United States Solid Waste and PD# 9420.00-08
Environmental Protection Emergency Response EPA/530-R-92-017
Agency (OS-305) April 1992
&EPA FY'93
RCRA
Implementation
Plan
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter Page
Executive Summary
1 Introduction 1-1
Agency Themes 1-1
The Strategic Management Framework 1-2
2 Facility Priority Setting and Evaluation 2-1
The Priority Ranking System 2-2
Linking the Strategic Management Framework 2-5
to Accountability
3 Permitting 3-1
Demonstrating Progress at High Priority Facilities 3-1
Prevention and Risk Reduction at Closed and Closing 3-2
Land Disposal Facilities
4 Corrective Action 4-1
Focusing Resources on High NCAPS Priority Facilities 4-2
Favor Geanup Actions 4-4
Initiate Stabilization Measures 4-4
Tiered Oversight to Meet Individual Facility Needs 4-6
Complete NCAPS Priority Rankings for Assessed Facilities and 4-6
Phase Remaining RFAs for Unassessed Facilities
5 Other Priority Activities 5-1
States as the Primary Implementors of RCRA 5-1
Waste Minimization 5-3
Biennial Reporting System 5-5
Capacity Assurance Plans 5-6
Comprehensive State Ground-Water Planning 5-6
6 Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement 6-1
RIP-Flex Concept 6-2
FY'93 National Priority Activities 6-3
National Priority Inspections 6-3
National Priority Enforcement Principles and Activities 6-9
Enhancing Enforcement Capability 6-15
7 Accountability 7-1
STARS 7-2
Beginning of Year Plan 7-3
End of Year Report 7-5
Data Management 7-6
RCRA Annual Accountability Cycle 7-7
ii FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420. 00-08
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
Page
8 Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Management
Program Objectives
Municipal Solid Waste National Priorities
Industrial Solid Waste National Priorities
Comprehensive State/Tribal Ground-Water Protection Plans
Appendix A STARS Measures
Appendix B Beginning of Year Plan Guidance
Appendix C End of Year Report Guidance
Appendix D List of Acronyms and Glossary of Key Terms
8-1
8-1
8-1
8-3
8-4
Exhibit
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Page
2-1 Facility Priority Ranking
4-1 Rules for Determining Unassessed Facilities
5-1 1991 Biennial Report Cycle
7-1 Annual Accountability Cycle for RCRA Implementation
2-2
4-8
5-7
7-8
III
FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420. 00-08
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The FY'93 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) defines the national priority
activities for the RCRA solid and hazardous waste program. These priority
activities are the key elements in the Agency's efforts to promote waste
minimization, ensure environmentally sound waste management, and reduce risks
posed by releases of hazardous materials to the environment.
In FY'92, EPA and the States embarked on a fundamentally new approach to
managing the RCRA Subtitle C program. This new approach, the Strategic
Management Framework, continues to shape the priorities of the Subtitle C
program in FY'93. Targeting activities at the highest priority facilities to reduce
existing risk and prevent future risk is the cornerstone of this new strategic
approach to RCRA implementation. In FY'93, facility priority ranking should be
completed, and Regions and States should complete the transition to target
appropriate activities and resources at the highest priority facilities.
The major Subtitle C permitting priorities for FY'93 are making progress at
high priority facilities and taking actions to prevent and reduce risks at closed and
closing land disposal facilities. Final permit determinations, permit modifications,
closure plan approvals, and certification of closure are benchmarks for facilities as
they meet their environmental obligations under RCRA.
In the Subtitle C corrective action program, implementation of
recommendations from the RCRA Implementation Study (RIS) will continue to
drive priorities, including targeting activities at facilities posing the highest risk and
taking action to achieve timely and efficient risk reduction. The following are
RCRA program priorities for corrective action:
• Target corrective action resources at high National Corrective Action
Priority Ranking System (NCAPS) high priority facilities
• Favor cleanup actions at facilities over studies and assessments, and
initiate stabilization, when appropriate
• Tailor facility oversight to reflect facility priority ranking and
owner/operator capabilities
• Complete NCAPS priority ranking and phase remaining RCRA facility
assessments (RFAs) to limit drawing resources away from cleanup.
Other hazardous waste program priorities for FY'93 include State
authorization, waste minimization, the Biennial Reporting System (BRS), and
comprehensive State ground-water planning. In FY'93, EPA maintains a strong
commitment to authorization of State programs and to improving the State/Federal
FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420. 00-08
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
relationship. EPA is initiating creative approaches to enhancing State capabilities
and using limited resources effectively through worksharing, authorizing
incomplete regulatory dusters, and extending interim authorization deadlines.
