
design, co
.•»•• tenance. c
;: way that
;t tentialfor
*; ofhazardc
•^. constituer
"' necessary
(d)The
"?. ton chan;
(e)The
Changes.
CApproved
and Budg<
•002)
[48 FR 33
MFR4S1'
f
t
*s
•'&
1265^5 I
At all •
one «mp
premises
•pond tc
the facil.
thne) wi
ordinatii
measure
must be
aspects
Plan, al
the faci
teristlcs
of all r<
the fac
penori
'Commit
autthe
lactor*
-------
-------
Revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy Highlights
0MECTIVE: Provide guidelines to assess penalties and improve overall consistency
^P of RCPP application.
Components of the penalty calculation
Gravity-Based
Includes;:
• Asse ssment of Po ential for Harm, which is made up of two things:
- Risk of exposure
- Adverse effect on the RCRA regulatory scheme.
[Emphasis i; placed on the potential for harm, not actual harm.]
• Extent of deviatio n from the RCRA requirements is classified as either:
- Major
- Moderate
- Minor
The Gravity-Based penalty amount is for Day 1 of a violation. Separate penalties should be sought for
each violation of RC *A.
Multi-Day
Multi-Day Component = Penalty Amount x Duration of Violation
on the duntion of the violation, rather than the number of violations
of multi-day penalties begins on Day 2 of a continuing violation.
Economic Benef t
Economic Benefit = Delayed costs + Avoided costs of compliance
« Cumulative
• Recovering significant economic benefit is mandatory in most cases.
• The BEN compiler model is used to calculate economic benefits.
Adjustments
• Good-Faith
• History of Noncompliance
« Willfulness *
• Ability to Pay *
• Environmental p rejects *
* Other Unique FJ ctors (Litigation Risks) *
Gravity-Based. Multi-Day, and Economic Benefit penalties are calculated at the time of the initial
penalty calculation, as are the Good-Faith and History of N on-Compliance adjustments. The other
fcur adjustment*, indicated by asterisks, are calculated at the settlement stage, because relevant
information is usually not available until then.
-------
-------
CALCULATING RCRA PENALTIES, IN A NUTSHELL ...
Pursuant to the 1990 RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (RCPP), the
penalty fcr a violation is calculated in four steps. They are:
1} -a- determine the appropriate gravity-based penalty
(GBP) based on the "probability of harm" (actual harm;
potential harm; harm to regulatory program) posed by
the violation, and its "extent of deviation from
regulatory requirements";
-b- determine penalty point in appropriate matrix cell;
-c- assess multiple GBPs for separate violations of the
same rule (where appropriate);
2} calculate a multiday component to address the violation's
duration (if appropriate);
3) adjust the overall gravity-based penalty based on
individual factors; and
4} cc.lculate and recapture the "economic benefits of
noncompliance" obtained by the violator.
-------
-------
November 25, 1992
SUMMARY SHEET: RCRA ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES (1989-1992)
The following OSWER figures on RCRA administrative penalties
over the past four fiscal years illustrate the positive impact of
the 1990 RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (RCPP) is having on RCRA
enforcement.
3008 (a) Adiain. Complaints
Total Proposed Penalties
Average Proposed Penalties
Highest Prsposed Penalty
Total Numbsr of Cases
py '89
PY'90
FY'91
PY'92
$13.1 M
$75 T
$6.3 M
175
$13.8 M
$101 T
$950 T
137
$57.0 M
$386 T
$5.5 M
148
$67 M
$477T
S15.6M
145
3008(a) Coasent/Final Orders
Total Penalties Assessed $2.5 M $2.9 M
Average Penalties Assessed $17 T $25 T
Highest Penalty Assessed $138 T $550 T
Total Number of Cases 143 110
$7.5 M S7.7M
$35.7 T* $77 T
$3.4 M :•-••--
107
excludes largest penalty assessed
-------
-------
October 1, 1992
i
RCRA ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTY ENFORCEMENT:
ILLUSTRATIVE CHIEF JUDICIAL OFFICER
AND ADMIN. LAW JUDGE DECISIONS *
* with selected civil decisions
- prepared by: Jon Silberman, OE-RCRA -
Table of Contents
RCRA STATTSTORY PENALTY PROVISIONS 1
DETERRENCE 3
SEPARATE PENALTIES FOR SEPARATE VIOLATIONS 5
GRAVITY -BiLSED PENALTY/ADJUSTMENT FACTORS "HIERARCHY" 7
GRAVITY O'S THE VIOLATION - "POTENTIAL" FOR HARM
GRAVITY 0:? THE VIOLATION - RISK TO HUMANS AND THE ENV
GRAVITY 0:? THE VIOLATIONS - HARM TO THE RCRA PROGRAM
EXTENT OF DEVIATION :.;
MULTIDAY PENALTIES
ECONOMIC BENEFIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS: GOOD FAITH/LACK OF GOOD FAITH
DEGREE OF WILLFULNESS AND/OR NEGLIGENCE
HISTORY CF NONCOMPLIANCE
ABILITY 10 PAY •
OTHER UNIQUE FACTORS
-------
-------
-1-
NOTICE: RCRA decisions are "starred."
Note: This outline summarizes some of the three hundred-
plus RCRA administrative decisions accessible through the
Enforcement Document Retrieval System (EDRS). The decisions
exemplify how the Agency's Presiding Officers apply the
factors in the RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (RCPP) to assess
appropriate penalties. It is not possible to reproduce in
an outline of this magnitude all of the case-specific
factors and nuances that may have influenced the Judges in
reaching their decisions. Review the full decision before
citing it as precedent in litigation.
The "Notes" in this outline provide useful background
information on interpreting the RCRA penalty criteria and
the cited cases. Nevertheless, They do not necessarily
state KPA policy, and should not be cited as representing
official EPA positions.
RCRA STATUTORY PENALTY PROVISIONS:
1. Section i008(a)(3) [42 U.S.C. § 6928{a)(3)]:
Penalty: $25,000 per day of noncompliance for each
violation of the requirements of Subtitle C cf
RCRA - assessed in an order.
Statutory Factors: "seriousness of the violation"
"any good faith efforts to comply"
2. Section 3008(c) [42 U.S.C. § 6928(c)]:
Penalty: $25,000 for each day of continued non-compliar.
of a compliance order.
Statutory Factors: None.
3. Section 2008(o) [42 U.S.C. § 6928(g)]:
Penaltyi $25,000 for each violation of the requirements
Subtitle C of RCRA with each day constituting
separate violation. This penalty is assessed :
court.
Statutory Factors: None.
4. Section 3008 (hi (2) [4'2 U.S.C. § 6928{h)(2)]:
Penalty: $25,000 for each day of noncompliance with a
corrective action order.
Statuuory Factors: None.
-------
-2-
5. Section 3013(e) [42 U.S.C. § 6934(e)]:
Penalty: $5,000 for- each day during which the defendant
fails to comply with a § 3013 order.
Statutory Factors: None.
6. Section 7003(b) [42 U.S.C. § 6973(b)]:
Penalty: $5,000 for each day of violation of a § 7003
imminent and substantial endangerment
administrative order.
Statutory Factors: None.
7. Section 9006(a)(3) [42 U.S.C. § 6991e(a)(3)]:
Penalty: $25,000 for each day of continued non-compliance
with an UST administrative order.
Statutory Factors: None.
8. Section 9006(d)(1) [42 U.S.C. § 699le(d)(1)]:
Penalty: $10,000 for each tank for which notification is
knowingly not given or for which false information
is submitted.
Statutory Factors: None.
9. Section 9006(d> (21 42 U.S.C. § 6991e(d)(2)3:
Penalty: $10,000 for each tank for each day of violation of
specified UST regulatory requirements.
Statutory Factors: None.
10. Section llQQS(a) (2) [42 U.S.C. § 6992d(a) (2)]:
Penalty: $25,000 per day of noncompliance with the
requirements of the Medical Waste Tracking Act for
each violation. Assessed through an
administrative order.
Statutory Factors: "seriousness of the violation"
"good faith efforts to comply"
11. Section 11005(a)(41 [42 U.S.C. § 6992d(a)(4)]:
Penalty: $25,000 for each day of continued noncompliance
with a Medical Waste Tracking Act administrative
order.
Statutory Factors: None.
12. Section 11005(d) {42 U.S.C. § 6992d(d):
Penalty: $25,000 for each violation of the requirements of
the Medical Waste Tracking Act with each day of
violation constituting a separate violation.
Assessed by a court.
Statutory Factors: None.
f
-------
-3-
DETERRENCE:
*** United States v. T & S Brass and Bronze Works. Inc.. 681 F.
Supp. 314, 322 (D.S.C. 1988), affd. 865 F.2d 1261, 28 EnVt Rep.
