CONSOLIDATED TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT GUIDANCE FOR FY'92
I. INTRODUCTION
(V
II. OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
A. OTS Enhancement Grants for State Asbestos Programs
1. Funding
2. Schedule for Submittal of Applications
3. Consolidated OTS/OCM Cooperative Agreements
4. Activities to be Funded under Cooperative Agreements
B. OTS AHERA Training Cooperative Agreements
1. Funding
2. Schedule for Submittal of Applications
3. Consolidated OTS/OCM Cooperative Agreements
4. Activities to Be Funded Under Cooperative Agreements
1
1
2
3
3
11
11
11
12
13
III. OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS
05
O)
o
CM
A. Compliance Monitoring Cooperative Agreements
1. Funding
2. Schedule for Submittal of Applications
3. Multi-Year Project Periods
B. Asbestos Compliance Monitoring Activities
1. Asbestos Compliance Monitoring Work Program
2. FY 92 National Asbestos Compliance Priority
3. FY 92 Asbestos Compliance Activities
C. PCB Compliance Monitoring Work Program
D. Work Program Activities Applicable to Both Asbestos and PCB
Agreements
1. Quality Assurance
2. Field Investigations and Sampling Procedures
3. State Records and Reports
4. Inspection and Analytical Reports
5. Quarterly Reports
6. End-of-Project Reports
7. Unresolved Problems
8. Accountability Under the Cooperative Agreement
9. EPA Support to States
HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCV
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
16
16
16
18
18
18
20
20
26
.2*
28
32
33
33
34
34
34
35
35
-------
10. National Guidelines on Costs and Time Factors for
Conducting Certain Activities 36
E. Hexavalent Chromium (CR+6) Chemicals in Comfort Cooling Towers
Activities 36
F. Decentralization Cooperative Agreements 37
1. Funding 37
2. Schedule for Submittal of Applications 38
3. Multi-Year Project Periods 39
4. Enforcement Decentralization 40
G. Multi-Media Compliance Monitoring Cooperative Agreements 48
1. Funding ,. 48
2. Schedule 48
3. Background on OCM Multi-Media State Toxics Projects 48
4. Examples of Multi-Media Projects 49
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
CQNSQLTDATED TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT GUIDANCE FOR FT92
I. INTRODUCTION
Section 28 (a) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) authorizes the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to enter into cooperative agreements with
states for the operation of programs to prevent or eliminate unreasonable risk(s)
within the states, to health or the environment which are associated with a chemical
substance. All awards to federally recognized Indian tribes will be made under
Section 10 of TSCA. All recipients must provide a 25% match of total program
costs.
Regulations governing financial assistance to participants in the cooperative toxic
substances program are found at 40 CFR Part 31.1-31.70 and 40 CFR Part 35.001-
35.155 and 35.600-35.605. This document, developed by the Office of Compliance
Monitoring (OCM) and the Office of Toxic Substances (OTS) supplements the
above regulations by setting forth in more detail the required elements of the
cooperative agreements which are funded by each office.. The implementation of
this guidance document is dependent on Congressional approval of the President's
FY 92 budget.
This document is directed to the EPA regional offices. If a region issues "regional
guidance" to the states, it must contain all the key provisions of the national
guidance. However, the national guidance may be modified or supplemented to
reflect special environmental or managerial conditions in each region. As
applicable, the regions should send a copy of the program guidance which they send
to their states to the Chief of OCM's Grants and Evaluation Branch and/or the
Chief of OTS's Assistance Programs Development Branch, assuming that it is not
identical to the national guidance. A copy should be sent at the same time as the
mailing to the states. - ...
II. OFFICE OF TOXIC SUBSTANCES ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS -
A. OTS Enhancement Grants for State Asbestos Programs
1. Funding
-OTS is at this time projecting level funding for its state enhancement grants
during the FY 92 award cycle. In FY 91, a total of $1,260,300 was available
for this program. The average state project award in FY 91 amounted to
$70,017 and the average allocation per participating region was $157,537.
Should the adopted FY 92 budget ultimately provide additional sums for this
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
program, the regional offices will be so advised. As was done in FY 90 and
FY 91, OTS will again provide a minimum apportionment of $100,000 per
region so long as sufficient sums are available and the regions receive
qualified requests for at least this amount.
Headquarters funds which exceed this $1 million threshold will be
apportioned competitively among the regions based upon the individual
merits of their unfunded project requests.
Pursuant to TSCA section 28, the regions and all prospective state applicants
are reminded that all awards under this program (Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance #66.706) are subject to a 25% state matching funds
requirement. Further, pursuant to Executive Order 12372, states must submit
their project proposals for intergovernmental review where applicable.
Proposers should check with their state Single Point of Contact (SPOC) for
relevant instructions in this regard.
2. Schedule for Submittal of Applications
a. On or before December 6, 1991, OTS Enhancement Cooperative
Agreements must be submitted from the states to the Asbestos
Coordinator in the applicant's regional office.
b. On or before January 3, 1992, the regions must submit copies of
the applications with any appropriate comments to EPA headquarters
(Office of Toxic Substances, Technical Assistance Section, TS-799).
c. OTS, in consultation with regional and other headquarters
representatives, will then review and rank project proposals. As
necessary, regions may be requested to follow-up on comments or
resolve outstanding issues with their applicant states.
d. By the end of February, 1992, final allocations will be announced
and the regional offices can complete cooperative agreement
negotiations with their recipient states. Awards must be made, with
all FY 92 funds obligated, by September 30, 1992.
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT . FY92
3. Consolidated OTS/OCM Cooperative Agreements
With concurrence from the region, it is permissible for states to develop and
submit consolidated cooperative agreement applications which combine OTS
enhancement activities with OCM enforcement decentralization activities.
If the applicant state and the EPA regional office agree that this approach
is most appropriate, the submission must be prepared with separate work
plans and budgets for the OTS and OCM portions respectively. These two
programs are the only two TSCA programs in this year's guidance which
can be consolidated in this fashion. It is possible in this instance because
of the similar aims of these two programs, and the fact that both operate
under the same funding schedule and cycle.
4. Activities to be Funded under Cooperative Agreements
The OTS Enhancement Grants for State Asbestos Programs or "state
enhancement grants" will continue in FY 92 along the same essential course
first established in the FY 91 guidance. Because there are presently (as of
3/91) only 26 EPA-approved state accreditation programs and 2 EPA-
approved state waiver programs nationwide, the priority emphasis for
financial assistance will remain focused on those "base" activities which
achieve or promote state accreditation programs consistent with and no less
stringent than the EPA Model Accreditation Plan and/or achieve or promote
state inspection and management programs which will qualify for AHERA
state waivers. As in the past, state proposals which do not directly support
these priority objectives (non-base activities) may still be considered for
funding, but only after those project proposals which promote base activities
have been otherwise satisfied (Note: regions need not have base proposals
to qualify for their respective $100K-apportionment, but base proposals
within that regional apportionment, if any, will be given priority). The
Agency will continue to encourage state efforts to develop innovative
programs which may diverge from (i.e., are more stringent than) the federal
program in various ways, and will support these efforts financially to the
extent feasible. However, we want to clarify and emphasize. to all
prospective applicants that our first objective will be to establish and
maintain AHERA-consistent state programs which fulfill statutory
requirements and intent. Also, states should be fully aware of the
importance which EPA headquarter's attaches to regional concurrence and
recommendations in regards to all funding decisions. Early consultations
between a state and its Regional Asbestos Coordinator should occur before
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
the state submits its formal proposal. As stated in the Federal Catalog of
Domestic Assistance (see Program Description under 66.706), eligibility is
only one of several criteria which EPA will consider before awarding funds
under this title. Support from the regional office is considered vital to the
ultimate success of any assisted state project.
Please be aware that the Training Amendments to the Asbestos School
Hazard Abatement Reauthorization Act of 1990 (ASMARA) mandated that
EPA revise its Model Accreditation Plan to increase the number of training
hours required for asbestos abatement workers and to make such other
changes as are necessary to implement the amendments. EPA is currently
working on this Model Plan revision and expects to adopt a modified Plan
sometime during FY 92, after appropriate consultations with affected groups
and provisions for public participation. These changed accreditation
standards may adversely affect certain states which have already adopted
accreditation programs based upon the existing Model Plan requirements.
The Agency recognizes this prospective difficulty and wishes to mitigate
these effects to the extent practicable. Consequently, determining and
implementing those adjustments needed to keep an existing state
accreditation program consistent with and no less stringent than called for
in EPA's revised Model Accreditation Plan will be a priority (base) activity
for the coming year. Planning and managing this kind of a program
transition might be accommodated through1 either Category One (State Plans)
or Category Two (State Accreditation Programs) funding. However, it is
recommended that all states examine their needs relative to this issue
regardless of whether or not they elect to seek federal funding for this
specific activity.
The six funding categories available in FY 92 are presented below along with
examples of eligible activities under each. These are essentially unchanged
from last year, with only slight modifications. Where proposed by states, any
of these activities should be accompanied by a detailed schedule providing
both milestones and deliverables. Please note that within each category,
activity examples may be classified as either "base," or "non-base." In some
cases, examples of each are presented within the same category. It is
permissible to apply for a mix of base and non-base activities in a single
cooperative agreement application, but these pieces may be considered
separately, and ranked independently, for purposes of award selection.
States are not limited in their proposals to the specific activities offered as
examples in this guidance. Program innovations are eligible and encouraged,
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
so long as the proposed activities fall within the general boundaries
established by these broad categories.
a. Comprehensive State Asbestos Management Plans
§61il*11ieIiclrati(Bli^ithin this category, taken as a whole, are
™lKliwitottW\^x-t:-~:*>X>XXZy-ZfiifXfXX , «-.•.»' : ; \, •.