Waste minimization is an integral component of the Agency's overall
commitment to pollution prevention and it continues to be a high priority in FY'93
for the RGRA program. The FY'93 RIP calls for Regions and States to explore
opportunities for waste minimization in facility permitting, enforcement, and
outreach and technical assistance activities.
The Biennial Reports required of hazardous waste generators and treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) provide information that supports several
important RCRA objectives, including understanding the full hazardous waste
management system, providing data for environmental indicators, and assisting
States in preparing Capacity Assurance Plan submissions. EPA will need the
support of the Regions and States to complete the Biennial Report in time for
preparation of the 1994 Capacity Assurance Plans.
Currently, EPA is working with States to develop comprehensive State
ground-water protection plans. During FY'93, the RCRA program can make
valuable contributions to this process and benefit from an integrated State plan to
protect its ground water.
The goal of the RCRA enforcement program is to attain and maintain a high
rate of compliance within the regulated community by establishing a
comprehensive inspection program and taking timely, visible, and effective
enforcement actions against violaters. In FY'93, the RCRA enforcement program
will maintain a strong presence at operating and closed TSDFs; fully support the
Agency's multi-media enforcement initiatives; use enforcement tools and
authorities to promote pollution prevention; aggressively enforce waste import and
export requirements; and continue to enhance the capability of States and Tribes to
enforce RCRA requirements.
A major priority for the hazardous waste program in FY'93 is the
establishment of an effective accountability mechanism that will provide valuable
information on our progress and accomplishments. Traditionally, EPA has relied
on the Strategic Targeted Accomplishments for Results System (STARS) to track
progress in key activities. In FY'92, we broadened the RCRA accountability
mechanism to include the Beginning of Year Plan (BYP) and the End of Year Report
(EYR). In FY'93, we have reduced our reliance on STARS and more carefully
defined the purpose and content of BYP and EYR to make these documents more
effective tools to articulate program expectations and accomplishments.
The objectives of the municipal and industrial solid waste program directly
support the OSWER Strategic Plan goals of minimizing waste and ensuring that
waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner. Priority activities in the
FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420. 00-08
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
municipal solid waste program include implementing the municipal landfill
criteria (40 CFR Part 258), supporting State/Tribal program development, fostering
source reduction efforts, attaining a national recycling goal, and enhancing market
development. In the industrial solid waste program, collection and analysis of data
on industrial solid waste generation, waste minimization, and waste management
practices will be the focus of the FY'93 activities.
FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420. 00-08
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The FY'93 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) defines national priority
activities for the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste program, the RCRA compliance
monitoring and enforcement program, and the RCRA Subtitle D municipal and
industrial solid waste program. The RCRA Subtitle I underground storage tank
program is addressed in a separate document. The priority activities described in
this document will enable EPA to meet the following major objectives for the
RCRA program set forth in the OSWER Strategic Plan for FY'94-97.
• Minimize the quantity and toxicity of waste created by commercial,
domestic, and governmental activities
• Ensure environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous
wastes
• Prepare for and respond in a timely and effective manner to releases of ,
hazardous materials into the environment.
AGENCY THEMES
OSWER's goals and objectives in turn support the following Agency themes.
• Pollution Prevention: To support this Agency theme, OSWER is
developing, encouraging and promoting technologies and practices
that prevent pollution. Most of OSWER's FY'93 activities have a direct
link to pollution prevention including, for example, municipal solid
waste recycling, accidental release prevention, and eliminating barriers
to source reduction.
• Geographic Targeting of Health and Ecological Risk: In FY'93, we
continue our emphasis on minimizing health and ecological risk by
working on highest priority facilities and sites first and on
concentrating those efforts in key geographic areas.
• Improve Science and Data: In FY'93, we will enhance our use of
environmental indicators to track program progress and relate
program successes to the public. We and the Office of Research and
Development (ORD) will also further the development of innovative
treatment technologies and risk assessment protocols.
1-1 FV93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
• Cross-Program Integration and Multi-Media Enforcement: We are
focusing on integrating our programs within OSWER through our
cross-cutting strategic plan and activities thereunder. We are looking
at integrated, multi-media solutions to problems through the targeting
of specific industries for enforcement and high-risk geographic areas
for a variety of actions.
• Education and Outreach: We will continue our efforts to educate and
enable the public arid our various constituencies to fully participate in
protecting the environment from the effects of improper waste
management. For example, in FY'93 education outreach is an
important component of the municipal solid waste program.
• Management and Infrastructure: Accomplishing our strategic goals
and objectives in this time of tight resources demands that we expand
our incorporation of Total Quality Management principles within
OSWER in FY'93, both in terms of our human resources and improved
management of our programs.