Cas. (BNA) 3649 {4th Cir. 1988): Defendant T & S was ordered to
pay a $194,COO penalty ($l,000/day for 194 days of LOIS
violations). The Court held: "Assessment of the amount of a
civil penalty is committed to the informed discretion of the
Court. (Citations omitted). In exercising this discretion, the
Court should give effect to the major purpose of a civil penalty:
deterrence. See United States v. Phelps Dodge Industries. Inc..
589 F. Supp 1340, 1358 (S.D.N.Y. 1984); United States v.
Swingling, "nc.. 371 F. Supp. 37, 47 (E.D.N.Y. 1974); State, ex
rel. Brown v. Dayton Malleable. Inc.. 1 Ohio St. 3d 151, 438
N.E.2d 120, 125 (1982).•
*** United States v. EnvironmentalWaste Control 710 F. Supp,
1172 (N.D. tnd.), aff'd 917 F.2d 327 (7th Cir. 1990). The Court
imposed a penalty of $2.78 million based on the following
factors: (1) deterrent impact of penalty (the Court discussed
both general deterrence and specific deterrence); (2) lack of
good faith sfforts to comply; and (3) the seriousness of the
violations. The Court cited T & S BrassandBronge Works, supra.
jand the cases cited in T & S. in holding that "the Court should
give effect to the major purpose of a civil penalty: deterrence."
710 F. Supp. at 1242. "A civil penalty must provide a meaningful
deterrence without being overly punitive; it should be large
enough to hurt; it should deter anyone in the future from showing
a similar lack of concern with compliance. (Citation omitted)."
Id. at 1244. "EWC has been faced more than once with a choice
between disobeying the law or continuing its operations; each
time, EWC chose to disobey the law and make more money.
Substantial penalties ... are warranted." Jd. at 1245.
*** Unitec. States v. Vineland Chemical Co.. No. 86-1936 (D.N.J.
April 30, :.990) , reprinted in 31 ERC 1720, aff'd. 33 Env't Rep.
Cas. (BNA) 1316 (3d Cir. 1991): Citing T & S Brass and
Environment.al Waste Control, the district court held that the
civil penai.ty must provide a meaningful deterrence without being
overly punitive. See also U.S. v. Ciampitti. 669 F. Supp. 684,
700 [26 ER<: 2026] (D.N.J. 1987) ("civil penalties are imposed
'with the iiim of both punishing the defendant[s] and of deterring
[them] and others from taking further [illegal] action"). ... We
must be clsar to the regulated community that violations of the
law are no: treated lightly, especially where the regulations
protect puDlic health and the environment. Moreover, a
significant penalty deprives violators of any economic benefit
from delay in compliance. Too small, a penalty risks being
considered by violators as 'an acceptable cost of violation,
rather than as a deterrence to vio :ion. U.S. v. ITT
Continental Baking Co.. 420 TJ . S. 2 231 (1975)." The Court
irr.pDsed a $1,223,000 penalty for L-_S violations.
-------
-4-
i
Diver, "The Assessment and Mitigation of Civil Money
Penalties by Federal Administrative Agencies," 79 Colum. L. Rev.
1435, 1458: "The efficacy of any regulatory program depends on
the sanctions imposed in individual cases. If these sanctions
are set too low, potential violators may be insufficiently
motivated to minimize the social harm resulting from their
behavior, or society may be under compensated for the harm that
does occur."
*** United States v. Maiorano. No. 87 C 4491 (N.D. 111.; January
8, 1990), reprinted in 20 ELR 20444: "The government argues that
a substantial penalty is warranted for reasons of deterrence.
[Citations omitted] The Court agrees. ... Defendant[s] ...
disregarded specific orders ... have not taken this matter
seriously, and they have exhibited a pattern of behavior which
evidences a complete disregard for statutory law, EPA orders, and
judicial orders. To impose merely a perfunctory or token penalty
would send a message to similarly situated persons that they may
flout the law without consequence, ooo The government has
suggested that a civil penalty of $100,000 - about $110 per day -
would be appropriate. Although this figure is a relatively small
proportion of the maximum penalty [permitted by law), it is
nonetheless a substantial sum, and would serve [RCRA's]
deterrence purposes..."
*** United States v. ILCO. No. CV-85-H-823-S (N.D. Ala. Oct. 8,
1991): The court imposed a penalty of $3,500,000 against a
company in bankruptcy, and its president, for RCRA and Clean
Water Act violations. In setting the penalty, the court "engaged
in a delicate balancing of requiring compliance, punishing non-
compliance and endeavoring to keep viable, if possible, a
business which can be of great value to the implementation of
policies embodied in federal and state environmental laws."
*** United States, et al. v. Production Plated Plastics. Inc..
et al.. Pile No. K87-138 CA (W.D. Mich.): The Court described
the $1.5 million RCRA penalty for violations including operating
unpermitted seepage lagoons as, "certainly large enough to
hurt ..."
***
In the Matter of: J.V. Peters and Co.. et al.. RCRA Docket
No. V-W-81-R-75 (Initial Decision [Order on Remand]; September
26, 1988: "... the civil penalty provision of RCRA is
essentially regulatory, seeking to enhance compliance with the
Act rather than impose penal sanctions on those who violate the
statute ... (citation omitted)."
-------
-5-
SEPARATE PENALTIES FOR SEPARATE VIOLATIONS:
Blocki'uraer v. United States. 284 U.S. 299, 304 (1932) :
"Where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two
distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to
determine vhether there are two offenses or only one, is whether
each provision requires proof of an additional fact which the
other does not . "
*** In tho Matter of: Martin Electronics. RCRA Appeal No. 86-1
(Order on i5ua Sponte Review; June 22, 1987): In the Initial
Decision, i:he ALJ had held: "In the instant case, the Respondent
failed to notify the Agency of the fact that it was generating
and storing spent solvents on its premises which the Respondent
used to cl<»an parts and thin paint. ... My reading of this
record woul.d suggest that the Respondent was guilty of
essentially one act and that was the failure to notify the Agency
of the existence of these wastes on its property. The fact that
is failed :o do so in several instances and under several
different regulations does not in my judgment authorize the
assessment of three different penalties which, in essence, arise
from the s.une factual situation." On review, the CJO reversed
this holding. Characterizing the issues as one of "legislative
intent," tie CJO found that RCRA "contemplated that separate
penalties would be assessed" for separate violations of distinct
hazardous waste notification requirements. See also F.A.A. v.
Landy. 705 F. 2d 624, 636 (2d Cir. 1983), cert, den. 464 U.S. 895
(1983), ani Louoren v. Byrne. 787 F. 2d 857 (3rd Cir. 1986),
cited in sjpport of the holding.
***
In trie Matter of: F & K Plating Co.. Appeal No. 86 -1A
(Final Decision; October 8, 1987) : "Even violations of the same
regulations at a single location can result in separate penalties
where they involve two or more independent acts and pose distinct
risks." In this case, separate penalties were assessed for
failing tc maintain adequate security and failing to post warning
signs. (The CJO added, however, that even if the two counts were
consolidated, the "extent of deviation" would increase from
"moderate" to "major, " resulting in essentially the same penalty
amount . " )
***
In tfe Matter of Fair Haven Plastics. Inc.. et al.. Docket
No. RCRA \-W-88-R-005 (Initial Decision; May 3, 1989): In this
interestirg decision, the ALJ refused to accept EPA's penalty
assessment witness's own determination that several different
violations could legitimately be grouped together for penalty
assessment purposes. Applying the "requires an element of prc~
not needec. by the others" test, the Judge grouped the "failing
obtain an EPA ID Number" and "shipping hazardous waste withcu:
E?A ID Number" violations together, but insisted on separate
penalty assessments for each cf the following remaining
-------
-6-
j
violations: storage of hazardous waste without interim status or
a permit; failure to properly label containers; failure to
develop a personnel training program; and failure to develop a
contingency plan and emergency procedures. As a consequence, the
Court's GBP calculation was considerably higher than the
Region's. Decided by Judge Frazier.
Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey. Inc. v. Powell
Duffryn Terminals. Inc.. No. 89-5831 (3rd Cir. 1990} (filed
August 20, 1990: at 28 - 29: PIRG was accused of "double
counting" when it counted a single reported exceedance for a
pollutant as a violation of both the average concentration limit
and the maximum concentration limit for that pollutant. Held:
"These: are clearly separate limitations and we see no reason why
PDT should not be penalized separately for violating each
limitation."
In the Matter of; 3M Company. TSCA Appeal No. 90-3 (Final
Decision, February 28, 1992): TSCA Sections 5 and 13 "new
chemicals program" penalty appeal. Held: separate penalties
assessed for each separate act of illegal "new chemical" import;
separate penalties also assessed, per illegal act, under (1) TSCA
Section 5 (import without a premanufacture notice [PMN]); and
(2) TSCA Section 13 (false certification to Customs Department).
In theMatter of;Helena Chemical Company; FIFRA Appeal No.
