United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
SEPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9540.00-8
TITLE: Capability Assessments for RCRA Authorization
Program Revisions v
APPROVAL DATE: 4/8/87
EFFECTIVE DATE: 4/8/87
ORIGINATING OFFICE: osw
B FINAL
D DRAFT
CTATliO [ 1 A~ PendinB OMB approval
STATUS: B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
C- For review &/or comment
[ ] D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other documents): headquarters
1. State Capability Assessment Guidance (6/26/84)
2. Additional Guidance on RCRA State Capability Assessments
(12/27/84)
OS WE Ft OS WE Ft OSWER
'E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
oiciicS cnvironmeniai r roicciion Mycncy
Washington, DC 20460
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. .Directive Number
9540.00-8
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
Lillian Bagus
Mail Code
WH-563B
Office
OSW-PSPD-SPB
Telephone Code
FTS-322-2233
3. Title
Capability Assessment for RCRA Authorization Program Revisions
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
3SWER has refined the approach initially used to develop capability assessments to
ensure quality reviews of State hazardous waste programs for authorization. The
subject document provides guidance on this approach.
5. Keywords
Authorization/HSWA/Capability Assessments
oa. Does i nis uirective Supersede rrevious uirective(s) >.
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
No
No
Yes What directive (number, title)
Yes What directive (number, title)
7. Draft Level
A-SignedbyAA/DAA
B -- Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
D - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
Yes
X
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
Date
Date
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
uj^ 9540.00-8
^^ ''**
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTT :; ,.-, \G'-1NCY
' f WASHINGTON. O.C. 20150
APR 81967
_' V r 'r .' .
SOL:-:: //Airs -. :.) ;\v ;.-.: . :v RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Capability Assessments for RCRA Authorization
Program Revisions
'' t~ ' '2-~
' x-_ / -y&~.
FROM: . J. "Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator
Solid Waste and Emergency Response (WH-562B)
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
State performance and capability will continue to be important
considerations as we begin to make authorization decisions on State
program revisions for the HSWA requirements. Capability assessments
provide EPA with a continuing mechanism to identify areas of State
programs that warrant enhancement and to establish the EPA and
State actions necessary to strengthen the programs. This assessment
should tell us not only whether a State is effectively implementing
the base program but also how that State may implement additional
program areas. In general, States should demonstrate the ability
to capably implement the base RCRA program as well as the addi-
tional elements of HSWA for which they are seeking authorization.
The assessment should reflect an evaluation of the State's entire
authorized program, not just the activities funded by EPA. For
instance, an evaluation of a State's capability to implement an
adequate enforcement program is to be based on a review of
enforcement activities at all significant non-compliers.
A capability assessment must be prepared in connection with
an application for State authorization for HSWA provisions that
significantly impact the State's workload. This category includes
those applications covering all or most of the July 15, 1985,
codification rule provisions or any application that includes
corrective action. It would not include a State application that
addresses only the §3006(f) availability of information requirements
nor in most situations an application for additional waste listings.
It is difficult to develop a comprehensive list of those provisions
for which an assessment is or is not needed because some provisions
which do not warrant an assessment if applied for singly may need
an assessment if their combined workload is significant. As you
review your State authorization schedules, your staff should consult
-------
9540.00-8
-2-
with OSW/OWPE staff before determining that an assessment is not
needed.
OSWER has refined the approach initially used to develop
capability assessments to ensure quality reviews of State
hazardous waste programs while minimizing the burden of con-
ducting comprehensive assessments. This memorandum, with the
attached checklist and instructions, provides guidance on this
approach.
The attached checklist lists the grant commitments and Quality
Criteria elements for which State performance should be evaluated.
A State will be viewed as having a satisfactory base program if it
satisfies the checklist items without substantial dependence on
the Region for any part of the authorized portion of the program.
In evaluating dependence, it is recognized and accepted that con-
tinuing assistance from the Regions is appropriate in administering
a complex program. "Substantial dependence" will be a subjective
evaluation that properly takes all factors into account. While
EPA is- responsible for overseeing State programs and providing
assistance and support, a State must be capable of managing its
authorized program without substantial dependence on the Region.
No additional narrative is necessary if the Region submits
current documentation that explains why the performance is satis-
factory. The checklist should be completed based on available
information such as existing State program evaluations (quarterly,
mid-year, end-of-year), monthly State reports, tracking of items
detailed in the MOA and any other State/EPA agreement, and day-
to-day contact with the State.
For States that generally do not operate their authorized
program in a satisfactory manner, the Region and State, in con-
sultation with OSW/OWPE staff, will agree on an action plan to
correct problems identified in the capability assessment. We
suggest that until these problems are corrected, the Region delay
any authorization decision. Any delay should be minor for States
needing short-term improvements (e.g., timely submission of reports)
However, where States face significant problems (e.g., inability
to draft land disposal permits or to correctly complete more com-
plicated inspections), they should focus their efforts toward
upgrading their program and properly administering those elements
of the program for which they are presently authorized rather than
applying for authorization. Should such States persist in applying
for authorization of additional program elements, the Region will
need to prepare an action plan (in consultation with Headquarters)
that explicitly identifies what the State must do to qualify for
authorization.