States may undertake comprehensive planning efforts to
address the full scope of statewide asbestos management
issues. These efforts are considered base activities and at a
minimum, must include:
1) the identification of all asbestos management agencies
within the state (e.g., LEAs, state agencies involved in
accreditation, worker safety, buildings management, compliance
monitoring or enforcement, policy development, etc., plus any
local or regional entities which might play either a direct or
supporting role within the statewide institutional framework.If
a state were planning for only a partial program assumption,
federal agencies who would remain players in that state should
be included as well);
2) a definition of roles and responsibilities for all asbestos
management agencies within the state which will provide for
a coordinated implementation of the state plan (in states with
federally administered NESHAPs or OSHA programs,
coordination between the state and these other federal
agencies must also be addressed). A principal objective here
is to identify conflicts, overlaps and gaps in program coverage
so as to establish a basis for. coordinated, non-duplicative
activity among the various entities involved;
3) establishing state program goals and objectives which
provide a multi-year strategic planning framework (this should
address the state's future vision, and should be concurred with
by all affected parties);
4) an assessment of existing asbestos management practices
which defines statewide problems, issues and needs, and sets
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
priorities (to the extent practicable, this part should provide for
the establishment of interagency priorities from which statewide
resource allocation decisions might flow);
5) the identification of legal and institutional barriers to state
program assumption and the development of a strategy for
overcoming such impediments (this should involve a
comparison of the state's legal and institutional capabilities
with both its goals and its problem assessment in an effort to
formulate an action agenda);
6) provisions for achieving a self-supporting state program
through appropriations, fees or other revenue sources
(although focused on meeting the long-term needs of the
program, this would also necessarily address any special start-
up costs as well);
7) a multi-year action plan which establishes a schedule with
clearly defined milestones and deliverables for purposes of
achieving the state program goals and objectives presented in
paragraph 3. above (this should take the form of a work plan);
8) an analysis of how and the degree to which implementation
of the action plan in paragraph 6. above will achieve, sustain
or promote either EPA approval of the state's accreditation
program (i.e., a state program no less stringent than the EPA
Model Accreditation Plan)' or EPA's granting of a waiver for
the state's inspection and management program (i.e., for either
full or partial assumption of responsibility for implementing
the EPA Asbestos-in-Schools Program), or both (this should
provide both EPA and the state with a much clearer sense of
what their future roles will be relative to one another); and
9) consolidation of the above steps and analyses into a
comprehensive and published planning document subject to
whatever public participation requirements for approval or
adoption may exist in that particular state.
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
b. Increasing the Number of State Accreditation Programs
Note: Only, elements one and five in this category are considered
base activities, elements two through, tour are non-base,
1) States could develop full or partial AHERA accreditation
programs for schools and/or public and commercial buildings
as required by law. Those states which have not yet developed
AHERA-consistent state accreditation programs are
encouraged to do .so. Those states which currently have only
partial EPA-approval are encouraged to seek full approval.
Furthermore, it is strongly recommended that those states
which already have either full or partial EPA approval of their
existing accreditation programs under the old Model Plan
initiate those steps necessary to upgrade their state standards
in keeping with increased federal requirements under the new,
soon-to-be-revised Model Plan. ;
2) States could develop modified accreditation programs for
one or more of the AHERA training disciplines which are
different in scope or stringency from the federal standards
(e.g., requiring the development of management plans for all
public and commercial buildings and the use of accredited
management planners in their preparation).
3) States could develop new accredited disciplines. In addition
to inspectors, management planners, project designers, workers
and supervisors, a state might require other categories of
asbestos professionals, such as asbestos abatement project
monitors, to become accredited. Project monitors serve as
third party consultants to building owners observing abatement
projects for compliance with generally • accepted industry
standards and applicable federal and state regulations.
Alternatively, states might develop systems whereby state
employees would monitor all the abatement projects that take
place in their state. Another supplemental discipline being
considered in certain states is that of air sampler or air
sampling technician.
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
4) States might add supplemental work practice standards to
the state's accreditation requirements and monitor those work
practices at the abatement site.
5) States might consider adoption/implementation of
accreditation standards and procedures which provide for or
promote reciprocity with other states for accreditation
purposes. For those states lacking statutory or regulatory
authority for interstate reciprocity, new regulations or statutes
could be drafted to overcome this legal constraint.
Alternatively, by subscribing to the "Model Plan for
Reciprocity" developed by the National Asbestos Council
(NAC), a state might revise its existing licensing procedures to
allow for or prescribe the use of the NAC National Asbestos
Examinations and Registration System ("NAERS," or the "blue
card/gold card" system). Professional reciprocity between states
was specifically envisioned in the original EPA Model
Accreditation Plan and is strongly encouraged by the Agency.
c. Increasing the Number of States with Inspection and .
Management Programs for Schools
Note: Only element one to this ^tegdry wffi be cx>n$Jderexl a base
activity, elements two and three are ^ non-base,
1) States might seek AHERA state waivers for either complete
or partial programs (see 40 CFR Part 763.98). Full state
program waivers would include friable and nonfriable
asbestos in all schools. An example of a partial program
waiver would be a waiver for a state program that covered
only public schools or only provided for state enforcement of
certain provisions of the EPA Schools Rule while retaining
EPA enforcement of other specified provisions of 40 CFR Part
763, Subpart E.
2) States might extend AHERA school inspection and
management components to public and commercial buildings.
Some variations on this enhancement option might include;
8
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
A. Mandatory O&M or management plans
B. Inspection only programs
C. Inspection and O&M programs
D. Inspection and O&M and response action
programs including TEM clearance requirements.
3) States might establish programs that delegated the authority
and responsibility for inspection and management programs to
the local level.
d. Increasing State Assistance Programs
Note: Elements within this category' are riot considered base activities;
1) States might train or hire technical experts to address
inquiries and advise building owners and asbestos professionals.
(2) States might encourage the development of university
environmental assistance centers to disseminate materials, hold
seminars, and provide state and local government counseling.
These centers would be capable of designing technical
assistance programs tailored to local needs.
3) Several states have provided direct state-funded financial
assistance to schools. States might evaluate the need for
extending these state-funded loan and grant programs to
certain public and commercial buildings, or to day care centers
or universities.
4) States might translate relevant federal and state regulations
into foreign languages which are commonly spoken within their
borders. These translated regulations might then be provided
to training entities approved to teach the Worker Course in
foreign languages to enhance the effectiveness of this training.
e. Enhance Public Accessibility to, and State Tracking of,
Asbestos Data
Note: Only element one will be considered a base activity within this
category.
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
1) States might computerize the information contained in their
school management plans for the purpose of: (a) serving as a
mechanism for community-right-to-know and allowing public
access to the time lines for implementation of activities within
individual management plans; (b) serving as a mechanism for
the state to target inspections when activity described in the
management plan is occurring; and (c) serving as a mechanism
for reminding the school of the following management plan
activity:
o Operations & maintenance schedule
o Periodic surveillance
o Inspection/reinspection activities
o Response action activities
2) States might undertake outreach activities specifically aimed
at improving public accessibility to asbestos data (e.g., making
data available through computers at public libraries or other
government buildings, through newsletters or other special .
publications or through other targeted communications). j^
f. Integration of Existing Programs Within States
Note: Elements within this- category are not considerecT base
activities.
1) States might propose activities aimed at improving
coordination between their AHERA Program and their
NESHAP Program, regardless of whether these programs are
administered by the same state agency.
2) States might propose activities aimed at improving
. coordination between asbestos transport and disposal and a
state's inspection and management program.
3) States might integrate worker protection activities with
accreditation programs.
4) States might develop or implement new mechanisms for
coordinating all state compliance monitoring activities for
asbestos programs; including AHERA, ASHAA, NESHAPS,
10
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
OSHA, accreditation, asbestos worker protection, asbestos ban
and phase down, and asbestos-in-buildings, as appropriate.
B. OTS AHERA Training Cooperative Agreements
1. Funding
OTS is at this time projecting a $1.2 million appropriation for its AHERA
training cooperative agreements in FY 92. If the FY 92 funding equals or
exceeds this amount, each region will receive an allotment of $100,000.
Recommended amounts of each award should be approximately $50,000,
although smaller awards are acceptable. Larger awards may be appropriate
when merited or if applications are few.
Unspent monies from one region can be transferred to another region with
fundable projects. Also, remaining FY 92 funds in excess of $1 million will
be available for selective award based upon the merits of individual
applications.
2. Schedule for Submittal of Applications
Those states, colleges, universities, local governments or other non-profit
organizations applying for the $1.2 M awards must submit a three-to-six
page pre-application to the appropriate Regional Asbestos Coordinator by
January 22, 1992. The regional office will forward a copy of the pre-
proposal to OTS's Technical Assistance Section by February 22, 1992, along
with any comments they have on the proposal(s). The proposals will be
reviewed by an OTS panel which will include regional representatives. The
contacts for the selected projects will be notified and asked to submit a
complete cooperative agreement application package.
The proposals must address at a-minimum: -4) statement of need to.
establish a state model plan with increased hours for worker training or the
need for continued training or establishing training for asbestos workers or
contractors; 2) background information on the responsibilities of the state
or training provider and past experience in the asbestos training field; 3)
description of the proposed action to encourage states to revise or adopt
asbestos model plans, or in the case of training projects, objectives and end-
products; 4) the proposed budget; 5) schedule of activities (the proposed
project to be completed under the grant must be concluded by the end of
FY 93 at the latest); and 6) discussion of how, if at all, the project or
11
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
training program will continue after the proposed project period of the
cooperative agreement.
The application schedule and process is summarized below;
a. On January 22, 1992, pre-proposals of no more than 6 pages
are due to the regions. By February 22, 1992, regions review
and rank the pre-proposals and send their recommendations
to headquarters for review and concurrence. By March 22,
1992, decisions regarding applicants are made by the
headquarters review panel and prospective applicants are
contacted.
b. On or before April 22, 1992, the OTS training cooperative
agreement applications will be submitted from the applicants
to the EPA Regional Toxic Substances Branches and the
Regional Grants Administration Branch.
c. On or before May 30, 1992, the regions submit 'copies of the
applications with any comments they have to the headquarters
review panel.
d. On or before June 30, 1992, OTS, in consultation with a panel
including regional representatives, reviews project proposals
and allocates the available; funds.
e. The regions and applicants will then follow up on any
comments provided and consult with HQ as requested or
necessary to resolve any outstanding issues.
f. Regional awards are then made prior to the end of the fiscal
year, and work is initiated under the grants.