87-3 (Order; November 16, 1989): Appeal of Initial Decision
assessing a $12,400 penalty for numerous FIFRA violations. On
the issue of liability, the ALJ determined that EPA had proven
twenty separate illegal sales of the restricted use pesticide,
but imposed only a single penalty. This aspect of the holding
was reversed on appeal, and a new $117,400 penalty assessed:
Held: n[E]ach sale was an independent act, requiring independent
proof that the transaction occurred and also proof that the
purchaser was not certified on the date of the sale. ... I
disagree with respondent's contention that the twenty sales --
which spanned a six month period -- were part of *the same series
of events' merely because they involved the same vendor and
purchaser and the same pesticide."
*** in the Matter of: Elwin G. Smith Division. Cyclops
Corporation. Appeal No. 86-6 (Final Decision; August 14, 1990):
The CJO concurred in the ALJ's treatment of a failure to submit a
Part B application and failure to have a closure plan as a single
violation, since the violator could have either filed a Part B
and not closed, or closed in accordance with an approved plan and
not filed a Part B.
-------
-7-
GRAVITY-BASKD PENALTY /ADJUSTMENT FACTORS "HIERARCHY":
In the Matter of: 3M Company. TSCA Appeal No. 90-3 (Final
Decision, February 28, 1992) : TSCA Sections 5 and 13 "new
chemicals program" penalty appeal. Held: appropriate method of
calculating penalty is to first calculate a gravity-based
component t:> reflect the seriousness of the violations . and
second adjust the GBP based on factors relating to the violator.
In this cas*, the existence of a compliance program and the
inadvertencB of the violations did not affect the potential for
harm (gravity) of the violations and so were properly considered
factors relating to GBP adjustments. "[3M's] commitment [to
compliance] does not lessen the probability of harm occurring
once a violation has taken place. ... tRather, they relate to]
the actions and intent of the violator [which deserve
consideration] during the second [adjustment] phase of the
analysis ..."
***
In the Matter of: National Coatings. RCRA Appeal No. 86-5
(Final Decision; January 22, 1988): Based on evidence that the
Respondent "had no intent to dispose of hazardous waste
improperly, " the ALJ assigned a lower GBP than provided for in
the RCRA penalty policy. The CJO reversed the Initial Decision
and reinstated the Agency's proposed GBP, holding that the
violator's "intent" is irrelevant to the issue of the potential
of the violation to cause harm.
GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATION - "POTENTIAL" FOR HARM:
*** In the Matterof;A.Y. McDonald Industries. Inc.. Appeal No.
RCRA (3008! 86-2 (Final Decision; July 23, 1987): The CJO
rejected the Respondent's argument that its penalty should be
reduced because no actual harm resulted. The focus of the RCRA
penalty policy is on potential for harm, not actual harm or
intent. "McDonald should not be rewarded for its complete
disregard of the RCRA program simply because test results this
far fail t :> show groundwater contamination."
All Rsgions Chemical Labs.. Inc. CERCLA-I-88-1089 (May 3,
1989) . (Accelerated Decision, EPCRA case) aff'd sub nom. All
Regions Chsmical Labs.. Inc v. United States Environmental
Protection Agency. No. 90-1715 (1st Cir., May 6, 1991): The
violator-appellant failed to notify the National Response Center
(NRC) , pursuant to CERCllA Section 103 (a) , promptly upon learning
of two fires. The fires released 180,000 pounds of chlorine into
the air, creating a chlorine cloud forcing 30,000 people to be
evacuated. The statute required "immediate" notification. E?A
learned of the first fire, 5 hours after it began, from a priva:-
citizen. EPA learned of the second fire, two hours after it
began, frcm the Massachusetts Department of Environmental
-------
-8-
i
Quality. All Regions itself gave the NRC formal notice only
months later. Though CERCLA Section 109(b) permits penalties of
up to $25,000 per day for" continuing violations of notification
requirements, EPA assessed a one-day penalty in light of the
notice it had received from the private citizen and state agency.
The penalty assessed was $20,000, or 80% of the statutory
maximum. In contesting the $20,000 penalty, All Regions argued
that no actual harm resulted from its late notification to EPA.
Even after receiving notice, the violator claimed, EPA had little
involvement with the response action. Held: the key factor for
penalty assessment purposes is potential for harm: "When the
violation was committed, that is, when the release first took
place, failure to notify EPA might well have caused serious
harm." "[The ALJ's] discussion, taken as a whole, "suggest[ed]
that the .ALJ was considering what might have happened in the
absence of the 'fortuitous' events of adequate responses and
notification by other parties ... Given the [Algency's legal
power to assess penalties in terms of what might have happened
... rather than what did happen, All Region's argument is
unconvincing." (Emphases in original.) The Court also rejected
All Regions' argument that EPA improperly failed to credit it for
$1.205 million spend in clean-up costs. The violator sought a
35% penalty adjustment to reflect these costs. The Court found
instead that "since clean-up costs will often be associated with
harm, larger costs would often mean larger harm, calling for a
higher, not a lower, penalty." Thus the clean-up costs plus the
penalty amount, taken together, were not "excessive for the
particular violation."
In the Mafctper of: 3M Company. TSCA Appeal No. 90-3 (Final
Decision, February 28, 1992): In this TSCA Sections 5 and 13
"new chemicals program" penalty appeal, the CJO determined that
the GBP must reflect the "probability" of harm from the
violations.
In the Matter of: State of West Virginia. Department of
Highways. TSCA Appeal No. 86-2 (Final Order; January 21, 1987).
Respondent in PCB case appealed imposition of full proposed
penalty, arguing that the penalty should be reduced because "no
harm to persons or the environment resulted from [the
Respondent's] violations." Held: "[C]ongressional intent [does
not] waiver where, as here, there has been no known present
damage to human health or the environment. The Agency's TSCA
enforcement action is prophylactic; it is intended to prevent
potential health or environmental accidents from ever occurring."
In the Matter of Port of Oakland and Great Lakes Dredge
and Dock Co.. MPRSA Appeal No. 91-1 (Final Decision and Order;
August 5, 1992) : The Port and dredging company violated the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, and a permit
issued thereunder. "In order to establish the potential
environmental harm from the disposal of unpermitted sediments,
-------
-9-
need not prove that the sediments were in fact harmful , but
that there suitability for ocean disposal had not been
determined as of the time of their disposal . Decided by the
Environmental Appeals Board.
In the Matter of ; T H Agriculture and Nutrition Co.. Docket
No. TSCA VII-83-T-191 (Initial Decision; January 10, 1984).
Respondent improperly shipped for disposal contaminated waste
materials, in violation of "existing chemical" rules promulgated
pursuant tc TSCA Section 6. Held: "It is the 'probability of
harm' or potential for harm and the risk inherent in the
violation as it was committed that is properly considered rather
than any actual harm that resulted from the subject violation."
*** In the Matter of; Millipore Corp.. Docket No. RCRA (3008)
11-85-0303 (Accelerated Decision; July 30, 1986} [Decision on
Remand; April 30, 1987] [Final Decision; December 2, 1987]: The
"issue to determine in assessing Respondent's illegal closure is
not whether exposure occurred from such closing, but rather the
potential for harm created by closing outside the prescribed
regulatory procedures. ... [A] violator is not to be rewarded
for luck wtere no actual harm can be proven to have occurred as a
result of the violation." Decided by Judge Finch.
Note: RCRA practitioners are advised to exercise caution in
relyirg on pre-October, 1990 administrative cases to
detern.ine the "potential for harm" of present violations,
absent close analysis of the facts of both cases. Few
pre-1590 RCPP cases included multiday penalty components,
resulting in many cases with inadequate overall penalties
which failed to reflect the true gravity of the violations.
This nay have promoted, in some cases, a determination of
"poter.tial for harm" and "extent of deviation" of the
violat ions so as to compensate for the lack of multiday
penalties. Cases with facts roughly equivalent to prior
cases litigated today will usually warrant considerably
higher overall penalties due to the multiday penalty
component alone.
Note: In determining the gravity of a violations, case
developers should always consider the specific facts at
hand, to ensure that violations of the same provisions by
different companies receive appropriate penalties where, for
exampl.e, substantially different site conditions (e.g., the
presence at the facility of containment systems, safeguards,
and security systems) or quantities and toxicities of waste
exist Otherwise, large, poorly-run facilities could
receive essentially the same gravity-based penalties as
small very well-run facilities for violations of the same
provisions where the "potential for harm" is not identical.
a result not contemplated by the RCPP.