• Strategic Implementation of Statutory Mandates: Statutory and court-
ordered deadlines will continue to drive much of OSWER's agenda in
FY'93. We have outlined a strategy for addressing the greatest risks
first and for making reforms to our programs that will yield greater
efficiencies without compromising environmental protection.
• More Reliance on Market and Economic Approaches: We will
continue to look for ways to achieve results using market mechanisms
and economic incentives, wherever feasible, particularly with regard to
fulfilling OSWER's goals of waste minimization and environmentally
sound waste management.
• Building State, Tribal, and Local Capacity: Our long range goals can
only be met through the combined efforts of EPA and State, Tribal, and
local governments. Accordingly, a number of our objectives, as well as
our planned activities for FY'93, are aimed at enhancing State, Tribal,
and local capacity for managing our nation's waste.
In addition, the activities set forth in the FY'93 RIP will support a number of other
cross-Agency and multi-media initiatives and strategies, such as the ground-water
strategy, the contaminated media initiative, geographic initiatives, and the
Enforcement Management Council initiatives.
THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK
The FY'92 RIP defined a Strategic Management Framework for the RCRA
Subtitle C hazardous waste program implementation that emphasizes targeting
1-2 FV'9.'i RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420. 00-08
CHAPTER! INTRODUCTION
resources to priorities. The FY'93 RIP continues the approach initiated in the FY'92
RIP.
The Strategic Management Framework integrates the prevention/permitting
and cleanup/corrective action elements of the RCRA Subtitle C program. The three
primary components of the Strategic Management Framework are: (1) ranking the
environmental priority of each RCRA hazardous waste treatment, storage or
disposal facility; (2) choosing appropriate prevention and/or cleanup activities to
address priority facilities; and (3) accounting for projected activities and
accomplishments against these choices. The environmental goals driving the
Strategic Management Framework are to reduce or prevent risks and maximize
environmental benefits at high priority facilities and balance progress between
prevention and cleanup activities.
The principles governing the Strategic Management Framework of the RCRA
Subtitle C program are:
• State Implementation: Enhance State capability to implement RCRA,
authorize State programs to the fullest extent possible, and optimize
the mix of State and Federal resources in each State to achieve the
greatest environmental result.
• National Consistency: Identify hazardous waste program goals and
activities to establish a nationally consistent base of program activity.
• Flexibility: Preserve flexibility in setting program priorities while
ensuring continued progress in maximizing risk reduction and
environmental benefits.
• Accountability and Accomplishments: Define challenging but
achievable goals and maintain accountability for progress toward those
goals.
• Trade-Offs: Make informed and defensible decisions about trade-offs
among program activities and the resulting environmental and
programmatic impacts.
• Full Range of RCRA Requirements: Actively implement the full range
of RCRA regulatory activities.
In order to reach the goal of full implementation of the Strategic
Management Framework, Regions and States must work aggressively in FY'93 to
target RCRA activities to high priority facilities and define and maintain
accountability for resulting accomplishments.
1-3 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 2
FACILITY PRIORITY SETTING AND
EVALUATION
Ranking the priority of each facility in the RCRA universe is the foundation
of the Strategic Management Framework. This priority ranking system makes a
significant shift from an activity-driven RCRA program to a program driven by
priorities.
THE PRIORITY RANKING SYSTEM
The two key criteria used to evaluate a facility's overall
priority are environmental significance and environ-
mental benefits.
Environmental significance addresses known or potential releases that pose
human health and environmental risks, while the environmental benefits criterion,
addresses opportunities to avoid future problems and make long term
environmental improvements. The use of these two criteria are fundamental to
achieving a balance between cleanup of contamination and preventive measures
aimed at avoiding future problems. Once the overall priority of the facility has been
determined, the particular environmental needs at the facility (risk reduction or
prevention) should be the basis for the type of activity (corrective action or
permitting) undertaken to meet those needs. Exhibit 2-1 depicts the approach to
determine the priority ranking of a facility under the Strategic Management
Framework.
The environmental significance criterion addresses
known or potential releases from a facility's regulated
units and other solid waste management units.
Facilities are evaluated first against this criterion because it represents the
existing or potential human health and environmental risks posed by a hazardous
waste management facility. Environmental significance must be determined for all
RCRA-regulated units at a facility, including land disposal, incinerators and other
combustion devices, treatment units, storage areas, and other solid waste
management units (SWMUs). This comprehensive approach to environmental
significance ensures that facilities that pose potentially significant environmental
risks, but without known corrective action needs, are fully considered. Also, factors
beyond the NCAPS criteria may be considered in determining environmental
significance.