3. Consolidated OTS/OCM Cooperative Agreements
Because this program will operate under new and distinct authority, OTS
will not accept consolidated applications involving AHERA training grant
support during FY 92. This may however, become possible in succeeding
years.
12
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
4. Activities to be Funded Under Cooperative Agreements
The following FY 92 funding categories are presented below along with
examples of eligible activities. Applicants are not limited in their proposals
to the activities which are specifically identified and described. Rather,
these specific activities are presented as examples of the kinds of projects
which OTS is encouraging and willing to consider for funding. Where
proposed by applicants, any of these activities should be accompanied by a
detailed schedule of activities providing both milestones and deliverables.
The training Amendments to the Asbestos School Hazard Abatement
Reauthorization Act of 1990 (ASHARA) mandated that EPA revise its
Model Accreditation Plan to increase the number of training hours required
for asbestos abatement workers and to make such other changes as may be
necessary to implement the amendments. EPA is currently working on this
Model Plan revision and expects to adopt a modified Plan sometime during
FY 92. These changed accreditation standards may adversely affect certain
states which have adopted accreditation programs based upon the existing
Model Plan requirements. Additionally, providers offering accredited
asbestos training courses will need to upgrade their courses in keeping with
the new federal guidelines. Consequently, determining the impact of EPA's
forthcoming Plan and the consequent changes it will have on both states and
training providers in order to remain consistent with increased federal
standards is an overriding objective of this new financial assistance program.
Eligible participants may undertake activities aimed at addressing the full
scope of asbestos worker and contractor training issues and needs. The
following efforts are considered fundable activities in descending order of
priority and importance;
a. Upgrading Existing State Accreditation Programs.
States with existing EPA-approved accreditation programs under the
old standards could be funded to upgrade their program to reflect the
increased federal training requirements. In this way, training providers
in that state will be required to quickly augment their worker training
courses if they plan to continue offering accredited training in that
state. An example of an eligible activity would include the
development and/or implementation of enabling state legislation
pertaining to upgrading the current state accreditation program.
13
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
This work could be undertaken by the state, or on behalf of the state,
by an academic institution or other non-profit organization (in
cooperation with that state).
b. Establishing New State Accreditation Programs.
Currently, approximately half of the states do not have EPA-
approved accreditation programs. This funding can help to facilitate
the incorporation of the increased federal training requirements from
the start and is in keeping with the aim of this program by
establishing and providing for the operation of asbestos training
programs. Again, activities include development of legislation, and
adoption and implementation of a state model accreditation program.
The program shall be as stringent or more stringent than the EPA
model accreditation plan after the revised plan is adopted. This work
could be undertaken by the state, or it could be done on behalf of
the state by an academic institution or other non-profit organization
(in cooperation with that state). .
c. Upgrading Existing Asbestos Training Programs Run by EPA-or
State-Approved Providers.
Many of these existing courses are already EPA-approved but run
the risk of losing their approval and hence their ability to offer
accredited courses if they do not supplement the number of hours of
training they offer. Related activities might include developing a
more elaborate "hands on" session for existing courses. Another
activity could include revamping refresher courses.
d. Establishing New Training Programs Either by Using EPA Model
Course Materials or by Using EPA-Approved Course Materials and
Updating or Altering Them.
(These monies may not be used to develop new accreditation
materials as model course materials are already available for each of
the accredited disciplines). Those providers offering new courses will
need to ascertain that the new training provisions have been
incorporated into the curricula. An example of a new training
program might be the establishment of a local government program
14
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
to set up a health and safety program to train state enforcement
inspectors.
15
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
OFFICE OF COMPLIANCE MONITORING ENFORCEMENT ASSISTANCE
PROGRAMS
A. COMPLIANCE MONITORING COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
1. FUNDING
OCM expects funding levels for FY92 TSCA enforcement programs to be
equal to FY91 levels. Availability of funds is contingent on the passage of
the President's FY92 budget. For planning purposes, assume FY92 regional
allocations equal to those quoted in the final FY91 guidance listed below.
Region
Compliance Monitoring + Decentralization
Total
I
II
III
IV
V
VI
VII
VIII
IX
X
$478,000
$72,800
$264,400
$112,100
$615,600
$336,700
$569,600
$122,900
$212,900
$112,600
$195,600
$65,200
$163,000
$262,900
$195,600
$163,000
$130,400
$195,600
$130,400
$130,400
$673,600
$138,000
$427,400
$375,000
$811,200
$499,700
$700,000
$318,500
$343,300
$243,000
Decentralization funds can be used for core/compliance monitoring
cooperative agreements if the proposed activities include case development
or one or more of the other decentralization activities discussed in the
decentralization activity section which follows. (The regions need to be able
to account for how all of their decentralization funds were used.)
2. SCHEDULE FOR SUBMITTAL OF APPLICATIONS
a. Compliance Monitoring Applications
Applications must be submitted 60 days prior to the beginning of the
project period under the cooperative agreement. For project periods
16
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
which begin on October 1st, the states should submit their
applications to the Regional Toxic Substances Branches, and the
Regional Grants Administration Branch, in August. Regions may
KaWPSaaitionSIM Within two weeks
•^vIvtfKvtf:^
of the region's receipt of the application, the region should send a
copy of the application (with the comments, if any, which they have
ready as of that point) to the Chief of OCM's Grants and Evaluation
Branch. HO can provide comments, if they have any, within a
specific time frame defined up front if a region would like HQ to do
so. Each region should contact HQ individually on this point if they
are interested in establishing such a time frame.
b. Consolidated Cooperative Agreements
1. Consolidated OCM Compliance Monitoring
Enforcement Decentralization Agreements:
and
We encourage "consolidated enforcement applications" to be
submitted addressing both compliance monitoring and
enforcement decentralization activities. Provided the region
supports this approach, consolidated OCM applications should
be submitted along the same schedule outlined above for
compliance monitoring cooperative agreements.
2. Consolidated OTS/OCM Cooperative Agreements:
With concurrence from the region, it is permissible for states
to develop and submit consolidated cooperative agreement
applications which combine OTS enhancement activities with
OCM enforcement decentralization activities. However, within
this consolidated application, separate standard budget sheets
(included in the cooperative agreement application package
and) addressing the proposed expenditure of program versus
enforcement funds need to be submitted by the state. For
the associated schedule, see page 2 entitled 'Schedule for
Submittal of Applications'.
17
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
3, MULTItYEAR PROJECT PERIODS (This section only applies to OCM
applicants)
The availability of monies contained' within this^ guidance document
are contingent' on the annual passage of the President's budget-
There is no certainly that monies will be ^appropriated beyond the
year in which they are approved It 'is within TSCA*s statutory
authority,to approve a work plan beyond the,single fiscal year for
which it is submitted/ However, any state program adopting a multi-
year program plan would be required to^ubniit amended elements
each fiscal year. These amended elements would discuss ail activities
pertaining to that particular year and budget Mormatioii associated
with those propose activities, Approval'of a budget beyond a single
fiscal year is not possible. The Application for Federal Assistance
Form (OMB Approval No, 0348-0043) must only; relate to those
activities that are proposed for, that particular^fiscal year,. No
application can be approved for funding activities beyond,a single
fiscal year.
Any state interested in adopting a multi-year work plan for a
compliance program will need to disciiss, .this option -. with their
RegionalSProject Officer to determine if this' is possible based'on\the
region's oversight and managerial system,;
The compliance monitoring cooperative;agreements address:
o Asbestos, including Asbestos Ban and Phase out
a
o PCB's
o hexavalent chromium in comfort cooling towers.
B. Asbestos Compliance Monitoring Activities
1. Asbestos Compliance Monitoring Work Program
^ Each application for FY 92 asbestos compliance cooperative
agreement funds must include a proposed work program. The work
program documents the negotiated activities to be performed by the
state and EPA to accomplish both national and state asbestos
compliance priorities. Specifically, the asbestos compliance work
18
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
program must include a description of the work to be conducted, a
projection of outputs, and a schedule for accomplishment of the
proposed outputs and activities.
Related to the asbestos compliance work program is a requirement
in EPA's Compliance Monitoring Strategy for AHERA that all states
with Asbestos Compliance Cooperative Agreements develop an
AHERA Program Plan.
A number of the elements required in Program Plans are also
required in the cooperative agreement work program/applications. In
recognition of this, the cooperative agreement work program and
application may serve as the state's AHERA Program Plan as long
as each of the following items is specifically discussed and addressed:
o Specific priorities and objectives;
o A Neutral Administrative Inspection Scheme for targeting
routine inspections;
o Coordination with' the1 State "ageftcy &ai Is responsible "for
receiving AHERA management plans to identify the adverse
of "Other persons" conducting AHERA activities within the
state;
o A discussion of resources, training of state inspectors, how for-
cause inspections will be handled, and how the overall
AHERA compliance strategy will be implemented;
o A logging system for tracking and ranking tips/complaints and
referrals;
o Where inspections are conducted, a plan for coordinating
inspections .and referrals with the NESHAP program and/or
worker protection program, as applicable; and
o A schedule/time frames for accomplishments of proposed
outputs/activities.
19
-------
r
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
2. FY 92 National Asbestos Compliance Priority
For FY 92, the national priority for asbestos compliance activity will again
be enhancing state asbestos activities in a manner which facilitates
coordination of activities at the state level and decentralization of the
program to the states. States are strongly encouraged to initiate compliance
activities that will expand the scope of state enforcement capability beyond
that of conducting federal asbestos compliance inspections.