-------
-10-
GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATIONS - RISK TO HUMANS AND THE ENVIRONMENT
*** In_the.Matter of Stallworth Timber Company. Inc.. RCRA
(3008} Appeal No. 89-1 (Order Denying Review; July 11, 1991):
Action against company for violating surface impoundment
"freeboard" operating standards (40 CFR § 265.222). Held:
Initial decision assessing $25,000 "major-major" penalty
affirmed. The Presiding Officer correctly determined that the
absence of adequate freeboard poses a "major" risk of harm
because of the "increased chance of spillage, the proximity of
the area to waters of the United States, and the area's tendency
to receive large areas of rainfall," and appropriately took into
account that the Region's inspector had observed freeboard
violations on more than one occasion. The Chief Judicial Officer
(CJO) further rejected the Respondent's argument that its penalty
should only have been $1,000 because the $25,000 penalty actually
assessed was substantially higher than those assessed in similar
cases, stating: "The penalty amounts assessed in the [other 2}
cases ... are irrelevant to determining an appropriate penalty
here because the circumstances of both of those violations differ
substantially from those alleged here." The other cases involved
storage tanks, rather than surface impoundments, and therefore
posed different risks. Decided by the CJO.
*** In the Matter of; Martin Electronics. RCRA Appeal No. =•: :
(Order on Sua Sponte Review; June 22, 1987): The CJO assess-r-i
the "potential for harm" for the failure to notify EPA of a ?*:*
A permit revision at the low end of the moderate/moderate eell.
The Respondent generated only 200-250 gallons of solvents per
year, and had notified EPA of other waste activities so that :-:IA
was at least aware that Respondent generated and stored haza: : .-
wastes other than spent solvents.
***
In the Matter of; ElwinG. Smith Division. Cyclops
Corporation. Appeal No. 86-6 (Final Decision; August 14, 199:
Respondent had stored over 2,000 drums of flammable hazardous
wastes in deteriorating drums. The CJO determined, among oc:.- :
things, that: {1} the failure to maintain adequate aisle spa,--
presented a "major" potential for harm because emergency ace--.—
to the barrels was blocked, increasing the possibility of a r »
fire of spill (there was "extremely narrow spacing of at lea.-?'
some of the drums"); and (2) the failure to store hazardous •*•,-•
in good condition and prevent leaks also presented a "major"
potential for harm as there could have been a disaster had
exposed flammable wastes ignited. An essential element of F!-
proof of the latter violation was the inspector's testimony •
he saw at least half a dozen drums leaking, while others we:
a deteriorated condition. The Court also noted that the
violations had persisted for some time despite repeated war:.
-------
-11-
** In the Matcer of: Millioore Corp.. Docket No. RCRA (3008)
11-85-0303 Accelerated Decision; July 30, 1986): Factors in
determining the appropriate GBP in this case included the "types
and quantity of waste involved ... " (in this case, 50 drums of
waste lacquor, 5 drums of waste solvent, and 45 drums of used
oil, plus any additional wastes generated in closure). But see
Appeal No. 36-7 (Final Decision; December 2, 1987): On appeal,
the CJO reduced the "probability of harm" determination from-
"major" to "moderate," holding j.nter alia that "the Region does
not furnish any explanation of how the 'nature and quantity' of
the waste [ilone] create[d] a substantial likelihood of
exposure." The Court noted that Millipore had submitted a
closure plai (albeit flawed), was replacing the old facility with
a new facility at the same site, and had consulted with the
Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board about the closure. These
factors all lessened the likelihood of exposure. Decided by
Judge Finch.
*** "n the Matter of; Sandoz. Inc.. Docket No. RCRA (3008)
84-5-.-R (Initial Decision; October 31, 1985), aff'd. Appeal
85-7 (Final Decision; February 27, 1987): The ALJ balanced
"rather high" quantities of waste involved in the violation
the manner in which the subject impoundment was constructed
above average threshold of protection"). In this action
involving groundwater monitoring violations, the ALJ deternu
I that the fact because the Respondent's groundwater monitorin
system still provided some protection despite its deficienci
the violations posed a "moderate" rather than a "major" pote
for harm. Decided by Judge Yost.
*** In the Matterof; Aero PlatingWorks. Inc.. Docket No.
(3008) V-W-84-R-071-P (Initial Decision; February 13, 1986):
this case, the ALJ found that "some firm evidence showing
precisely *hat quantities of hazardous waste were involved a:
for what p€riods cf time" was missing from the record. In t':
absence of this evidence, though he determined that some
violations began in 1981, the ALJ placed all of the numerous
violations (including "operating without a permit or interirr
status") ir the "minor" potential for harm GBP category. Th
held the f«ther and son owner/operators of the plating finr.
jointly anc. severally liable for an $18,500 penalty, and als
required the son to pay an additional $3,500 penalty. Decid-
Judge Harwciod.
Note: In a followup case, United States v. Maiorano. N
C 449:. (N.D. 111.; January 8, 1990), reprinted in 20 EL:
20444, the District' Court increased the penalty agains:
Aero Plating Works owner/operators to $100,000, based :
their continuing recalcitrance.
No.
the
wi^h
"an
-------
-12-
*** In the Matter of Fair Haven Plastics. Inc.. et al.. Docket
No. RCRA V-W-88-R-005 (Initial Decision; May 3, 1989):
Respondent failed, inter alia. to file a Part A (i.e., it
operated without interim status or a permit. The "potential for
harm" was classified by the ALJ as "moderate," and the penalty
was assessed as the low end of the applicable GBP matrix cell,
because the quantity of waste accumulated since 1978 averaged
only about 5.8 drums (320 gallons) per year. In addition, any
threat to human health and the environment was ameliorated by the
fact that the wastes were contained in drums inside an on-site
trailer. In re; A.Y. McDonald Industries was distinguished. In
that case, McDonald's illegal operation was deemed to present a
"major" "potential for harm," where the company had dumped more
than one million pounds of waste at the site over five years, and
site security was poor if not nonexistent. Decided by Judge
Frazier.
In the Matter of Port of Oakland and Great Lakes Predate
and Dock Co.. MPRSA Appeal No. 91-1 (Final Decision and Order;
August 5, 1992): The Port and dredging company violated the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, and a permit
issued thereunder. "Where the Region has made a permit
determination under the MPRSA that particular sediments are
unsuitable for ocean disposal, their potential to cause
environmental harm has been established and will be assumed once
exposure or potential for exposure exists." Cited in support of
this holding were In the Matter of Bricrcrs & Stratton. TSCA Appeal
No. 81-1 (February 4, 1981) (unnecessary to introduce evidence of
the toxicity of PCBs in a proceeding to assess a civil penalty
for PCB rules violations), and *** In the Matter of A.Y.
McDonald. RCRA (3008) Appeal No. 86-2 (July 23, 1987) (the
toxicclogical effect of material identified by regulation as
hazardous waste should not be evaluated in determining the
potential for harm of the waste for penalty purposes because
"once a waste is deemed hazardous under the regulations, its
potential danger has been established." Decided by the
Environmental Appeals Board.
GRAVITY OF THE VIOLATION - HARM TO THE RCRA PROGRAM:
Note: In assessing GBPs under the 1990 RCPP where "harm to
the RCRA regulatory program" is a key consideration, care
should be taken also to analyze the potential harm to health
and the environment from the violations. Regardless of
which impact is considered more severe, the litigation team
should always be prepared to demonstrate not only how the
violation impacts an important RCRA program, but also why
the program itself is important. Explaining the health and
environmental risks the program is designed to address, and
showing how noncompliance with the program increases the
likelihood of these risks occurring, are effective ways re
-------
-13-
accomplish /this result. Citing to the relevant rule
preamble and supporting documentation, and presenting expert
testinony from the EPA staff responsible for implementing
the program, are both appropriate techniques in litigation.
*** In th«* Matter of: A.Y. McDonald Industries. Inc.. Appeal No.
RCRA (30081 86-2 (Final Decision; July 23, 1987): Held: ALJ's
characterisation of the potential harm as "moderate" increased- on
appeal to "major". "The notification and permitting requirements
are crucial to the effective enforcement of RCRA. ... [T]he
failure to file the notification and to apply for a permit or
qualify for interim status had the effect of concealing from the
EPA Respondent's existence and the nature of the hazardous waste
operations. ... In other words, the notification and permit
requirements go to the very heart of the RCRA program. If they
are disregarded, intentionally or inadvertently, the program
cannot function."
*** in ths Matter of; Grumman St. Augustine Corp.. Docket No.
RCRA 87-18-R (Initial Decision; May 10, 1989): Respondent
aircraft paint stripper failed, among other things, to submit a
Part B permit application. Held: "[T]he permit application
forms an essential part of the Agency's ability to regulate
hazardous waste ... Without this vital information, the Agency
is severely hampered in its ability to operate a 'cradle to
grave' program which the statute and regulations require."
Decided by Judge Yost.
*** In the Matter of: Millioore Corp.. Docket No. RCRA (3008)
11-85-0303 (Initial Decision; July 30, 1986): The ALJ determined
that the "Respondent, through its illegal closure, has succeeded
in by passing [sic] the entire closure procedure required by the
regulations. These avoided procedures include Agency comment and
supervision over such details as systems and devices necessary
for [groundwater protection, equipment decontamination, etc.]."