2-1 FY'93 RIP
-------
CHAPTER 2
Directive Number 9420. 00-08
FACILITY PRIORITY SETTING AND EVALUATION
Exhibit 2-1
Facility Priority Ranking
•5 a
Determine environmental
sigra'fcance(NCAPS or
Qualitative Ranking)
High ES?
No,
c
o
Yes
Consider:
• Known or suspected release
• Migration potential
• Exposure potential
• Waste/unit characteristics
Apply environmental benefits
to M/L environmental
significance facilities
High EB?
No
en
c
0)
•o
o
O
I
6
Yes
Based on other
considerations up to 15% of
the total number of facilities
being addressed through
permitting ancCo r CA can be
non-high priority facilities
Consider:
• New capacity
- Innovative technologies
• Waste minimization
• Cross-media benefits
• Incentives for compliance
• Enhanced regulatory control
£
as
= c
a a
High overall priority
ranking
2-2
FY'93 RIP
-------
CHAPTER 2 FACILITY PRIORITY SETTING AND EVALUATION
The evaluation factors for environmental significance are the same for both
regulated units and SWMUs:
• Known or suspected release
• Migration potential
• Exposure potential
• Waste/unit characteristics.
When a RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA), Environmental Priorities Initiative
Preliminary Assessment (PA), or equivalent is available, the facility should be
ranked using the NCAPS. When this data is not available, or when the facility
poses potential releases that are not evaluated by NCAPS (e.g., combustion units),
the facility should receive a qualitative environmental significance ranking.
NCAPS will form the primary basis for determining environmental significance. If
the minimum amount of data needed for an NCAPS ranking is not available, a
qualitative evaluation will be conducted.
Facilities should be evaluated for environmental benefits
after the environmental significance evaluation.
The environmental benefits criterion addresses opportunities to avoid future
risks and make long term environmental improvements. Environmental benefits
should be evaluated at facilities ranked medium and low for environmental
significance to determine whether to elevate them to high priority. Environmental
benefits include:
• New Capacity: Opportunities to provide additional or improved waste
management capacity at new facilities or facility expansions,
particularly to fulfill a State's Capacity Assurance Plan.
• Waste Minimization: Opportunities to undertake waste minimization
initiatives, including any that implement State pollution prevention
laws, target specific facility operations, or employ processes that
minimize wastes.
• Innovative Technologies: Opportunities to employ technologies that
may not have an extensive history of performance and cost data but
may present more effective or less costly solutions to hazardous waste
management problems.
• Cross-Media Benefits: Opportunities to implement a geographic
multi-media Agency initiative to optimize risk reduction and
environmental improvement.
2-3 FY'93 RIP
-------
CHAPTER 2 FACILITY PRIORITY SETTING AND EVALUATION
• Incentives for Compliance: Opportunities, as a result of well-timed
actions against a facility, that may produce incentives for compliance at
other similar facilities.
• Enhanced Regulatory Control: Opportunities to establish a regulatory
presence to improve hazardous waste management or precipitate
closure at a facility that was previously unregulated, has a poor
compliance history (or enforcement status of concern), or is in a
precarious financial situation. This benefit includes the opportunity to
implement permitting activities to prevent or mitigate potential
releases.
Any of the above environmental benefits may be realized by taking
permitting actions at certain facilities and thus may be the basis for elevating certain
facilities to high priority for non-corrective action activities. However, as described
in more detail in Chapter 4, only the last four benefits (innovative technologies,
cross-media benefits, incentives for compliance, and enhanced regulatory control)
would justify elevating a facility to high priority for corrective action.
In addition to environmental significance and environ-
mental benefits, other considerations may be the basis for
taking permitting or corrective action at a facility.
Because RCRA is a program with constrained resources, limited resources
must be applied first to facilities that are highest priority for risk reduction and
prevention. However, EPA recognizes that there are circumstances when other
considerations may warrant taking action at facilities that are not ranked as high
priority based on environmental significance and environmental benefits. These
"other considerations" include, for example, increased public concern about a facility
(such as for certain commercial facilities) and actions required by State laws. The
goal of the Strategic Management Framework is to limit the number of "other
consideration" facilities, where long term, resource intensive activities are being
conducted, to 15 percent of all facilities that are being actively addressed.
The FY'92 RIP stated that 15 percent of the facilities currently being addressed
could be elevated to high priority for "other considerations" and we will continue to
follow this approach in FY'93. However, over the longer term, incorporating these
"other considerations" facilities into overall high priorities will make it difficult to
track progress in addressing high priority prevention and risk reduction facilities,
which is critical to the program's credibility. We are considering tracking progress at
high environmental priority facilities apart from activities at "other considerations"
facilities. We will work with Regions and States to examine this issue.