-------
9540.00-8
- 3 -
OSW and OWPE staff will be available to review and comment
on proposed action plans to ensure that all areas of concern
are identified at an early stage. Before an action plan is
finally negotiated with a State, the Region and Headquarters
should agree on acceptable performance levels and schedules
for the problems identified. Regardless of whether short or
long-term improvements are needed, the time required to complete
a comprehensive capability assessment and to demonstrate the
necessary improvements to the State program should be factored
into the Region's schedule for authorizing the State. In some
instances, a State may not have completed all items identified
in the action plan, such as ongoing staff training, but will be
on a schedule to complete these items. However, in general, a
State should complete all items in its action plan before
receiving authorization.
I would like to reiterate that our purpose in continuing
to conduct capability assessments is to ensure that States are
fully capable of assuming the new responsibilities before we
authorize them and not to prevent or hinder States from
obtaining authorization for additional elements of RCRA.
Attachments
cc: Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
RCRA Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Marcia Williams
Gene Lucero
State Programs Branch, OSW
Implementation and Compliance Branch, OWPE
-------
Instructions and Checklist for HSWA Capability Assessments
-------
Instructions for Completing HSWA
Capability Assessment Checklist
The "satisfactory" or "needs improvement" column should be
checked for each item or "N/A" filled in per the instructions
below (see Enforcement, No. 2; Permits and Closure Plans,
Nos. 1 and 2; and Corrective Action). "Satisfactory" indicates
the State operated the authorized program without substantial
dependence on the Region, including fully meeting grant
commitments and Quality Criteria elements. If the Region
judges that a lesser level of performance is satisfactory,
the reason should be explained. "Needs improvement" means
some level of improvement is needed; short-term corrective
steps may not delay authorization (see transmittal memo from
J. Winston Porter).
The numbers below correspond to the numbers on the checklist.
Enforcement
1. State has multi-year compliance monitoring strategy: The
State multi-year compliance monitoring strategy may be
a separate document or may be incorporated into the MOA
or other State-EPA agreement. To meet the satisfactory
standard, the State must meet the Criteria found under
Key Questions 1, 2, and 6 under Enforcement Program
Criteria on pages 8, 9, 10, and 14 of the Quality Criteria.
2. State undertakes inspections: This includes "satisfactory"
performance as defined above. If no grant commitments
were negotiated for a particular itea, mark N/A for not
applicable. Satisfactory should be marked only when the
State has met the initial grant commitments; or when grant
commitments have been renegotiated during the fiscal year
.and the Region justifies the new numbers and any satis-
factory rating in writing.
Verifications: For high priority violations, an inspection,
record review, or other verification must be performed
within 30 days of the final compliance date and return
to compliance .confirmed.
3. Files are maintained and readily accessible: Case
development/case referral files must be comprehensive,
well documented, and current to ensure that enforcement
actions are timely and that all available evidence is
accurately identified. A review of the files, together
with Regional oversight of State inspections, should
demonstrate the quality of inspections.
-------
-2-
4. For HPVs, formal complaint issued or case referred within
90 days: A.formal complaint is to be issued within 90
days after violation discovery by those States with
administrative penalty authority. A case is to be
referred" within 90 days after violation discovery by
those States with no administrative penalty authority.
For Class I violations,- Quality Criteria timeframes are
followed: To meet the satisfactory standard, a State must
meet the Criteria found under Key Question 4.B. (Enforce-
ment Program Criteria on pages 12 and 13 of the Quality
Criteria).
Penalties are assassed appropriately: Penalties are
assessed in accordance with the Enforcement Response Policy.
5. State follows lata and incomplete Part B policy: A late
incomplete, or inadequate Part B application is a Class I
violation. As such, no more than two NOD's should be issued
before assessing a penalty. The penalty assessed should be
in accordance with the Civil Penalty Policy for all Part 270
and contributing Part 265 violations. If the owner/operator
fails to comply by the date specified, the State should
initiate termination of interim status by issuing a notice
of intent to deny the permit.
Permits and Closure Plans
1-2.State meets permit grant commitments; State meets closure
grant commitments: See Instruction No. 2 under Enforcement.
3. Permit/closure plan quality: OSW has developed permit
and closure/post-closure plan quality review documents.
These documents should be used to determine the quality
of a representative sample of permits issued and closure/
post-closure plans approved by the State before making a
judgment regarding a State's rating in this area.