"Closure cr partial closure of any hazardous waste facility
without ar approved closure plan successfully avoids the entire
regulatory procedure for closure and, thus, clearly has a
substantial [i.e., "major"] adverse effect on the regulatory
procedure for implementing closure." On appeal, however, see
Appeal No. 86-7 (Final Decision; December 2, 1987), the CJO
reduced tire "potential for harm" determination to "moderate"
because, although Millipore hadn't consulted with the government
prior to closure, it had submitted a plan that met RCRA
substantive requirements and did communicate with the appropriate
officials "after the fact." Decided by Judge Finch.
*** The Marley CoolingTower Co.. Docket No. RCRA-09-88-0008
(Decision and Order; November 30, 1989): Respondent failed to
submit updated financial assurance documentation for 1986 and
1987, but had actually maintained the required financial
assurance. The ALJ found the likelihood of harm to be
"inconsequential," since funds were available for closure and
-------
-14-
post-closure, but classified the "potential for harm" from the
violation as "moderate" due to the disruptive effect of the
violation on the RCRA program. Decided by Judge Greene.
*** In the Matter of; Elwin G. Smith Division. Cyclops
Corporation. Appeal No. 86-6 (Final Decision; August 14, 1990):
The Respondent appealed the ALJ's determination that its failure
to file a revised Part A application regarding capacity presented
a "major" potential for harm because of the RCRA program's
dependency on accurate information. The Respondent argued that
it had simply made a typographical error (typing 10,000 rather
than 110,000 gallons). The CJO affirmed the ruling, noting among
other things that approvals of applications for capacity
increases at other facilities under 40 CFR § 270.72(b) would
depend in part on the information in agency files about the
available capacity at Respondent's facility.
EXTENT OF DEVIATION:
Note: The function of the "extent of deviation" factor is
to reflect the degree to which the violation renders
inoperative the violated requirement on any given day. The
duration of the violation over time should be addressed
through the multiday penalty component, not the "extent of
deviation." Pre-October, 1990 penalty cases lacking
multiday penalty components do not always respect this
distinction.
*** In the Matter of; Grumman St. Augustine Corp.. Docket No.
RCRA 87-18-R (Initial Decision; May 10, 1989): "... Respondent
kept its percolation pond in operation for 240 days without a
permit and after the time it was required by the law to close.
Additionally the Respondent did not certify compliance with
ground-water monitoring or financial responsibility requirements
. . . , and . . . the closure plan submit tals were totally
inadequate." All of these factors were held to "clearly
demonstrate a major extent of deviation as the violations above
specified ..." Decided by Judge Yost.
*** In the Matter of Fair Haven Plastics. Inc.. et al^ . Docket
NO. RCRA V-W-88-R-005 (Initial Decision; May 3, 1989): (1)
Extent of deviation deemed "major for each of these violations,
where the Respondent (1) failed to file a Part A, altogether;
(2) failed to obtain an EPA ID Number until after the filing of
the Complaint; (3) failed 'to mark any of its drums; (4) did
nothing to meet, even partially, the requirements for a personn
training program; and (5) developed no contingency plans at all
Decided by Judge Frazier.
-------
-15-
In the Jlattjer of Environmental Protection Corporation.
Docket No. RCRA-09-86-0001 (October 24, 1989; Decision and
Order): Where the Respondent met,some of the requirements of
RCRA Section 3007(a) by responding promptly to EPA's request for
documents, bf supplying some of the documents, and by offering
its rationale for not submitting the remainder of the documents,
the "extent of deviation" of the violation was deemed "moderate."
Decided by Judge Vanderheyden.
*** In the Matter of;Ashland ChemicalCompany. RCRA (3008)
Appeal No. 87-17 (Final Decision; November 15, 1989): In his
Initial Decision, Judge Nissen had determined the "extent of
deviation" cf Respondent's storage of hazardous waste without a
permit to present a "major extent of deviation." On appeal,
Ashland argued that it should be "moderate" because it had
previously submitted a Part A permit application (withdrawn prior
to the onset of the violation). The CJO affirmed the "major"
"extent of aeviation" determination, as well as the ALJ's
accounting lor the actions in the form of a "good faith efforts"
adjustment t:o the GBP.
***' In the Matter of: Elwin G. Smith Division. Cyclops
Corporation Appeal No. 86-6 (Final Decision; August 14, 1990):
Where the A!jJ found the EPA inspector's testimony credible that
the Respondent had packed waste drums into an aisle so that he
ad to stand sideways to go between them and that there was
inadequate .lisle space for towmotors to pass, the "extent of
deviation" 3f the Respondent's failure to maintain adequate aisle
space was CDrrectly determined to be "major." The CJO likewise
affirmed th= ALJ's ruling that the Respondent's failure to store
hazardous wastes in containers in good condition and prevent
leaks presented a "major" "extent of deviation." The EPA
inspector had testified that he saw "about half a dozen drums
actually leaking, while others were in deteriorated condition."
Respondent's argument that where only a small percentage of its
2,000 drums were actually leaking, the "extent of deviation"
should not be "major," was rejected. The leaks, according to the
CJO, "were an actual harm -o the environment since waste reached
the ground, and could hav- led to a disaster if the exposed
flammable vaste had been ignited ..." On the other hand, where
"Respondent had filed a Part A application but had simply failed
to revise :.t"to be consistent with the actual capacity of the
facility," the "extent of deviation" was "moderate."
***
No,
In th<* Matter pf Brunswick Mercery Marine Plant. Docket
RCRA V!-43:»-H (Initial Decision; July 31, 1990): (1)
"[Rlespondunt's waste analysis plan included some of the
inf ormatio:i required by the regulation, but . . . three specif
requirement were not included. This failure is sufficient
constitute a moderate deviation from the regulatory framewor
(2) "Respoident's inspection log, while not a complete inspect:
schedule, included [a] substantial portion of the total
ir.formatioi required. Certain information ... was not inclua--
sucr. as an inspection schedule .cr particular equipment. T'r..-
to
k . '
-------
-16-
constitutes [a]I moderate deviation from the regulatory
framework." (3) "[W]hile the personnel training records do not
show that hourly employees received training, they did include
some of the required information. ... [Blecause a significant
portion of the required information was present, it is found that
the ["extent of deviation" is moderate]." (4) Respondent's
closure plan violation "is a minor deviation from the regulatory
requirements, the only violation established having been failure
to include an estimated year of closure." (5) Respondent had
serious groundwater monitoring violations, but had installed a
svstem and measured the parameters it thought applied. The ALJ
concluded that the "extent of deviation" fell midway between
"major" and "moderate," and assessed a commensurate penalty.
Decided by Judge Greene.
MULTIDAY PENALTIES:
Note: Multiday penalties were rarely proposed under the
1984 penalty policy. Consequently, as of the date this
outline was prepared, there were no identified RCRA
administrative decisions addressing multiday penalty issues
under the 1990 RCPP. The following case summaries include
three key RCRA civil cases where multiday penalties were
imposed.
In the Matter of Dr. Marshall C. Sasser. Docket No. 404-89-
102 (Initial Decision; July 30, 1991): Respondent held liable
for filling a wetlands without a permit in violation of Clean
Water Act Section 404, and penalized $125,000. The Court's
analysis indicates that it viewed the violation to be
"continuing" (though the violation technically consisted of the
"discharge" of fill materials, the subsequent failure to correct
the violation resulted in a "continuing" violation for penalty
assessment purposes).
***
In re: Cypress Aviation. Inc.. RCRA (3008) Appeal No. 91-6
(Order Dismissing Notice of Appeal; January 8, 1992): RCRA staff
may be familiar with this Region 4 action, which raised the
issue of whether the illegal land disposal of LDR wastes is a
"continuing violation" for which multiday penalties may be
assessed. In his Initial Decision, Senior ALJ Harwood assessed
single-day penalties only, but for evidentiary and other reasons
{including the fact the- decision did not refer to the 1990 RCPP),
Region 4 did not appeal. In the Order on appeal, the CJO
dismissed the Respondent's Notice of Appeal as untimely. Decided
by Judge Harwood.
Note: Regions obtaining a similar decision, in a future
case with analogous facts, are requested to contact the CE
RCRA Division to discuss the possibility of an appeal.
-------
***
U.S.
CD.S.C. i:
(1988):
-17-
T & S Brass and Bronze Works. Incg.f 681 F.Supp. 314
aff1d in part and vacated in part• 685 F.2d 1261
L;fendants continued to operate hazardous waste surface
impoundment after losing interim-status. The Court imposed a
civil penalty of $l,000/day, for a total of $194,000.