The regional offices have always been instrumental in facilitating
coordination for EPA at the regional and state level. In continuing with this
practice, in the course of initiating and discussing new asbestos enforcement
cooperative agreements with new recipients, the EPA regional offices must
first consider the delegated NESHAP agency within a state. Conducting all
federally funded asbestos compliance monitoring activities out of one state
agency would facilitate the integration and coordination of asbestos
compliance/enforcement activities at the state level.
If, after serious consideration, a determination is made that it is either not
appropriate or not feasible to fund the delegated NESHAP agency to
perform asbestos compliance monitoring in FY 92, then the regional office
may consider proposals from other interested state agencies. If the
delegated NESHAP agency is not the proposed recipient of a new asbestos
enforcement cooperative agreement, then the regional office should provide
information to headquarters to clarify why it was not feasible to enter into
a new asbestos enforcement cooperative agreement with the NESHAP
agency within the state.
3. FY 92 Asbestos Compliance Activities
The activities which can be funded under FY 92 Asbestos Compliance
Monitoring Cooperative Agreements fall into five categories: a) developing
state enforcement capability; b) conducting coordinated inspections; c)
asbestos ban and phase out; d) tracking asbestos compliance data; and
e) hexavalent chromium. The specific activities which may be funded under
FY 92 work programs and which should be accompanied by a schedule for
accomplishment are discussed below.
20
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
a. Developing State Enforcement Capability
The activities which can be funded under this category are outlined in the
Asbestos Decentralization section. These activities may be funded using
compliance monitoring cooperative agreement funds and/or enforcement
decentralization funds. These activities can be included under continuing or
new cooperative agreements,
b. Conducting Coordinated Inspections and Case Development
States which propose to conduct inspections under the cooperative
agreement must address each of the following items in (1) through (10) in
their work programs.
1. States must conduct coordinated asbestos compliance
inspections; that is, in the course of monitoring for compliance
with AHERA and/or worker protection requirements, as
applicable, state inspectors operating under enforcement
cooperative agreements should be able to identify violations of
. NESHAP requirements as well.
Coordinated inspections which result in the observation of
violations of NESHAP and/or worker protection requirements
should be referred to EPA and/or the appropriate delegated
state NESHAP agency, as applicable.
2. States must develop and implement a Neutral Administrative
Inspection Scheme (NAIS) or update their existing inspection
scheme to assist in targeting FY 92 inspections of "other
persons" and LEAs for_compliance with .AHERA and to
facilitate coordination of AHERA, NESHAP and/or worker
protection inspections. The NAIS should be submitted to the
regional office within the first month of the cooperative
agreement project period, or preferably with the application.
States should coordinate with the EPA regional office or the
state delegated NESHAP agency, as applicable, to: a) become
knowledgeable of and incorporate, as appropriate, the current
NESHAP inspection targeting strategy into their inspection
scheme; b) access the NESHAP data base to help ensure
maximum coverage of the regulated community; and ||
21
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT " FY92
incorporate information available in school management plans
regarding "other persons" operating in the state, (Each NAIS
should incorporate contractor information maintained by the
NESHAP program for targeting inspections and any; other
appropriate available information.)
The NAIS must include, as a minimum, a specific method or
criteria for selecting inspection targets and comply with EPA's
National Compliance Monitoring Strategies for AHERA and
worker protection. The review of the NESHAP inspection
strategy must be documented in the NAIS as well. Trie
purpose of this requirement is 'to ensure Chat interaction ;and
coordination is carried out during the planning stages of both
programs. (The regional office must submit a copy of the
NAIS to OCM, for informational purposes, by the end of the
first quarter of the project period.)
3. Statei must, coordinate with the designated, state, recipient of
AHERA management plans,to identify the uWverse: "of "other
persons" that cbiidudt ^b^^AHERA^rdated activities within
their , state, ;' Other -'Persbn's/^iiillMe'rany ^entity s ;,that Js
responsible ,f(?r^X^Rtracted ^ or -otherwise /hirKed)t,jnsp6ctM|
LEAV fpr^sbestos^CDnminfng; building material for AHERA
ImpectioX requirements; the 'development of AHERX^asbestos
management plans,' development; and ^implementatbri 'of any
removal/repair/ -l encapsulation^yor //enclosure ^ operations,
laboratories conducting analysis aad£t$ Bother AHERA related
function (ie., to l>e the LEA designated oerson, to conduct
operations and maintenance activities, e
The Identification of parties responsible fof conducting
AHERA activities within a particular state is intended to
. define inspection target areas. This information should be:to
a usable form and made readily available for EPA regional use
and shared with other states as' well/ ' The' goal of' this effort
is to define more precisely who 'is responsible' ifor conducting
such activities within each state, develop a compliance history
of those 'responsible parties, and share this; information to
more effectively target compliance inspections nationally.
22
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
4, For FY 92, states must establish/update and maintain a logging
system for tracking tips, complaints, and referrals from the
NESHAP program and the worker protection program. The
system must involve a ranking mechanism for responding to
tips, complaints, and referrals. Inspections in follow-up to tips,
complaints, and referrals (also known as for-cause inspections)
must be targeted using the ranking mechanism as appropriate.
Any installment of a new tracking system should follow
discussions with the state and regional NESHAP programs
and identify what programs are currently available and which
may be adopted to suit the needs of the state's programs.
5. States must include a projection for the number of asbestos
compliance inspections to be conducted each quarter. States
may conduct coordinated asbestos inspections, under their
cooperative agreement, in the following areas:
Inspections of LEAs and 'other persons' who perform
AHERA-related activities
implementation of management plans and compliance
with AHERA requirements and any additional state
requirements. (Resources should be directed toward
large contractors and situations where egregious
violations are likely to be found.)
;
Follow-up inspections to ensure that the
conditions/requirements of settlement agreements are
implemented. -
AHERA inspections in response to tips, complaints and
referrals.
EPA's Asbestos Worker Protection inspections. This
applies only to those states which are subject to EPA's
Asbestos Abatement Project's Rule found at CFR Part
763, Subpart G.
6. Quarterly inspection accomplishments must be reported.
Specifically, the following must be reported: 1) the number
23
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
and type of coordinated asbestos inspections (addressing
NESHAP and/or worker protection requirements); and 2) the
number of inspections which resulted in referral of violations
for AHERA, NESHAP and/or worker protection requirements,
as applicable, to EPA and/or the appropriate delegated state
NESHAP agency.
7. If-up-to-date cross training has not been completed by the
state's inspectors recently, the cross-training of inspectors
should be conducted to facilitate coordinated asbestos
compliance inspections. This would address, for example,
instructions on the NESHAP requirements and proper use of
the modified NESHAP checklist. Beyond that, under FY 92
enforcement cooperative agreements, inspectors with state
agencies other than the delegated NESHAP agency, who are
monitoring for any NESHAP requirements, will not enter the
active removal areas without first receiving the required health
and safety training. Inspectors who intend to enter the active
removal area during their coordinated asbestos inspections to
conduct monitoring of NESHAP requirements must first
complete the appropriate, health and safety training. This
level of training must be negotiated between EPA (both
headquarters and the regional office) and the state. The
extent of and mechanism for proposed cross training must be
addressed in the proposed work program.
8. States must comply with all EPA Compliance Monitoring
Strategies in effect for FY 92 which affect asbestos compliance
monitoring activities conducted by the states during the project
period.
9. In most cases, it is not expected that the inspector will need
to take physical samples. Schools are required to inspect,
sample, and analyze any asbestos containing material found in
their buildings using accredited persons and accredited
laboratories. However, if any samples are to be collected by
the state, provisions should be included for the analysis of
samples, by either an accredited state laboratory or a contract
laboratory. Anticipated turn around times for analyses should
be included.
24
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
10. For states that do not have their own enforcement capability
for either AHERA or the asbestos worker protection rule, or
which currently do not have the experience/ability to complete
case development activities, EPA headquarters encourages the
states to develop, update or implement a case development
program. This would include the actual drafting of Notices of
Noncompliance, civil complaints, and/or litigation reports for
submittal to the regional office for signature, as appropriate.
The extent of the case development work to be done by the
state must be explicitly addressed in the application.
[We (EPA regions, headquarters and states) need to work
together to assist states in moving beyond their current
enforcement-related capabilities as appropriate. EPA
headquarters would like to see every state which is conducting
inspections, also completing case development work. However,
based on the comments received on the draft guidance, we
recognize that this might not be possible in every case.
Nevertheless, we encourage the regions to work with the states
to have the states complete the case development work for the
actionable inspections conducted under the cooperative
agreement. We recognize that "learning" case development
may extend beyond one project period.]
c. Asbestos Ban and Phase Out
Portions of the asbestos ban and phase out rule are enforceable in FY 92.
The Compliance Monitoring Strategy, Penalty Policy, and Inspection
Guidance are expected to be released in final form during FY91. Once
these documents are released in final form, states should reevaluate their
targeting priorities and negotiate with their region on a set number of
inspections to address the enforceable components of the rule. —This
negotiation should be completed and activities begun to address the
enforceable components within two to three months from the release of the
final strategy documents.
d. Tracking Asbestos Compliance Data
If a state will also be conducting one of the aforementioned activities in FY
92, a state could computerize information with management plans for the
purpose of serving as a mechanism for: 1) the state to target inspections
25
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
when activity described in management plan is occurring; and 2) reminding
the school of the following management plan 'activities: operations &
maintenance schedule, periodic surveillance, inspection/reinspection activities,
and response action activities.
C. PCB Compliance Monitoring Work Program
The PCB compliance monitoring programs in FY92 focus on impectional activities
concentrating on disposal sites, the PCB Notification and Manifesting rule, new
application and revised record keeping requirements for commercial storage
facilities, and the Transformer Fires rule.
Each application for FY 92 PCB compliance cooperative agreement funds must
include a proposed work program. The work program documents the negotiated
activities to be performed by the state and EPA to accomplish both national and
state PCB priorities. Specifically, the PCB work program must include a
description of the work to be conducted, a projection of outputs, and a schedule
for accomplishment of the proposed outputs and activities.