We will continue to emphasize the program goal to limit "other
considerations" facilities to 15 percent of the facilities currently being addressed. In
2-4 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420. 00-08
CHAPTER 2 FACILITY PRIORITY SETTING AND EVALUATION
some circumstances, worksharing arrangements between an EPA Region and a State
may call for additional focus on "other considerations" facilities. Use of the "high
priority" approach allows for focus on the greatest needs first, and then attention to
the next priorities. When States do not have high priority facilities, they should
address their next tier of priorities.
New universe facilities must still be ranked, and as pre-
vention and corrective action activities are completed at
high priority facilities, they may be reevaluated against the
universe of RCRA facilities to determine their relative
status.
Facilities should be reevaluated upon completion of activities which
significantly reduce existing or potential risk (e.g., stabilization action). Decisions to
reevaluate a facility should be guided by the expertise and discretion of the Region
or State. Changes in priority, as a result of activities undertaken at high priority
facilities, will serve as an indicator of progress as well as a management tool to
determine whether the level of oversight or the time frame for remaining activities
at a facility should be reevaluated.
LINKING THE STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK TO
ACCOUNTABILITY
The focus on high priority facilities prescribed in the
Strategic Management Framework must be reflected in
the implementation activities tracked through the
Strategic Targeted Accomplishments for Results System
(STARS) and other accountability measures.
It is important to send a dear and consistent message that the focus of the
RCRA program is on addressing high priority facilities first. Therefore, our goal is
to focus STARS on actions at high priority facilities.
The RCRA program relies on the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Information System (RCRIS) as the information system for tracking STARS and
other accountability measures. RCRIS currently tracks activities at high, medium,
and low NCAPS facilities and reports whether a facility has received an overall
priority ranking. At the national oversight level, however, it does not provide
information on the specific overall priority ranking of the facility (e.g., whether it
has a high, medium, or low environmental ranking). This lack of information
limits our current ability to track permitting or corrective action activities by facility
overall priority ranking status through STARS. During FY'93, EPA Headquarters
will expand the parameters of RCRIS so that, beginning in FY'94, we can count both
corrective action and permitting activities in STARS at high priority facilities. By
doing so, we can better rely on STARS as a true measure of our progress in
addressing environmental needs.
2-5 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420. 00-08
CHAPTER 2 FACILITY PRIORITY SETTING AND EVALUATION
FY'93 will be a transition year for focusing STARS on high priority facilities.
As in FY'92, the RIP stresses the need to focus corrective action resources on high
NCAPS priority facilities. Consistent with that emphasis, credit for cleanup
activities through STARS is focused on activities at high NCAPS facilities. We
recognize, however, that in some cases there are valid reasons (based on
environmental benefits) for undertaking corrective action at medium or low
NCAPS facilities that are high overall priority and have added a STARS measure to
capture those activities. Because RCRJ5 at the national oversight level is not yet set
up to track high, medium, or low status for overall priority, this STARS measure
will have to be tracked manually in Headquarters for the first year. For permitting
activities, the FY'93 STARS are not limited to high priority facilities, but we strongly
encourage Regions and States to focus their permitting resources on activities at
facilities that rank high for overall priority.
2-6 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTERS
PERMITTING
The major permitting priorities for FY'93 are (1) making progress across the
universe at high priority facilities and (2) taking actions to prevent and reduce risks
at closed and closing land disposal facilities. Final permit determinations, permit
modifications, closure plan approvals, and certification of closure are benchmarks
for facilities as they meet their environmental obligations under RCRA. These
activities are key measures for bringing facilities fully into the RCRA system and
ensuring that they fulfill their obligations throughout the facility life.
DEMONSTRATING PROGRESS AT HIGH PRIORITY FACILITIES
It is important for Regions and States to demonstrate
progress in all areas of the permitting universe con-
sistent with the priority ranking of facilities.
Regions and States should implement activities to achieve both timely
reduction of existing risk and long term prevention, of future risks at facilities in the
permitting universe. Activity at post-closure facilities should be commensurate
with their overall priority considering the size of the universe and the likelihood of
environmental risk. Thus, where a substantial portion of the high priority facilities
in the permitting universe have post-closure needs, the Region or State should
emphasize activity in that area.
Regions and States are expected to continue permitting activities underway at
high priority facilities. As in FY'92, in FY'93, new permitting activities should be
limited to high priority facilities. States and Regions must choose how to handle
medium and low priority facilities where activities are underway. If substantial
work has been completed toward a permit activity, the most efficient choice may be
to complete that activity. However, where substantial work remains, movement
through the pipeline may not be justified. Regions and States should expedite
action at high priority facilities, even if this means deferring activity at lower
priority facilities.