*** U.S. y. Environmental Waste Control. 710 F.Supp. 1172, 1142-
1145 (N.D.Ind. 1989), aff'd 917 F.2d 327 (7th Cir. 1990):
Defendants continued to operate a hazardous waste landfill after
losing interim status, had an inadequate ground water monitoring
system, and placed waste in unlined cell in violation of the
minimum technology requirements. The Court imposed a civil
penalty of $2,000/day, for a total of $2,788,000.
***
U.S. v. Vineland Chemical Co.. 31 ERC 1720 (D.N.J. 1990):
Defendants continued to operate two surface impoundments after
losing interim status. Finding inter alia that the defendants
acted in bad faith in misleading EPA and NJDEP in conducting
certain closure activities without prior notice, the Court
imposed a penalty of $l,000/violation/day, for a total of
$1,223,000.
In the Matter of Ashland Oil. Inc.. SPCC Appeal No. 91-1
(Final Decision; September 15, 1992): Ashland failed to prepare
and maintain a Spill Prevention Control and Countertneasure Plan,
for one of its facilities by not disclosing the location and/or
existence of certain tanks. The Environmental Appeals Board
affirmed the ALJ's ruling that per day penalties were appropriate
for the time period during which Ashland failed to amend its
Plan.
ECONOMIC LENEFIT OF NONCOMPLIANCE:
*** United States, et al. v. Production Plated Plastics. Inc..
et al.. File No. K87-138 CA (W.D. Mich.): The Defendants in this
case opera.ted unpermitted seepage lagoons, delayed submission of
closure and groundwater monitoring plans, failed to comply with
RCRA's financial assurance and liability provisions, and did not
implement their groundwater plan. In addition, the Defendants
never complied with RCRA's financial assurance or financial
liability provisions. The Court deemed the Defendants to have
received an economic benefit of noncompliance (EBN) of at "least
$1 million through their failure to comply with the statute."
*** A.Y, McDonald Industries.Inc.. RCRA Appeal No. 86-2 (Final
Decision; July 23, 1987): The CJO held that "the economic
benefit component should include only the cost of the cheapest
mode of compliance." The CJO added, however, that EPA is not
required :o "prove (in its prima facie case) that every
conceivable compliance alternative would have been more costly
than the only one on which the economic benefit calculation 1=
-------
-IB-
based." Rather!, EPA may satisfy its burden of going forward by
demonstrating the cost of a reasonable compliance option. The
burden would then shift to the Respondent "to produce evidence"
on available cheaper compliance options. In this case, the CJO
determined that EPA's engineer's testimony was sufficient to
establish a prima facie EBN case. The CJO also held that "good
faith" efforts are irrelevant to the EBN determination.
*** In the Matter of; Grumman St. Augustine Corp.. Docket No.
RCRA 87-18-R {initial Decision; May 10, 1989): "The Respondent
argued that the Agency's [BEN] calculations were in error because
an alternative to the scenario proposed by the Agency witness,
the Respondent could have bought a truck and used one of its own
employees to drive it rather than hiring a transporter as was
done [sic] by the Agency's witness. ... The regulations and
penalty policy are clear that if a Respondent wishes to contest
the economic benefit adjustment provided by the Agency, ... it
has a burden to come forward with documentation to demonstrate
how and in what particulars the Agency [was] in error in its
calculations. In this instance, the Respondent did not submit
any documentation ... [Ajbsent such documentation the Agency's
calculations and estimates should be accepted unless there is
some showing that they mis -applied the formula or requirements of
the penalty policy." Decided by Judge Yost.
***
the Matter of Federaj. Hoffman. Inc.. Appeal No. 87-15
(Final Decision; November 15, 1989): EPA's EBN computation for
placing liquid wastes in a landfill lacking a liner was assessed
in full, where the Respondent made no attempt to rebut it.
***
In the Matter of: Sandoz. Inc.. Appeal No. 85-7 {Final
Decision; February 27, 1987): In this case, EPA introduced
evidence of EBN using national data on expenses incurred by
industries in complying with RCRA's groundwater monitoring
requirements. The violator countered with credible company-
specific data indicating lower-than-average cost savings, which
EPA did not refute. Therefore, the CJO assessed the lower
amount. The CJO added, "I express no opinion as to whether a
penalty component premised on a natior^l model of compliance
costs, standing unrebutted, would satisfy EPA's burden of proving
the proposed penalty was appropriate."
U.S. v. Roll Coater. Inc.. Cause No. IP 89-828 C {Order
Following Bench Trial; March 22, 1991): CWA case (violations of
pretreatment standards): The Court rejected EPA's BEN discount
factor (capital asset pricing model). The Court accepted the
defendant's discount factor (weighted average costs of capital).
The EBN component of the penalty should reflect the cost of the
least expensive compliance alternative.
*** In the Matter of; Sandoz
Inc.. Docket No. RCRA (3008)
No consideration
84-54-R (Initial Decision; October 31, 1985):
cf either good or bad faith should enter into the EBN
calculation. Decided by Judge Yost.
-------
-19-
JUSTMENT FACTORS:
1. GOOD FACTH/IACK OF GOOD FAITH:
*** United States, et al^ v. Production Plated Plastics. Inc..
St-aLi., File No. K87-138 CA (W.D. Mich.): The Defendants in this
case operate! unpermitted seepage lagoons, delayed submission of
closure and groundwater monitoring plans, failed to comply with
RCRA's financial assurance and liability provisions, and did not
implement their groundwater plan. The Court noted that, since
1986, the Defendants had expended over $4.5 million cleaning up
the facility, as well as $500,000 per year operating a purge and
treat systeir for the years the system was operational.
Nevertheless, the violations occurred despite the fact that the
Defendants "were well aware of the various RCRA deadlines."
Thus, "any "good faith" exhibited by these expenditures was
counterbalanced by the "numerous occasions defendants have
purposely thwarted the effectiveness of the statute." These
included Defendants' failure to act in good faith to raise the
necessary funds to clean up the facility.
*** In the Matter of: A.Y. McDonald Industries. Inc.. RCRA
Appeal No. £6-2 (Final Decision; July 23, 1987): The CJO reduced
the ALJ's 25% "good faith" adjustment for one count to 5%, ruling
hat while the violator had self-reported its failure to notify
EPA of hazardous waste activity, it did so only through its
notification efforts for a new facility. " [S] ignif icant
reductions should be reserved for those cases where the violator
promptly reports its noncompliance ... once discovered or
suspected."
*** In the Matter of: Omark Industries. Docket No. RCRA (3008)
85-10-09 (Initial Decision; January 6, 1987): In this case, the
Respondent had a policy of requiring partially filled drums to
be checked by a chemist before disposal. The Respondent's
violation resulted from the company's failure to follow its own
policy in this instance. The ALJ reduced the proposed penalty
reduced by :>5%, partially in recognition of this compliance
program. D>icided by Judge Nissen.
Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey. Inc. v. Powell
Duffryn Terminals. Inc.. No. 89-5831 (3rd Cir. 1990; August 20,
1990) at 34-35: The Court of Appeals reversed the District
Court's redaction of a GBP, due of "good faith", because of the
actions and/or non-actions taken by the Defendant due to the
USEPA's and the NJDEP's failure to act more diligently in making
defendant comply. The District Court had found that, had the
government acted properly, "the violations would have ceased Icr.g
ago. Therefore, these two governmental bodies are partially to
blame for the defendant's lack of compliance for the years at
issue." The Court of Appeals reversed: The "mere failure by
governmental agencies to prosecute an NPDES permit holder doe?
-------
-20-
not allow a court to reduce a penalty." While there may be
instances where a district court may consider a government
agency's inaction and the permittee's reaction when setting civil
penalties "as justice may require where a defendant has failed in
a good faith attempt to comply with its permit because of
technical or economic problems and the EPA has affirmatively
recognized and excused noncompliance", this was contradicted by
the record in PIRG which showed that "defendant, motivated
possibly by greed or apathy, chose to procrastinate—"
***
In the Matter_o£:
Landfill. Inc.. RCRA (3308) Appeal No. 86-
8 (Final Decision; November 30, 1990): EPA charged the
Respondent with failing to maintain an adequate groundwater
monitoring system by improperly placing its wells. The
Respondent's defense was that EPA was estopped from alleging the
violation because the State had approved the location of wells
prior to their installation. This defense was rejected for
purposes of liability, but the Chief Judicial Officer upheld the
ALJ's findings that, "the respondent installed the monitoring
wells at their present location at great expense and with the
advice and complete approval of the State. The undersigned is of
the view that a nominal penalty of $250 should be assessed ..."
*** In tl}e Master of; Union Oil Company of California. Docket
No. RCRA-09-84-0223 (Initial Decision; January 14, 1985) ("!T::-.e
environmental problems arose in this case because of the mist^r-.en
or erroneous action by the EPA and the State, and appears to •-.-ive
been resolved promptly once the mistake or error was corrects-i.
Accordingly, it is concluded that no penalty should be assess-::."
Decided by Judge Harwood.