As a minimum, each PCB compliance monitoring cooperative agreement work
program must address the activities listed below in section 1.
1. EPA's National PCB Compliance Monitoring Strategy refers to
submittal of PCB Program Plans. A number of the elements required
in Program Plans are also required in enforcement cooperative
agreement work programs/ applications. In recognition of this, the
cooperative agreement work program and application may serve as
the state's PCB Program Plan as long as each of the following items
are specifically addressed in the application, or supplemental
information is provided to ensure that all of the following items are
addressed:
o Specific priorities and objectives;
o (For those states where the region does not target the PCB
inspections) A Neutral Administrative Inspection Scheme
(NAIS) which should be updated for FY 92 to include the
PCB Notification and Manifesting (N&M) Rule and other
issues identified as of the 5/88 compliance monitoring strategy
for targeting routine inspections based on the national strategy,
which is in the process of being updated;
26
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
o A discussion of resources, training, and how for-cause
inspections will be handled, and how the overall PCB
compliance strategy will be implemented;
o A logging system for tracking and ranking tips/complaints and
referrals; and
o Schedule/time frames for establishments of proposed
outputs/activities.
2. The state will develop and use for FY 92 a NAIS, which includes a
specific method or criteria for selecting FY92 inspection targets and
for priority-setting based on: 1) the Agency's revised PCB Compliance
Monitoring Strategy which should be completed by June 1991; and 2)
the identification of any serious environmental or human health risks
from PCBs in the state. The regions should review the state's
inspection scheme and ensure that it complies with the National PCB
Compliance Monitoring Strategy.
The region should ensure that federal facilities, where applicable, are
addressed within the state.
The NAIS should be submitted to the regional office within the first
month of the cooperative agreement project period, preferably with
the application. (This can be submitted as a separate document or
as a distinct section of the application.)
3. The state should establish/update for FY 92 and maintain a logging
system for tracking tips and complaints. .The state should develop.a.
ranking mechanism for responding to tips and complaints.
Inspections are to be targeted using -the ranking mechanism as
appropriate.
4. A projection should be included for the number of PCB compliance
inspections to be conducted each quarter in each of the twelve
standard categories of inspections. Related activities and milestones
to be accomplished should be identified in narrative form with
projected dates of accomplishment.
27
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
5. For states that currently do not have the experience/ability to
complete case development activities, EPA headquarters encourages
the states to develop, update or implement a case development
program. This would include the actual drafting of Notices of
Noncompliance, civil complaints, and/or litigation reports for signature
by the regional office as appropriate. The extent of the case
development work to be done by the state must be explicitly
addressed in the application.
[We (EPA regions, headquarters and states) need to work together
to assist states in moving beyond their current enforcement-related
capabilities as appropriate. EPA headquarters would like to see
every state which is conducting inspections, also completing case
development work. However, based on the comments received on
the draft guidance, we recognize that this might not be possible in
every case. Nevertheless, we encourage the regions to work with the
states to have them complete the case development work for the
actionable inspections conducted under the cooperative agreement.
We recognize that "learning" case development may extend beyond
one project period.]
6. Developing State PCB Enforcement Capability
These activities may be supported with compliance monitoring cooperative
agreement funds and/or enforcement decentralization funds. These activities
can be included under continuing or new cooperative agreements.
Descriptions of these activities can be found in the activities section of the
OCM PCB Enforcement Decentralization section beginning on page 38.
D. Work Program Activities Applicable to Both Asbestos and PCB Agreements
Each of the TSCA cooperative agreement work programs involving inspections
and/or sample collections must address the activities under items #1-2. All work
programs must address items #3-6 in this section, as appropriate.
1. Quality Assurance
Applicants which are responsible for analytical activities under their
compliance cooperative agreements must establish and implement the quality
assurance practices described below.
28
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
All cooperative agreements involving environmentally related measurements
or data generation are required by the EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 31.45)
to develop and implement quality assurance practices consisting of policies,
procedures, specifications, standards and documentation sufficient to produce
data of quality adequate to meet project objectives and to minimize loss of
data due to out-of-control conditions or malfunctions.
a. Quality Assurance Project Plans
For TSCA Enforcement Cooperative Agreements, a Quality
Assurance Plan is required for sampling/analytical activities conducted
under the agreement. Sampling activities are not allowed until an
EPA-approved Quality Assurance Plan is in place. The EPA Quality
Assurance Management Staff (QAMS) recommends that Quality
Assurance (QA) Project Plans, rather than QA Program Plans, be
developed for TSCA Enforcement Cooperative Agreements.
Generally, the distinction between these two types of plans is that a
QA program plan refers to an overall managerial accounting of
responsibilities while a QA project plan specifically details the
protocol of sample handling with regard to a particular program. A
model Project Plan for PCB sampling activities has been included as
exhibit I.
QAMS has issued a document titled, "Interim Guidelines and
Specifications for preparing Quality Assurance Project Plans" (QAMS
-005/80, December 29, 1980) to assist applicants in complying with the
quality assurance requirements. Copies of the document referenced
above may be obtained from the regional office which is responsible
for approval of the Quality Assurance Plan. In addition, NEIC has
drafted a model project plan for PCB analytical sampling and
activities which may also be adapted to address asbestos sampling
analyses, if necessary. The states may use these guidelines or develop
their own.
For continuing cooperative agreements, applicants conducting
sampling/analytical activities under the agreement must have in place
a current approved QA Project Plan. If a Quality Assurance Project
Plan submitted in a previous year continues to reflect the sampling
and analytical activities proposed for the current year, reference to
the approved plan on file in the EPA regional office will suffice. Any
significant changes in content (including signatories), however, will
29
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
require submittal of updated pages or the entire plan, as appropriate,
with their cooperative agreement application.
New applicants, which will conduct sampling/analytical activities under
their FY 92 enforcement cooperative agreement must submit their
Quality Assurance Project Plans for approval by the regional office
and implement these plans prior to conducting sampling activities
under the grant. Sampling activities may not be allowed until an
EPA-approved Quality Assurance Plan is in place. A schedule for
submittal and implementation of the QA Plan must be included in
the FY 92 cooperative agreement as agreed upon between the
applicant and EPA. EPA headquarters recommends that new
applicants implement their approved QA Project Plans within three
months of the start of the project period.
With regard to hexavalent chromium and the proposed work to be
conducted, a separate/distinct Quality Assurance Project Plan
addressing this chemical does not need to be submitted as long as the
state has an approved PCB or asbestos quality assurance project plan
in place. - ^^
9
b. , Analytical Methods
Toxic substance related enforcement samples collected for compliance
purposes shall be analyzed by the applicant's laboratory, or other
laboratory specified in the agreement, using the EPA or other
standard referenced methodology; to the degree possible. Available
methodology can be provided by 'NEIC upon request.
All routinely used in-house or other non-standard methods will be
appropriately validated and documented by the laboratory. Standard
quality control procedures will be used for all official sample analyses
as described in the Quality Assurance Project Plan.
c. Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
States will develop and document standard operating procedures
(SOPs) to cover day-to-day laboratory and field operations. These
SOPs should cover at a minimum: (1) sample collection, receipt,
custody and storage; (2) sample analysis; (3) data review and
evaluation; (4) instrumentation; (5) reagents, solvents and glassware;
30
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
(6) reference standards; (7) routine quality control; and (8) training
plans. States which have fully addressed standard operating
procedures for all of these elements in their Quality Assurance Plan
are not required to submit these SOPs as a separate document.
Guidance is available from NEIC on development of such SOPs.
d. Check Sample Program
Each applicant conducting PCB sampling activities shall participate in
the EPA's NEIC PCB Check Sample Program. Under this program,
NEIC submits toxic substance samples to applicants' laboratories for
analysis.
The applicant must submit a report indicating the methodology used,
the results of the analysis, the accuracy of their analysis and the
reliability of the methodology selected. If a state fails to obtain the
correct results, EPA will assess the problem, provide assistance to the
applicant's laboratory as appropriate and/or conduct other follow-up
activities. NEIC currently notifies each participating laboratory and
appropriate regional office of the check sample results. If not
otherwise provided, the regional office should provide a copy of these
results to each State Lead Agency in their region which utilizes that
particular laboratory for PCB sample analysis.
(Check samples for bulk asbestos are not available from NEIC.
Laboratories performing bulk asbestos analyses may make separate
arrangements with the regional office to participate in other available
asbestos check sample programs. It is recommended that applicants
conducting bulk analysis for asbestos participate in the National
Institute of Standard Technology's .(NJST) National Voluntary
Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP). As previously
-. .,. _ discussed, in most cases, -it-is not expected -that the -inspector .will
need to take physical samples.)
e. Back-up Analyses
The applicant can request back-up analyses for PCB or bulk asbestos
from NEIC or other NEIC recommended laboratories, if necessary
or requested by the region. Examples where backup analysis may be
requested are:
31
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
o A state which is unsure of the results of an analysis may
request an impartial second analysis before initiating an
enforcement action;
o A state requests that EPA take the enforcement action and
EPA desires to verify the state's analysis;
o A reference analysis is required due to conflicting results
between the state and the regulated party.
Back-up analyses will be arranged between the EPA Regional
PCB Program Office and the NEIC Pesticides and Toxic
Substances Branch Chief.
f. Training of Analytical Chemists
EPA will provide training of the state inspectors and analytical
chemists, as necessary. The states must participate in EPA
workshops, seminars and meetings on instrumentation, methodology
and quality assurance.
g. On-Site Laboratory Visits
Personnel from EPA will also be available to review state laboratory
sampling capability and procedures, and to discuss areas needing
improvement. Requests for these visits, which will usually be made
by representatives from NEIC, may be initiated by the state or the
EPA regional office, and will be arranged by the regional office. All
on-site visits will be conducted at times that are mutually agreeable
to both the state and EPA. A formal report of findings and
recommendations will be prepared by EPA for the state upon
completion of the on-site visit.
