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

-------