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 ------- ------- |