2. Field Investigations and Sampling Procedures
Included in the Quality Assurance Project Plan are SOPs for both collection
of samples in the field as well as the analysis of samples at the designated
state or contract laboratory. States should include statements similar to the
ones below, indicating the standard procedures to be followed when
conducting investigations and collecting samples if these activities are
32
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
conducted under the cooperative agreement. More detailed SOPs should
follow such statements.
All inspections, investigations and sample collections are to be performed
under the authority of the TSCA, Inspectors Manual. To assure sample
integrity, EPA's chain-of-custody procedures shall be adopted during
sampling, handling, shipping, storage and analysis of samples collected under
federal law.
During all inspections, investigations and sample collections performed under
the authority of State law, state procedures and forms should be used.
During sampling, handling, shipping, storage and analysis of samples
collected under state law, proper chain-of-custody procedures must be
adopted to assure sample integrity. An accurate written record must be
maintained to trace the possession of each sample from the moment of
collection through its introduction into evidence.
3. State Records and Reports
Where applicable, as stated below, states must commit to the following
reporting requirements.
4. Inspection and Analytical Reports
Dependent on the extent of the case development activity conducted by a
state and agreed upon under the agreement, all state reports for inspections
conducted under authority of TSCA shall be submitted to the Regional
Program Office within 30 days from the date of inspection. When samples
have been collected and analysis is involved, the inspectional and analytical
reports shall be submitted within 60 days from the date of inspection. If
case development is done by the state, time frames for completing case
development should not exceed 120 days. ----.--=-=-, ~-
All inspectional reports and supporting documents shall be reviewed by a
designated State Quality Control Officer, to assure that the report format
and content is consistent with EPA standards, and that all suspected
violations are properly documented, prior to submitting them to the EPA
regional office for case review and development.
33
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
5. Quarterly Reports
States (conducting inspections) must commit to prepare and submit to the
regional office quarterly reports of completed compliance inspections (per
type of inspection) within 30 work days after the quarter. Quarterly reports
are due to the Regional Program Office by January 30, April 30, July 30
and October 30 of each year. These dates are based on programs with
project periods which coincide with the FFY. Those programs that operated
on a State FY or other should report on the same quarterly schedule
(regardless of FY designation).
The quarterly reports should also contain a narrative statement which
describes any program highlights and any problem areas encountered during
the reporting period. Accomplishments not easily tabulated should also be
reported in narrative form. Any deviation from the reporting schedule must
be negotiated and approved by the Regional Program Office. Infrequent
deviations should be explained in the narrative portion of the, quarterly
report. Those deviations, that are anticipated to carry through the program,
should be submitted for approval within the application.
Significant problems and quarterly reports indicating a state is significantly
behind schedule should be investigated by the Regional Project Officer and
discussed with the State. OCM should also be apprised of such situations.
6. End-of-Project Reports
At the end of the project period, states shall prepare a report which
evaluates the performance of the program. The report would normally be
prepared in conjunction with the fourth quarter report. This report shall
consider: 1) the short-term value to the state by having participated in the
program; 2) the primary contributions which the state feels it has made to
the overall cooperative TSCA enforcement effort; 3) the desirability of
continuing the program in subsequent years; and 4) any suggested changes
in the grant program which would make it more valuable to both the state
and national effort. The report should also compare the results with the
objectives discussed in the work program and discuss any variations.
7. Unresolved Problems
The cooperative agreement work program must address any unresolved
problem areas identified in mid-year and end-of-year evaluations for current
34
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
project periods and indicate how the state and/or EPA regional office plans
to address the problem areas. Follow-up is essential here.
8. Accountability Under the Cooperative Agreement
In the work program, the states must commit to expend and account for
funds awarded in accordance with state laws and procedures for expending
and accounting for its own funds.
State expenditures under the agreement must follow cost categories (i.e.,
budget line item or program elements) established in the original agreement.
Deviations may be made by the state from the proposed budget as long as
they are in accordance with federal regulations and the cost principles
contained in OMB Circular A-87.
(While the EPA Project Officer is not responsible for reviewing state
accounting procedures, it is recommended that the Regional Project Officer
or Regional Manager be aware of the total dollar amount expended on a
semi-annual basis. This level of awareness should not prove to be time
consuming, yet the information gained may help identify any funding
problems.
9. EPA Support to States
The cooperative agreement work program should describe the types of
support (training, technical, technical assistance,contractor assistance, etc.)
that the state expects EPA to provide to assist the state in meeting its
commitments.
Training under the TSCA compliance program will be conducted by the
EPA and NEIC. Training will consist of instruction in investigational and
sample collection techniques; sample analysis'and case preparation/ -""—~
The cooperative agreement should describe any negotiated agreement
between the state and EPA for the handling of referrals and requests for
information from the state. The agreement should include any time frames
that are mutually agreeable to the State and EPA.
Travel costs associated with training are eligible for funding under the
cooperative agreement. All states should include the cost of attending the
35
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
E.
annual EPA/State TSCA Compliance Conference as a budget item in their
application for a cooperative agreement.
10. National Guidelines on Costs and Time Factors for Conducting
Certain Activities
National guidelines have been developed on costs and time factors
associated with certain activities which may be conducted under enforcement
agreements. (The types of activities which may be funded under
enforcement agreements are discussed in preceding sections. It was not
feasible or appropriate to develop national guidelines on every activity which
may be funded.) These guidelines are to be used as one tool in evaluating
a state's proposed activities and funding request and appears as exhibit II.
HEXAVALENT CHROMIUM (Cr+6) CHEMICALS IN COMFORT
COOLING TOWERS ACTIVITIES
On January 3, 1990, the EPA published the Final rule which prohibits the use of
hexavalent chromium based water treatment chemicals in comfort cooling towers
(CCTs) and the distribution in commerce of such chemicals for use in CCTs.
Effective dates of the final rule are summarized below:
o Effective February 20, 1990, all persons;are prohibited from distributing in
commerce hexavalent chromium based water treatment chemical for use in
CCTs;
o Effective May 18, 1990, all persons are prohibited from commercial use of
hexavalent chromium-based water treatment chemicals in comfort cooling
towers;
Other requirements include specific labeling and record keeping for hexavalent
chromium based water treatment chemicals sold for use in all cooling systems, even
those system not covered by the rule, (i.e., industrial cooling towers and closed
cooling systems). The rule also requires hexavalent chromium distributors to report
(register) to the Agency and also triggers export notification under section 12 of
TSCA.
The final compliance monitoring strategy for the rule prohibiting hexavalent
chromium use in comfort cooling towers was issued by OCM on February 16, 1990
and appears as exhibit III. The final inspecdoa guidance was seat to Regional
36
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT . FY92
Division Directors and Regional Pesticide and Toxic Substances Branch, Chiefs, on
October 12» 1990. A region may elect to have, their state,recipients adopt a
negotiated number of Inspections to assist them, in completing their regional
mspectional commitment
Release of the final Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) is expected in FFY 92.
Inspection Activities
The compliance program for hexavalent chromium will not be large enough to
warrant a separate cooperative agreement, but inspections in this area may.be
included in PCB or asbestos compliance monitoring cooperative agreements as
appropriate. Inspection activities may be conducted in conjunction with PCB or
asbestos inspections or conducted separately. Inspection activity could include the
following:
o Visiting distributors of water treatment chemicals for cooling towers to
determine whether hexavalent chromium products are properly labeled and
being distributed only in accordance with the rule;
o Visiting the owners of Comfort Cooling Towers to ensure that hexavalent
chromium products are not being used in violation of the rule.
Inspections should be conducted taking into account the National Compliance
Monitoring Strategy issued in February. States proposing to conduct inspections
for hexavalent chromium should include in their application: 1) a proposed number
of inspections to be conducted; 2) a discussion of whether compliance monitoring
for hexavalent chromium is expected to be conducted in conjunction with state's
compliance monitoring activities for PCBs and/or asbestos requirements, or as
separate inspections; and 3) a commitment to quarterly reporting on.inspection
commitments.
F. DECENTRALIZATION COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
1. FUNDING
We are anticipating appropriations for FY92 to remain at FY 91 levels for
cooperative agreements. For planning purposes, assume FY92
decentralization funding levels to be those quoted in the FY91 guidance.
These can be found on page 16 of this document.
37
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
Decentralization funds can be used for core/compliance monitoring
cooperative agreements if the proposed activities include case development
or one or more of the other decentralization activities discussed in the
decentralization activity section which follows. (The regions need to be able
to account for how all of their decentralization funds were used.)
Compliance monitoring funds can be used for any of the decentralization
activities listed below.
2. Schedule for Submittal of Applications
a. Separate Enforcement Decentralization Proposals
If a state is submitting a proposal for enforcement decentralization
activities, which are distinct from the compliance monitoring activities,
the state has the option to submit a separate application package,
and the following dates apply.
(For example, if a state conducting inspections proposes to develop
a case development program, it seems appropriate and reasonable
for a state to include that proposal, if possible, along with their
"inspectional application." However, if a state is planning to work on
state enabling legislation, for example, they may need additional time
to develop their application. The following deadlines apply when it
is appropriate for a separate enforcement decentralization application
to be submitted. These are identical to those indicated in part II.
"OTS Assistance Program".)
1. On or before December 6, 1991, enforcement
decentralization applications will be submitted from the states
to the EPA Regional Toxic Substances Branches.
2. On or before January 3, 1992, the regions submit copies of
the applications with their comments to the Chief of OCM's
Grants and Evaluation Branch.
3. On or before January 31, 1992, OCM, in consultation with
regional and other HQ representatives provides comments, if
any, on the applications submitted.
4. The regions and states follow-up on comments provided
and consult with HO as requested or necessary.
38
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
5. By the end of February, 1992, all awards will be made and
work initiated under the cooperative agreements. (If a region
and state completes steps 1 through 4 prior to the stated time
frames, the awards can be made earlier. Jf there are delays^
awards will be made" at completion "of step 4, but no later tMn
April'!)
b. Consolidated OTS/OCM Cooperative Agreements
If a state wishes to submit consolidated TSCA applications
faddressing both OTS and OCM funds), they may do so, as long as
the region supports this approach. However, within this consolidated
application, separate standard budget sheets (included in the
cooperative agreement application package) addressing the proposed
expenditure of program versus enforcement funds need to be
follow the schedule described
Decentralization Proposals** This schedule is identical to the OTS
State Enhancement application submittal schedule found on page 2.