Permitting activities should emphasize the most effective means to achieve
timely risk reduction. At some facilities, obtaining timely risk reduction may mean
expediting permit issuance. At other facilities, imposing corrective action through
Section 3008(h) orders may be the most effective way to accomplish near term risk
reduction while permitting activities are on a longer schedule. The Beginning of
Year Plan (BYP) should discuss the balance between permitting activities to achieve
timely risk reduction and long term prevention of future risks. The BYP should
also specify time frames for completing appropriate activities at all facilities in the
3-1 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 3 PERMITTING
universe. The pace of activities at post-closure facilities should be commensurate
with their overall priority.
PREVENTION AND RISK REDUCTION AT CLOSED AND CLOSING LAND
DISPOSAL FACILITIES
Addressing environmental risks at closed and closing
land disposal units is an important goal of the RCRA
program.
Permitting activities to address these facilities include closure plan approval
and post-closure permit issuance (including Part B call in, permit processing, and
final determination). All of the corrective action activities (RFAs, stabilization
determinations, stabilization measures, and Stages I-HD discussed in Chapter 4 are
the mechanisms by which corrective action should be addressed.
By the beginning of FY'93, priority ranking should be completed at closed and
closing land disposal facilities (including clean dosed facilities and facilities that
plan to clean close). Based on the priority ranking of these facilities, by the
beginning of FY'93, the Region and State should jointly be implementing a strategy
to address timely prevention and risk reduction activities at all high priority
facilities in the closure/post-closure universe. Financial status or corporate viability
of the owner/operator may determine timing or appropriate actions to be taken at
these facilities. Regions and States should address the following appropriate
permitting activities at high priority facilities:
• Approve closure plans at closing facilities where these activities have
not been completed, particularly where some time has elapsed since
the units ceased operation.
• Complete closure activities at high priority sites (e.g., as evidenced by
closure certification) to prevent the escape of hazardous constituents
from the closed unit and ensure that the unit will no longer accept
solid waste.
• Issue permits for high priority facilities where risks at the facility have
not been addressed through another mechanism (such as a Section
3008(h) order).
• Call in Part Bs at high priority facilities. The number of Part B call-ins
should reflect the resources the Region or State can commit to issuing
permits.
3-2 FV'9^ RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 3 PERMITTING
• Incorporate extended schedules for corrective action into the permit for
facilities with lower ranking for environmental significance.
• Complete RFAs at closing and dosed facilities. In any case, any
unassessed facility should receive a qualitative environmental
significance ranking.
ft STARS Measures
(R/C-la) Number of RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDFs) to receive operating permit final determinations
during fiscal year
(R/C-2a) Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closure plan approval
during fiscal year
(R/C-3a) Number of post-closure Part B applications called in
(R/C-3C) Number of post-closure permit final determinations
3-3 FV9) RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 4
CORRECTIVE ACTION
The goal of the RCRA corrective action program is to reduce the risk to
human health and the environment posed by releases of hazardous constituents
from treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs).
FY'93 will mark full implementation of the RCRA corrective action strategy
defined in the RCRA Implementation Study (RIS). The RIS encourages
management of the corrective action program to produce the greatest near term
environmental benefits, through implementation of the following:
• Consistent national priority setting to direct resources to the highest
priority facilities.
• Accelerated assessment of all remaining RCRA facilities through the
Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI).
• Increased emphasis on stabilization measures to reduce imminent
threats and prevent the further spread of contamination.
• Tiered oversight of owner/opera tor activities tailored to their
capabilities and facility conditions.
• Performance standards that define cleanup objectives for site categories
to expedite the selection of final remedies.
In FY'92, we began to focus the corrective action program on high priority
facilities and on activities at these facilities that would result in the greatest risk
reductions and limit most effectively further spread of contamination. In FY'92, we
evaluated TSDFs with RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs) and priority ranked
facilities, using a nationally consistent approach, the National Corrective Action
Priority Ranking System (NCAPS). We began focusing corrective action program
resources on high priority facilities while shifting resources away from lower
priorities.
In FY'92, we also issued the RCRA Stabilization Strategy and Guidance and
began to implement key components of this strategy. We established the following
goals: focusing newly imposed RCRA Facility Investigations (RFIs) to collect key
stabilization-related data; evaluating facilities for near term actions; initiating such
actions; and encouraging reassessment of the priority facilities after such actions had
been taken. To the extent that a facility's priority was reduced, we encouraged the
use of tiered oversight and extended schedules of compliance.
4-1 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 4 CORRECTIVE ACTION
Directive Number 9420.00-08
The following major FV93 themes in the corrective action program reflect
our progress in carrying out the corrective action strategy.
• Target corrective action resources at high NCAPS priority facilities.