*** The Marlev Cooling Tower Co.. Docket No. RCRA-09-88-OOCr
(Decision and Order; November 30, 1989): Respondent violated
RCRA, inter alia, by failing to demonstrate, financial assurar. •••
for bodily and property damage to third parties. One of
Respondent's defenses was that it in numerous discussions wi::.
California officials regarding its closure plan no deficienci---=
had been mentioned. The ALJ found that, "[wjhile ... lack ct
knowledge is ordinarily not used as a basis for reducing the
penalty, respondent's reliance upon guidance from [the State; •
evidence of-its good faith, supporting a 25% reduction in tlv-
gravity-based penalty." Decided by Judge Greene.
In re: General Electric Co.. Docket No. TSCA-IV-89-001.6
(Order on Motions for an Accelerated Decision; August 30, i'- •
Evidence that EPA employees rendered erroneous advice held
relevant and admissible for purpose of determining the
appropriate penalty. Decided by Judge Nissen.
-------
-21-
** United Stattes v. Lacks Industries. Inc.. No. G87-413 CA
(W.D.Mich.; June 22, 1990), reprinted is 32 ERC 1221: " [T] he
Court concludes that civil penalties of $250,000.00 are
appropriate in the present case for a number of reasons. First,
the failure of Lacks to comply with RCRA is, to some degree, the
result of ats reliance upon representations made to it by MDNR
[State] ofticials [that the lagoons were not subject to RCRA]."
U.S. v. Roll Coater. Inc.. Cause No. IP 89-828 C (Order
Following Isench Trial; March 22, 1991): CWA case (violations of
pretreatment standards): Due to a lack of effective
communication between EPA, defendant, and the state (Indiana had
af f irmativtily recognized and excused noncompliance) , no penalty
was assessed for time period prior to August 1988. The Court
found that, in delaying construction of plant while testing
technology at another site, defendant exercised "good faith."
2. DEGREi: OF WILLFULNESS AND/OR NEGLIGENCE
**• In th<
i Matter of; Ashland Chemical Company. RCRA (3008)
87-17 (Final Decision; November 15, 1989): "...
>poses an additional 5% reduction based on the absence
noncompliance. ... The record reflects no effort by
obtain advice from OEPA or U.S. EPA as to whether :_s
status had changed once its tanks became contamina:--a
Moreover, lack of knowledge of the legal require:--:-.:
be used to reduce a penalty for to do so might
.gnorance of the law." Decided by the CJO.
Appeal No.
Ashland pr<
of: willful
Ashland to
regulatory
with water
should not
encourage
*** In th
-------
-22-
*** |n the Matter pf: National Coatings. RCRA Appeal No. 86-5
(Final Decision; January 22, 1988): The CJO determined that the
dumping incident was accidental, and Respondent had no intent to
improperly dispose of the wastes. He therefore upheld the ALJ's
penalty reduction of 25% for lack of willfulness.
*** In the Matter of: Grumman St. Augustine Corp.. Docket No.
RCRA 87-18-R (Initial Decision; May 10, 1989): Respondent
failed, inter alia, to submit a Part B permit application. The
ALJ determined, among other things, that the Respondent's failure
to keep abreast of even the most minimal statutory and regulatory
requirements (it had not even obtained up-to-date copies of RCRA)
and correct its violations, despite repeated notice from EPA,
evidenced negligence justifying a 25% increase in the penalty.
Decided by Judge Yost.
In the Matter of; Riverside Furniture Corp. EPCRA-88-H-VI-
406S (Initial Decision; Sept. 28, 1989). The penalty amount was
not reduced despite the fact that Riverside "did not have actual
knowledge" of EPCRA requirements. The ALJ held that Riverside is
"charged with knowledge of the United States Statutes at large."
Publication of 40 CFR 372 in the Federal Register gave Riverside
"legal notice of the EPCRA regulations". Decided by Judge Jones.
In the Matter of Port of Oakland and Great Lakes Dredge
and Dock Co.. MPRSA Appeal No. 91-1 (Final Decision and Order;
August 5, 1992): The Port and dredging company violated the
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, and a permit
issued thereunder. The Environmental Appeals Board adjusted its
gravity-based penalties for all three of the dredging and
disposal violations upward to reflect Respondent's culpability
for having intentionally dredged unauthorized sediments.
3.
HISTORY OF NONCOMPLIANCE:
*** In the Matter of: Grumman St. Augustine Corp.. Docket No.
RCRA (3308) 87-18-R (Initial Decision; March 10, 1988): Among
the ALJ's reasons for increasing Respondent's penalty by 25% were
Respondent's history of prior violations of RCRA, and EPA and
State Consent Orders thereunder. Decided by Judge Yost.
U.S. v, Roll Coater. Inc.. Cause No. IP 89-828 C (Order
Following Bench Trial; March 22, 1991): CWA case (violations of
pretreatment standards): Held: history of noncompliance refers
to past cases, not length of present violations.
-------
-23-
ABILITY TO PAY:
***
In the Matter of; Central Paint & Body Shop. IncT. RCRA
Appeal No. 86-3 (Final Decision; January 12, 1987): "RCRA does
not include ability to pay as one of the factors that EPA must
consider in assessing a penalty ... ability to pay is not an
element of IPA's proof ... Respondent, as proponent of a
reduction ir. penalty based on its financial condition [has] the
burden of proof ..." In this case, the Respondent's arguments
that it couldn't afford the penalty were deemed unpersuasive.
*** United States, et al. v. Production Plated Plastics. Inc..
et al. . File No. K87-138 CA (W.D. Mich.): The Defendants in this
case operated unpermitted seepage lagoons, delayed submission of
closure and groundwater monitoring plans, failed to comply with
RCRA's financial assurance and liability provisions, and did not
implement their groundwater plan. In assessing a $1.5 million
penalty for the violations, the Court rejected soundly the
Defendants' primary defense of "inability to pay." The Court
scrutinized the evidence adduced at trial, including Defendant
Michael J. ijadney's (the majority shareholder) personal income
tax returns and his and the companies' assets, in establishing
that Defendants had the financial ability not only to comply with
RCRA but to pay a meaningful penalty as well. While recognizing
that "the pmalty is certainly large enough to hurt," the Court
'found that "Defendants currently have assets whic: can be
liquidated ;o satisfy the requirements of this Court's Judgment"
(estimated ay the Judge to require roughly $4.5 million in
expenditures). (Emphasis added). In acknowledging that the
Defendant would likely need to liquidate assets to satisfy the
judgment, the Court considered, among other things, the
availability of discretionary assets, Defendants' investments in
speculative ventures, and the fact that several million dollars
of assets were channelled away from PPP into related
corporations.
In the Matter of: Dr. Marshall C. Saaser. Docket No. 404-89-
102 (Initial Decision; July 30, 1991): Respondent held liable
for filling a wetlands without a permit in violation of Clean
Water Act Section 4C-- and penalized $125,000. The Court
determined that the spondent had the "ability to pay" the full
assessed penalty, bu- permitted him to pay in installments
because mary of his assets were non-liquid (an ironic holding,
since this is a "water" case). Decided by Judge Yost.
In the .Matter of; Sporicidin International. FIFRA Appeal No.
86-2 (Final Order; June 4, 1991): Action against seller of
alleged sterilizing agent for misbranding a pesticide and making
unauthorized claims. The CJO affirmed the Ini-ial decision
assessing a $10,000 penalty. Respondent may assumed to have
the ability to pay a penalty where EPA allege t can pay and r
Respondent fails to challenge "'-.*? allegation.
-------
-24-
In the Matter of; Timothy R. Ward. TSCA-VII-86-T-635,
(Initial Decision; November 24, 1987): In this case involving
the improper disposal of PCBs on a rural roadside, the ALJ held
that the requirement that the Agency consider ability to pay when
assessing penalties "should not suggest or imply that payment of
the penalty assessed will be without pain or borne with complete
facility; rather, it should be in such amount that Respondent,
and others similarly situated, will choose to comply with
pertinent regulations, promulgated for the protection of the
public, rather than pay an appropriate penalty.". This case is
significant in that it supports the proposition that civil
penalties should have an economic impact on the violator.
Decided by Judge Jones.
*** F & K Plating Co.. RCRA (3008) Appeal 86-1A (Final Decision;
October 8, 1987): The ALJ reduced the violator's penalty by 25%
based on, inter alia/ "inability to pay." On appeal, the CJO
determined that the Respondent's unverified balance sheet and
shop manager's uncorroborated testimony, standing alone, were
inadequate to demonstrate "inability to pay." Likewise, unsworn
assertions by counsel for Respondent were entitled to no weight.
The CJO determined, however, that based on the record as a whole,
F & K deserved some "inability to pay" adjustment. The case was
remanded to the Regional Administrator to determine an
appropriate reduction. F & K was counseled that it "must fully
support any alleged inability to pay with detailed and credible
documentation," preferably regular financial statements, tax
returns, or independent audits.