3. Multi«Year Project Periods (This section applied to OCM
applicants only,)
The availability of monies contained 'within this guidance document are
contirigerit on the passage of the President's budget-annaaD^ Taere & *M>
^itamty that monies will be appropriate^ beyoad ih£ year "fb which fhe;y &re
approveit It is within TSCA's statutory' authority to approve a^work plan
beyond Joe single fiscal year for which it is submitted. ;However, any state
program adopting a multi-year program plan would be* required to submit
amended elements each fiscal year. These amended elements would discuss
iall activities pertaining to that partiefcJar' yMr'"atid'Wdget"infor|natitin
associated with those proposed activities^ Approval of a, budget beyond a
single fiscal year is not possible. The Application for Federal Assistance
Form (OMB Approval No* 0348-0043) must only'relate to those activities
that are proposed for that particular fiscal year/ No application can,be
approved for funding activities beyond a single^ fiscal year.
Any state interested in adopting a multi-year work plan wilFneed/to discuss
this option with their Regional Project Officer to determine a: this,is possible
based on the region's oversight and managerial system.;
39
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT - FY92
4. Enforcement Decentralization Activities
a. Asbestos Enforcement
Broadening state control of their TSCA programs is a national
priority, for FY" 92, > Given, the range of state program status
nationally^ those activities offered in FY 9X;will again bfe eligible for
funding :m^FY 92, We feel these'activities offer ktate,programs
support that is m line With tne direction oCihe overall TSCA
program, while also providing enough flejtibi&ytojr states'to design
suitable activities to nmtch their own, needs.
Examples of the types of activities which can be funded with
decentralization or compliance monitoring funds are as follows:
1. Development and submittal of a plan, and schedule for
the state's assumption of additional asbestos program
and enforcement responsibilities. The goal and point
of the plan should be for the state to assume the
primary responsibility for and control of a
comprehensive asbestos program at the state level, in
terms of the management, enforcement and financial
responsibilities associated with the program. The
proposed annual costs to the state and federal
government associated with different activities in the
schedule should be included as well, keeping in mind
the goal of the state assuming responsibility for the
program. The benefit of the plan would be that it
would document for the state, and outline for EPA, the
state's goals and intentions in terms of developing,
implementing and enforcing a comprehensive state
program.
*
[If a state proposes to complete a Comprehensive State
Asbestos Management Plan (CSAMP) discussed in the OTS
program cooperative agreement section, the above would be
written as part of the CSAMP.]
2. Planning, drafting, promotion and/or implementation of
state enabling enforcement legislation and associated
40
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
regulations that are at least as stringent as AHERA and
which would empower states to conduct AHERA
inspections and issue enforcement actions under state
authority.
Such an activity would help a state to assume further
control and direction of the enforcement-related
activities being conducted within the state, as opposed
to relying solely on federal authorities and actions within
their state. Such an activity might also enhance the
public's attitude toward and acknowledgement of a
state's own efforts to protect their citizens from
potential toxics-related hazards.
The aforementioned activity would be given priority
attention in terms of funding.
3. Development of a state mechanism that would return
penalties obtained through enforcement actions, taken
under state authority, to the state asbestos program for
upgrading its program as it continues to address the
needs within that particular state.
4. Development of compliance monitoring strategies,
enforcement response policies and/or SOPs for
implementing an administrative or criminal enforcement
program in states which are in the process of developing
enforcement authority. (Only states which are in this
situation or which already have enforcement authority
-would be in need of such documents, if they do not
already exist.)
5. Planning, development and implementation of a state
coordinated asbestos inspection program. Here, we're
referring to states which have limited or no experience
completing inspections and which need to plan for their
own coordinated inspection program and gain
41
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
experience in implementing it. The goal is not to
simply "buy more inspections" for the short term but to
build the capability within the states for the longer term
for them to conduct inspections and issue enforcement
actions under state authority.
A state which decided to develop a program of this sort
would need to take into account, from the start, the
requirement for coordinated asbestos/NESHAP
inspections, and the asbestos ban and phase out
rule. (We encourage the program design to include case
development activities, that is, if a state develops an
inspection program, it is recommended that they also
build a case development program.)
Also, provisions for the transfer of training information
to new employees would need to be included in the
development of new programs. This requirement is
being included to avoid the situation in the future where
a state loses an inspector, and along with that person,
goes the state's compliance monitoring capabilities.
There needs to be a mechanism in place for training
new employees which can be utilized even if an
experienced inspector leaves the state program.
6. Development and implementation of a case
development program
»
For states that do not have their own enforcement
capability for either AHERA or the asbestos worker
protection rule, or which currently do not have the
experience/ability to complete case development
activities, EPA headquarters encourages the states to
develop, update or implement a case development
program. This would include the actual drafting of
Notices of Noncompliance, civil complaints, and/or
litigation reports for submittal to the regional office for
signature, as appropriate.
[We (EPA regions, headquarters and states) need to work
together to assist states in moving beyond their current
42
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
enforcement-related capabilities as appropriate. EPA
headquarters would like to see every state which is conducting
inspections, also completing case development work. However,
based on comments received for the regions and the states, we
realize that not all state programs are at the point of adopting
-full case development activities. Nevertheless, we encourage
the regions to work with the states to have them complete
the case development work for the actionable inspections
conducted under the cooperative agreement. We recognize
that "learning" case development may extend beyond one
project period.]
7. If the region is supportive of this approach and feels it
would be effective, a State which has been successful in
implementing a case development program, issuing
enforcement actions, and/or developing and
implementing state enabling legislation for enforcement
may propose to act as a "trainer/advisor" for nearby
states. These states would need to be entering into an
enforcement cooperative agreement with EPA for
development of one of these related activities.
8. Any other innovative activities which would assist the
States in developing or enhancing their own
enforcement capabilities, authorities and infrastructures.
States are in different phases/stages of developing their
enforcement capabilities. Therefore, state-specific
innovative activities can be proposed, and are
encouraged.
9. Asbestos Ban and Phase Out
Portions of the asbestos ban and phase out rule are
enforceable in FY 92. The Compliance Monitoring
Strategy, Penalty Policy, and Inspection Guidance are
under development. These documents are expected to
be released in final form by late Spring of 1991. Given
that this rule falls under TSCA section 6, activities
designed to monitor compliance with this rule may also
be funded under FY 92 PCB compliance monitoring
cooperative agreements. Dependent on the regiohal
43
.
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
compliance strategy, once these documents are released
in final form, states may wish to reevaluate their
targeting priorities and negotiate with their region on a
set number of inspections to address the enforceable
components of the rule. This negotiation should be
completed and activities begun to address the
enforceable components within two to three months
from the release of the final strategy documents.
b. PCS Enforcement Decentralization
Examples of the types of activities which could be funded are as
follows:
1. Development of State enabling legislation and/or
regulations.
The planning, drafting, promotion and/or implementation of
state enabling legislation and regulations for program and
enforcement activities is a priority activity which the Agency
encourages and supports. ;..
In the case of PCBs, the development of state legislation
would need to focus on disposal activities only, including the
provisions of the notification and manifesting (N&M) final rule,
unless the state were willing to develop legislation identical to
EPA's requirements or meet the exemptions in TSCA section
18.
Such an activity would help a state to assume further control
and direction of the enforcement-related activities being
conducted within the state, as opposed to relying solely on
federal authorities and actions within their state. Such an
activity might also enhance the public's attitude toward and
acknowledgement of a state's own efforts to protect their
citizens from potential toxics related hazards.
The aforementioned activity would be given priority attention
in terms of funding.
44
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
2. Development of a comprehensive state PCB N&M program.
The next activity would apply to states which already had a
PCB inspection program in place, or were preparing to
develop one in FY 92. This activity-is designed to provide new
states with thfe* opportunity to eiiter Into th» ^cooperative
agreement program .All; PCB programs' Should adopt
Notification and Manifesting requirements in their compliance
monitoring activities. In these cases, the development of a
comprehensive state PCB N&M program could be another
option for funding. This would allow the State to take an
active lead in pursuing comprehensive compliance monitoring
activities focussing on the PCB notification and manifesting
rule. The N&M rule requires the identification of new PCB
waste handlers, new commercial storers, as well as the
requirement that PCB waste be manifested from cradle to
grave. The following are the activities which such a program
would include at a minimum:
o Inspector training to address the new requirements
under the rule, and completion of a number of training
inspections in this new area. (The state would then be
expected to incorporate the provisions of the N&M rule
into their routine program of comprehensive PCB
inspections);
o Creation of data bases to store and track enforcement
information on commercial storers, notifiers, generators
of manifest, etc.;
o Statewide tracking of PCB users, notifiers, brokers,
storers, submitters of manifest discrepancy reports, and
unmanifested waste reports. Much of this information
is useful for targeting inspections at new and previously
known facilities.
We also encourage training in the development of case work
and completion of case work for every actionable inspection.
3. Development of compliance monitoring strategies, enforcement
response policies and/or SOPs for implementing an
45
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
administrative or criminal enforcement program in States which
are in the process of developing enforcement authority. (Only
states which are in this situation or which already have
enforcement authority would be in need of such documents.)
4. Planning and development of a State PCB inspection program.
Here, we're referring to states which have limited or no experience
completing inspections and which need to plan for their own
inspection program and gain experience in implementing it. The goal
is not to simply "buy more inspections" for the short term but to build
the capability within the states for the longer term for them to
conduct inspections and issue enforcement actions under state
authority.
A state which decided to develop a program of this sort would need
to take into account, from the start, the PCB notification and
manifesting (N&M) rule. (We encourage the program design to
include case development activities, that is, if a state develops an
inspection program, it is recommended that they also build a case
development program.)