• Favor cleanup actions at facilities over studies and assessments.
• Emphasize taking near term action to address actual or imminent
exposures and prevent the further spread of contamination.
• Tailor facility oversight to reflect facility priority ranking and
owner/operator capabilities.
• Complete NCAPS priority ranking for facilities with RFAs and phase
remaining RFAs so that they do not drain resources from actual
cleanup.
FOCUSING RESOURCES ON HIGH NCAPS PRIORITY FACILITIES
In FY'93, the corrective action program will continue to
focus primarily on high NCAPS priority facilities.
These facilities generally have known releases to two or more environmental
pathways and, therefore, pose the greatest relative risk to human health and the
environment. In practical terms, mis means:
• Manage the entry of facilities into the corrective action pipeline so that
RFIs are imposed primarily at facilities that are a high priority under
NCAPS. When RFIs are imposed at a medium or low NCAPS priority
facility (because a permit should or must be issued), the Regions and
States should generally extend the schedule of compliance or consider
reducing the level of oversight.
• Reduce resource commitments at corrective action pipeline facilities
that are a medium or low priority under NCAPS (e.g., extend the
schedules of compliance or reduce the level of oversight).
• Continue to move high NCAPS priority pipeline facilities to final
cleanup, provided that the facility is not a candidate for near term risk
reduction actions (i.e., stabilization actions).
4-2 FY'93 RJP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 4 CORRECTIVE ACTION
We recognize that although some facilities have medium
or low NCAPS, they have overall high priority, and war-
rant continued corrective action along a normal schedule.
Environmental benefits that may justify continuing corrective action at a
medium or low NCAPS facility fall into several categories:
• Innovative Technologies: A facility that is a good candidate for
innovative technologies. (OSWER Policy Directive 9380.0-17, June 10,
1991, encourages promoting innovative treatment technologies at
RCRA corrective action and closure sites.)
• Enhanced Regulatory Control: For example, a commercial RCRA
TSDF that receives (or has shown interest in receiving)
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA) wastes under the Off-Site Policy (OSWER
Directive 9834.11, November 13,1987), or a closed land disposal facility
(LDF) where the owner/operator is likely to go out of business.
• Incentives for Compliance: A facility where action would produce
incentives for compliance at other similar facilities.
• Cross-Media Benefits: A facility that is part of a geographic or cross-
media Agency initiative.
& STARS Measures
(R/J-la) Stage I: Information collection and study at high NCAPS
priority facilities
(R/J-lb) Stage II: Remedy development and selection at high
NCAPS priority facilities
(R/J-4) Number of Stage I, II, or III actions at high overall
priority TSDFs that are a medium or low NCAPS
priority
4-3 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 4 CORRECTIVE ACTION
FAVOR CLEANUP ACTIONS
It is critical that we emphasize actual cleanup over
studies and assessments at facilities.
As Regions and States make program management and implementation
choices, the above statement means several things. Stabilization measures
maximize the environmental results from our resource commitments through
near term risk reduction at more facilities nationally, rather than pursuing lengthy
comprehensive remedies at fewer facilities. Near term cleanup actions should
control the most serious environmental problems at more facilities in a shorter
time frame and prevent known releases from becoming worse. These actions may
involve the entire facility or just the worst solid waste management units (SWMUs)
at the facility.
INITIATE STABILIZATION MEASURES
Stabilization evaluations should occur at two points in the corrective action
process: after the RFA and after the RFI. The goals of this evaluation are to: (1)
determine whether there are any actual or imminent human or ecological
exposures to releases occurring at the facility, (2) determine whether known releases
are likely to significantly spread in the absence of near term action, and (3) identify
priority information the owner/opera tor should develop early in the RFI to
determine the need for stabilization (e.g., hydrogeological information on ground-
water flow rates and hydraulic conductivity or environmental sampling data for
SWMUs suspected of having a release that is spreading). The Stabilization Strategy
and Guidance contains detailed information on how to conduct the evaluation and
on the many types of stabilization measures. The evaluation should follow the
Stabilization Evaluation Checklist contained in the guidance or an equivalent level
of inquiry.
In FY'93, the pace of stabilization evaluations should equal or exceed the pace
in FY'92. Regions and States should first make stabilization determinations at
facilities with RFIs because there is sufficient data to complete a more thorough
evaluation of near term cleanup needs. Stabilization determinations at RFA
facilities should consider near term cleanup needs as well as opportunities to focus
and phase RFIs to more expeditiously gather data for making stabilization decisions.
Generally, evaluations should be completed according to NCAPS priority.
The focus of the stabilization initiative is on taking quick action to address
actual or imminent exposures to releases and on controlling the spread of known
releases, not on investigating and eliminating all sources or potential sources of
release at a facility.