*** In the Matter of: National Coatings,Inc.. Docket No. RCRA
(3008) V-W-84-R-052 (Initial Decision; June 20, 1986): Where
the evidence indicates that the penalty is not beyond the
Respondent's ability to pay, but the Respondent may be unable
to pay the penalty in one lump sum, the Respondent should be
permitted to apply to the Regional Administrator to pay in
installments. Decided by Judge Harwood.
*** United States v. Maiorano. No. 87 C 4491 (N.D. 111.; January
8, 1990), reprinted in 20 ELR 20444: "Although the ability to
pay may warrant consideration in some circumstances, the Court
does not view it as a particularly significant factor in this
case. Defendants have never provided evidence concerning their
financial circumstances, despite numerous opportunities to do so.
[Footnote omitted] Furthermore, defendants have been so
intransigent that they are in no real position to request mercy
based on their personal circumstances."
-------
-25-
5. OTHER UNIQUE FACTORS:
Note: The primary application of this adjustment factor is
to re::lect "litigation risks" in settlement; hence there are
relatively few decisions wnere it plays a significant role
in tho penalty determination.
**• In tha Matter of: Millipore Corp.. Inc.. Appeal No. 86-7
(Final Decision; December 2, 1987): The CJO reduced the
Respondent's penalty by 40% to reflect, inter alia, the "unusual
c:Lrcumstan:es" of the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board
failing to follow its own rules by not responding to the
Respondent's proposed closure plan in a timely fashion (the delay
had contributed to the severity of the violation).
*** In tha Matter of: Elwin G. Smith Division. Cvcloos
Corporatio:
The CJO af
for failin
closure pi
planning a
concerning
Respondent
the contra
!, Appeal No. 86-6 (Final Decision; August 14, 1990):
firmed the reduction of the violator's penalty by 25%
j to submit a Part B application and/or develop a
in. The Respondent had cooperated fully in the
id execution of an elaborate "sting" operation
a contractor hired by the violator even though the
was not charged with any improper conduct regarding
:tor.
-------
-------
ROBEHT K.
3JTM
DORNAN
PERMANENT SELECT
COMMITTEE ON I ^TELLIGENCE
AHMED SERVICE!. COMMITTEE
•lAFOwnm AMO STM n&c MA'
NUIAKM AMO t iViUIPMIHT
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
NARCOTICS ABUSI AND CONTROL
PERMANENT 0 J SERVER TO
GENEVA ARM J CONTROL
NEGOTIATIONS
Congre** of tfce Uniteb fetatcfi
of Eeprettntattoe*
UICUTlVf COMMtrni
MOUSE RiPUftUCAN
CQMMlTTtt
TAX POUCV AMO
October 16, 1992
Mr. Gnigory Lind (RC-3-2)
United Stat«» EPA, Region XX
Of fie* of Hagional Counsel
75 Havihorn* Str««t
Frmcisco, California 94105
STRATEGIC PfKNSC INfTlAt
INTERNATIONAL NARCOTICS CC
TOROMSM
CIVIL RMHT1
AMERICANS MISSIMG IN AC.
HiS»AMC CAUCUS
HUMAN NQMTS CAUCUS
D«ar Mr. Lind:
On October l, 1992, I racaivad an anviron»antal navs ralaaaa
from tha Unitad Stataa Environaantal Protection Agancy announcing
that it had isauad anforcamant ordara againat aavaral California
companies for withholding information concerning their hasardoua
waata generation and handling practicaa. To my utter diabalief ,
tha cemplaints propoaed penalties totalling $77,900 for tha
violations.
] immediately contacted Air Industries Corporation, a'
manufacturer in my district of Garden Grove, CA and learned that
the company was negligent in completing a Determination of
Violation, Compliance Order form correctly. As I understand it,
this i!orm was designed to report the amount of hazardous waste
being generated at each of the companies' respective facilities as
required under Section 3008 (a) (1) of the RCRA Act. Air
Industries, which employs a workforce of 500 and ia considered by
state officials to be a model manufacturing site in terms of
treatment and storage of hazardous waste materials, was fined an
astouiding $11,400. for a clerical error. Tha apparent problem waa
tha incorrect marking of a box on the compliance form. What is
clear is that Air Industries did not seek to purposely deceive
anyone. It waa simply an error for which an $11,400 ift
excessive.
In my opinion) this ia completely unacceptable. Today's small
bus ir esses are having a hard enough time trying to stay afloat let
alone find ttnr.meana to pay excessive fines levied by bureaucrats
in Washington and Sacramento for honest mistaXaa.
*.s Air Industries attempts to negotiate a settlement with the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over this discrepancy, I urge
you and your colleagues to appreciate the company's fine record
with regards to management of hazardous waste and to take into
. on m-*Mi
OIITWCT omct. x» n*
-------
Mr. Gregory Lind (RC-3-2)
Pag. 2
Octobar 16, 1992
account tha impact such a larga fin* vould hava on
buainaaa. Thank you in advanca.
Baa
11
Robart X. Dornan
U.S. congraaavan
cc:: Willian Railly
Adnini»trator, Onitad Stataa EPA
Robart Gaoghan
Vica Praaidant, Air Znduatriaa Corporation
-------
-------
-------
INSPECTION PARADIGMS REVISITED
BE PROACTIVE, NOT REACTIVE!
OVERHEAD*!
TITLE: I ispection Paradigms Revisited
KEY POISTS:
• Over the past few days, you have experienced a variety of circumstances related to
conducting facility inspections. Over the next hour, we will:
— Review the importance of taking a proactive approach when conducting a
facility inspection
— Discuss how the information gained during the Institute has helped expand
our inspection paradigms
— Discuss ways we can apply knowledge gained during the Institute to
day-to-day job performance
— Identify technologies that can be used to enhance performance of
inspections.
• We will also be revisiting the exercise you completed during the Exploring
Inspection Paradigms module to see how our paradigms may have changed and
been influenced by the course.
XIII-1
-------
EXPLORE NEW INSPECTION
PARADIGMS
OVERHEAD #2
TITLE: Explore New Inspection Paradigms
KEY POINTS:
• It is important to look at how we are currently conducting inspections, and
engaging in pre-inspection and post-inspection activities in order to better
understand why our present paradigms are the way they are, and to explore new
paradigms. The exercise we have just conducted has helped us do that today. By
exploring new possibilities, we may be able to perform our jobs better and really
make a difference to the RCRA program and the environment.
• Constantly ask yourself questions that could help you expand your present
paradigms and look to new and different ones. A new approach may not
necessarily be better, but we need to be willing to look at it with open eyes in
order to decide on its possible effectiveness.
• Your Participant's Manual contains a chart that illustrates five steps in the EPA
RCRA inspection process. You may want to use this chart as a guide that you can
expand upon or revise as you continue to explore your inspection paradigms.
XIII-2
-------
IDENTIFY USEFUL TECHNOLOGIES
OVERHEAD #3
TITLE: Identify Useful Technologies
KEY POINTS:
• Now that we have discussed what we, as inspectors, can do to understand and
explore our individual inspection paradigms, let's ask ourselves what types of
technologies could be used to help make our jobs easier. The idea is to generate
suggestions that might help guide our paradigms for the RCRA program and the
conduction of inspections.
XIII-3
-------
LOOK TO THE FUTURE
OVERHEAD #4
TITLE: Look to the Future
KEY POINTS:
As we near the close of the Institute, it is time to ask ourselves what we can do
with the information that we have learned. We have talked about developing
inspection approaches, looking at these approaches to see how we might
improve them, and identifying resources and technologies that could help us.
Continue to think about where the RCRA program is going, how we might
make a difference and, with only a few years until the turn of the century, how
we as inspectors should proceed into the future in our efforts to meet the goals
of the RCRA program. Much can change by working from the bottom up.
Don't expect management to come up with new ideas. The process starts with
you!
By being aware of and preparing for the future, we are less likely to get stuck in
the paradigms of the past.
-------
REACH TO THE FRINGES
OF YOUR PARADIGMS
IE)—•
OVERHEAD #5
TITLE: Beach to the Fringes of Your Paradigms
KEY POINTS:
• We encourage you to reach to the fringes of your paradigms, moving into the
future with new and innovative ideas for conducting inspections and improving
the RCRA program.
XIII-5
-------
-------
INSPECTION PARADIGMS REVISITED
"NEW PERSONAL INSPECTION APPROACH"
NEW PARADIGM PRE-INSPECTION APPROACH:
NEW PARADIGM INSPECTION APPROACH:
-------
-------
NEW PARADIGM POST-INSPECTION APPROACH:
Please ieel free to continue on the back if the space provided is not sufficient.
-------
U.S. EPA Headqya!ters4ibrgtry
Mail ct./jo**!*e
1200 Penrsvvsin^ *«.•••• ni
------- |