Also, provisions for the transfer of training information to new
employees would need to be included in the development of new
programs.
This requirement is being included to avoid the situation in the future
where a state loses an inspector, and along with that person, goes the
state's compliance monitoring capabilities. There needs to be a
mechanism in place for training new employees which can be utilized
even if an experienced inspector leaves the state program.
•
5. Development and implementation of a case development
program.
For states which currently do not have the experience/ability to
complete case development activities, EPA headquarters encourages
the states to develop, update or implement a case development
program. This would include the actual drafting of Notices of
46
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
Noncompliance, civil complaints, and/or litigation reports for submittal
to the regional office for signature, as appropriate.
[We (EPA regions, headquarters and states) need to work together
to assist states in moving beyond their current enforcement-related
capabilities as appropriate. EPA headquarters would like to see
every state which is conducting inspections, also completing case
development work. However, based on the comments received on
the draft guidance, we recognize that this might not be possible in
every case. Nevertheless, we encourage the regions to work with the
states to have them complete the case development work for the
actionable inspections conducted under the cooperative agreement.
We recognize that "learning" case development may extend beyond
one project period.]
6. Development of a state mechanism that would return penalties
obtained through enforcement actions, taken under state
authority, to the State PCS program for upgrading its program
as it continues to address the needs within that particular state.
7. If the region is supportive of this approach and feels it would
be effective, a state which has been successful in implementing
a case development program, issuing enforcement actions,
and/or developing and implementing state enabling legislation
for enforcement may propose to act as a "trainer/advisor" for
nearby states. These states would need to be entering into an
enforcement cooperative agreement with EPA for development
of one of these or related activities.
8. Any other innovative activities which would assist the states in
developing or enhancing their own enforcement capabilities,
* authorities and infrastructures. Different states are in different"
phases/stages or development of enforcement capabilities.
Therefore, state-specific innovative activities can be proposed.
47
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
G. MULTI-MEDIA COMPLIANCE MONITORING COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS
1. FUNDING
Depending on the amount appropriated for FY 92 and the content and
proposed costs of the proposals received, it may be feasible to fund more
than two projects. The proposed FY 92 federal funding level for a single
project cannot exceed $200,000.
2. SCHEDULE
Three-to-six page proposals must be submitted to the appropriate Regional
Toxics Branch £nd the Regional Grants' Management ,vQfQce by COB
October 1, 1991. The regional office will forward a copy of the proposal to
OCM's Grants and Evaluation Branch by October 15, 1991, along with any
comments they have on the proposal(s). The proposals will be reviewed by
a panel, made up of regional and headquarter representatives. The state
contacts for the selected projects will be notified and asked to submit a
complete cooperative agreement application package along with any
additional information requested by the panel.
The proposals must address at a minimum: 1) statement of the
environmental problem; 2) background information on the responsibilities of
the state agency and past experience dealing with toxics issues using a multi-
media approach; 3) description of the proposed multi-media project,
objectives and end-products; 4) discussion of the enforcement component of
the project; 5) the proposed budget; 6) schedule of activities (the proposed
project to be completed under the agreement must be concluded by the end
of FY 93 at the latest); and 7) discussion of how, if at all, the project will
continue within the state after the proposed project period of the
cooperative agreement.
3. Background on OCM Multi-Media State Toxics Projects
The projects to be funded should assist states in developing continuing
programs which will address toxics issues in a holistic and comprehensive
manner. This could include, for example, multi-media risk assessments
addressing the impact of a toxic substance on air, water, soil and human
health, and dealing with a toxic issue across multi-media regulatory lines,
such as TSCA, NESHAP, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
48
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT . FY92
(RCRA) and other pertinent regulatory provisions at the state and federal
level.
A commitment to compliance monitoring or enforcement related activities
would need to be a part of the proposed project either as a component of
the immediate project, or as the second stage or follow-up to the immediate
project. This is important given that the funds to support the multi-media
state toxics projects will be a part of the enforcement monies included in
the President's FY 92 budget.
To illustrate the types of projects which would be acceptable for funding
consideration, it seemed appropriate to provide a couple of examples of
multi-media state toxics projects. These are only provided as illustrations,
and should not inhibit states from proposing other multi-media toxics
programs designed to meet the needs of a particular state.
4. Examples of Multi-Media Projects ;
The following are three examples of the types of state multi-media toxics
projects which would be eligible for funding. These descriptions were based,
in part, on projects under development in FY 91 and were used as examples
in the FY 91 guidance. Pie two. multimedia application .that were seated
in FY91 are in 'final form and, will be:,drcu1aie4* tcs Regional ^ Division
pirectors and Toxic Substances and Pesticides Branch. Chiefs. These may
be of assistance in presenting this farlding option to your states.
a. The focus of one project would be to obtain a reduction of
risk from toxic chemicals emitted from industrial sources in a
particular state, using multi-media risk assessments and multi-
media compliance investigations.- -This type of project would
have two components.
The first component would include a review of selected sources
identified in the recently released EPA Air Toxics Exposure and Risk
Information System (ATERIS) to explore: 1) the possibility of
reducing toxic emissions; 2) ensuring compliance with all regulatory
provisions; and 3) conducting a complete multi-media risk assessment.
Target facilities for this initial group would be those with a specified
individual risk, as indicated on the revised ATERIS list, of which
there are five in the state. A key feature of the project's first phase
49
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
would be a meeting between the state officials and CEOs of the
target facilities to discuss measures to reduce the risk identified by
the ATERIS data and state analysis of TRI data. Multi-media
inspections and analyses would also be conducted to insure facility
compliance with the agreed-upon measures and assess other media
risk problems, if any, at the five target facilities. Enforcement actions
would be drafted as appropriate.
The second component direct attention to a specific geographic area
known for its high concentration of industrial sources emitting toxic
chemicals. This second stage of the project would include a multi-
media compliance investigation and subsequent multi-media risk
assessment of selected sources in the target area to explore the
potential for risk reduction. The term multi-media in this case
includes at a minimum the state air, water, hazardous waste,
superfund, toxic substances, wetlands, groundwater, underground
injection, underground storage tank and pesticides programs.
Personnel from all appropriate offices within the state would be.
participating in this project.
In this phase a risk screening would be performed of a larger number
of facilities under SARA section 313. This would consider the
relative toxicities of the chemical emissions as well as the quantity of
emissions. A number of facilities would be chosen for multi-media
investigations based on this screening, compliance history review and
other data available to the state.
Both stages of the project would focus on reductions of toxic
chemical emissions which have exhibited a demonstrable or
predictable effect on public health and the environment and would
seek facility alterations through the following types of mechanisms:
o Formal Enforcement Actions - multi-media statutory
provisions would be utilized to achieve compliance with existing
provisions of regulations and permits. Negotiated settlements
could include reductions in unregulated emissions.
o Review of Existing Permits - to be considered by all media
where results of inspections reveal a need to revise existing
permits to address a problem which would not result in an
enforcement action.
50
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
0 Non-traditional Methods to Effect Emissions Reductions - this
could include such techniques as a meeting of selected facilities
to discuss voluntary plant-wide emission reductions. Another
possible technique would be to utilize existing authorities such
as the RCRA permit program or the Superfund program to
obtain reductions in unregulated air and water emissions.
o Use of Imminent and Substantial Endangerment Provisions of
the Various Media Regulatory Authorities ~ this might be
necessary for high risk facilities where there is an urgent need
for significant EPA or state action to reduce the risks to public
health and environment.
o Environmental Awards Program — initiate environmental
awards program for facilities which are in compliance with all
environmental regulations in an exemplary fashion. Consider
additional criteria for eligibility such as voluntary participation
by facilities in this pilot project to lower total emissions by at
least 90%.
o Encouraging Compliance — when facilities agree to voluntarily
exceed current regulatory requirements to lower emissions at
facilities, and/or implement pollution prevention measures
consider incentives such as decreasing surveillance and
requiring self auditing to encourage voluntary compliance.
Consider incentives for facilities to lower emissions of
unregulated chemicals that 'may be detected during multi-
media evaluations.
Multi-media inspections would be conducted along with multi-media
information requests for-data and waste management practices. An
important component of the pilot project would be to review the
potential for pollution prevention.
A significant element in support of this project would be integration
of data from all existing sources into one system, such as the
Geographic Information System (GIS). A GIS database would be
developed to support this project. The purpose of this GIS would be
to:
51
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FY92
o Spatially integrate compliance, release, ambient, and population
data;
o Conduct geographic analyses of the proximity of pollutant
sources to human populations and sensitive habitats;
o Provide a frame work for facility specific and area wide
characterization, and;
o Track and display the progress and results of the project.
The approach described above would be institutionalized and
expanded within the state.
The environmental results expected include reductions in the release
of toxic pollutants, resulting in reduced risks to human health and the
environment, and improved compliance with all environmental
regulations applicable to the facility.
b. Another project involves the development of toxics legislation
and regulations within the $tate which would require routine
multi-media risk assessments, identification of violations across
multi-media regulatory lines, and multi-media inspections and
enforcement actions. Following the development and passage
of the legislation and regulations, the second stage of the
project would be the pilot implementation of the regulations
prior to their effective date.
c. A third proposal could involve the development of a project
to deal with lead within the state, not only reducing further
additions of lead to the environment from smelting or mining,
, but also abatement of exposures to lead in place from past
paint in older housing, schools and other public buildings,
historical lead deposition in the vicinity of both operating and
closed major point source emitters, and lead concentrations in
old landfills and dumps. The project would include: 1)
identification and mapping of areas within the state with high
lead concentrations; 2) identification of sources of
contamination; 3) activities to encourage and impel the lead
smelting and battery manufacturing industries to monitor and
52
-------
TSCA COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT
FY92
report contamination in air, drinking and ground water, soil
and human lead contamination. Multi-media investigations
would be undertaken in the state, with resulting coordinated
regulatory proposals and/or enforcement actions using state or
federal regulatory tools.
I
53
-------
------- |