Corrective Action
This section need be completed only when a State is
seeking authorization for the corrective action portion
of HSWA authorization. States are likely to have the
least amount of experience in this area. However, where
States 'have had experience with corrective action, eith₯r
under a cooperative agreement or under State authorities,
their performance should be evaluated. For the five
elements listed under the corrective action section,
rate the elements for which a State has had some experience.
For those elements for which a State has had no experience,
mark "N/A" for "not applicable". States which have no
experience in corrective action will not be prohibited
from receiving authorization for HSWA corrective action.
-------
-3-
However, States are encouraged to develop experience
with corrective action under a cooperative agreement.
This section is based on draft corrective action guidances
When these guidances are finalized, this section will be
revised."
Management
Facility management planning: To complete this section,
refer to Key Questions 1 through 4 under Goal #3, Manage-
ment Criteria,, on pages 27 and 28 of the Quality Criteria.
It should be noted that enforcement and permitting actions
include closures and corrective action.
-------
Capability Assessments for HSWA Authorities
ENFORCEMENT
1. State has multi-year compliance nonitoring strategy.*
Satis-
factory
Needs Im-
provement
2. State undertakes inspections.*
0 CEI inspections (land disposal, treatment, storage)
0 CME inspections
0 Inspection of TSDF's receiving CERCLA wastes
0 Closing facilities inspections
0 Generator/ transporter inspections
0 Verifications*
0 Record reviews
************************************************************
3. Inspection and record reviews are thorough and
properly documented.
0 Inspection checklists are complete and accurate
0 Violations are well documented
0 Files are maintained and readily accessible*
0 CME's are conducted in accordance with TEED
0 State properly classifies violations -
**********************************************************
4. State takes timely and appropriate enforcement action.
0 For HPV's, including SNCs, formal complaint, issued
or case referred within 90 days*
0 For Class I violations, Quality Criteria time frames
are followed*
i
0 Penalties are assessed appropriately*
0 Enforcement actions specify remedies and dates for
completion
************************************************************
5. State follows late and incomplete Part B policy.*
* see instructions
-------
- 2 -
PERMITS AND CLOSURE PLANS
1. State meets permit grant comnitments:*
0 Land Disposal.
- carpieteness/technical reviews
- draft permit/publie notices ;
- final determinations
0 Incinerators
- completeness/technical revise
- draft permit/public notices
- final determinations
0 Storage
- completeness/technical reviews
- draft permit/publie notices
. - final determinations
************************************************************
2. State meets closure grant commitments:*
0 Land disposal
- technical reviews
- public notices
- plan approvals
0 Incinerators
- technical reviews
- public notices
- plan approvals
0 Storage.
- technical reviews
- public notices
- plan approvals
* see instructions
Satis- Needs Im-
factory provement
Illllllllllllllllll
7777777777777777777
Illllllllllllllllll
777777/777/7/777777
Illllllllllllllllll
7777777777777777777
Illllllllllllllllll
Illllllllllllllllll
Illllllllllllllllll
Illllllllllllllllll
Illllllllllllllllll
Illllllllllllllllll
Illllllllllllllllll
Illllllllllllllllll
Illllllllllllllllll
Illllllllllllllllll
-------
- 3 -
PERMITS AND CLOSURE PLANS (continued)
3. Permit/Closure plan quality*
0 All regulatory requirements are addressed
0 Documents are technically sound
0 Documents are enforceable
************************************************************
4. Public participation
0 State follows public participation requirements in
processing permits and closure plans
0 State meets grant commitments for public involvement.
activities
Satis- Needs Im-
factory provement
CORRECTIVE ACTION*
1. State ensures that RFA's and RFI's identify and
evaluate all SWMU's and known/likely releases.
************************************************************
2. State ensures that. RFA recommendations for RFI, interim
measures or corrective action are adequately documented
to support permit or compliance order conditions.
3. State ensures that RFI and corrective measures plans
are technically sufficient and contain enforceable
schedules of compliance.
State monitors approved RFI and corrective measures
plans.
State ensures that corrective measu-es plans specify
the expected results and how these will be measured.
Satis- Needs Im-
factory provement
* see instructions
-------
- 4 -
MANAGEMENT
1. Resources, staffing and data management:
0 Resources utilized in accordance with grant
0 Staff adequately trained, appropriate skill mix
0 State effectively utilizes information/data system
in support of their program; system provides timely
and accurate permit, enforcement, closure and
corrective action information
0 State provides quality, timely information for HWDMS
************************************************************
2. Reporting:
0 State informs EPA of program changes
0 State meets MQA/grant commitments for reporting,
program coordination, etc.
it***********************************************************
3. Facility Management Planning:*
0 State has a process for planning and coordinating
enforcement and permitting actions at all
environmentally significant facilities
0 State has developed and is implementing a multi-
year strategy that addresses how the responsible
agency (ies) plan to permit and/or bring all TSDF's
into compliance with applicable regulations
Satis- Needs Im-
factory provement
I
* see instructions
------- |