When the stabilization evaluation identifies the need for near term measures
to reduce risks at the facility, the Region or State should act quickly to require the
4-4 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number yA2u.Uu-uo
CHAPTER 4 CORRECTIVE ACTION
owner/operator to initiate cleanup. Time frames to complete these near term
measures may vary widely depending on the scope of the activities to address actual
or imminent exposures to releases and to control the spread of known releases.
Facilities should be evaluated at critical junctures in the corrective action process,
such as once stabilization measures are underway, to consider an appropriate
schedule and oversight approach for completing facility-wide investigations and
comprehensive cleanup. The completion of facility-wide investigation and
comprehensive cleanup should be phased, depending on site-specific circumstances,
once stabilization measures are initiated. Voluntary actions by owner /operators are
another way to expedite initiation of near term risk reduction actions. In FY '93, we
expect to see a substantial increase in cleanups initiated to follow up on the
stabilization evaluations completed in FY'92.
Selectively move high NCAPS priority facilities through
the pipeline to Stage III comprehensive cleanup.
Facilities where near term risk reduction measures are not feasible or those
that remain a high priority after such measures are underway should remain a high
priority for completing facility investigation and initiating comprehensive cleanup.
For data entry purposes, cleanup actions initiated while that portion of the
facility is at the RFA stage or Stages I or II, will be considered stabilization actions.
Cleanup actions initiated when that portion of the facility is at Stage HI will be
considered final remedial actions. This approach should facilitate a smoother
transition from addressing the worst SWMUs at a facility to the final cleanup. A
stabilization measure may become the final corrective action remedy only when
implemented as the final corrective action requirements as specified in the permit
or order.
& STARS Measures
(R/J-2) RCRA TSDFs evaluated for near term actions to reduce risk and
control contaminant releases (i.e., stabilization evaluations)
Near Term Environmental Indicator
(R/J-3) Number of TSDFs with actions underway to reduce risk and
control the spread of contaminant releases (Actions are Stage in
at high NCAPS priority facilities and near term risk reduction
measures at high, medium, or low NCAPS facilities.)
4-5 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 4 CORRECTIVE ACTION
TIERED OVERSIGHT TO MEET INDIVIDUAL FACILITY NEEDS
Regions and States should tailor the level of corrective
action oversight, especially at medium or low NCAPS
facilities already in the corrective action pipeline.
We can only successfully target resources on high NCAPS priority facilities if
we reduce resource commitments to medium or low NCAPS priority facilities. The
RCRA Oversight Guidance (issued January 1992) describes the factors to consider
and suggests tools for developing a facility-specific level of oversight. Facility
specific factors to help determine appropriate oversight levels include:
• NCAPS priority of the facility (i.e., environmental significance)
• Facility/Agency relationship - compliance history
• Level of local public concern
• Scope and nature of corrective action activity
• Site complexity.
Over time, these factors should be reevaluated to identify and accommodate
changing oversight needs.
COMPLETE NCAPS PRIORITY RANKINGS FOR ASSESSED FACILITIES AND
PHASE REMAINING RFAS FOR UNASSESSED FACILITIES
Regions and States should apply NCAPS to all facilities
which have had an RFA (or the equivalent) and apply a
qualitative ranking to those facilities which have not
received an RFA.
This does not mean that initial assessments are a priority in FY'93. We
emphasize taking cleanup actions at high priority facilities over completing initial
assessments.
Completion of RFAs at remaining unassessed facilities
should not draw resources away from actual cleanups
(Stage III or stabilization).
Through the EPI in FY'92, we should have completed preliminary
assessments at the majority of TSDFs in the RCRA universe. However, there are
still facilities which need RFAs. Unfortunately, in FY'93, the EPI did not receive
4-6 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Numoer y-t^u.ju-uo
CHAPTER 4 CORRECTIVE ACTION
funding. Although* completing RFAs is not equal or greater in priority to taking
cleanup actions, it is important for the program to have and be able to articulate its
strategy for completing RFAs. Accordingly, in FY'93 Regions and States must
develop a multi-year strategy for completing initial assessments that balances
progress in this area with the need to focus on known priorities and cleanup needs.
Qualitative environmental significance ranking as well as post-closure status
should be the basis for scheduling RFAs at unassessed facilities.
EPA must have a consistent national approach to describe
the universe of unassessed facilities.
In the past, the universe of facilities requiring RFAs under the RCRA
corrective action program has been defined inconsistently. Some Regions have
included converters and non-notifiers, while others have not. Some Regions
included these facilities early on but no longer actively track them. These
inconsistencies have made it difficult to define the number of facilities in the RCRA
corrective action universe and the number of those still in need of initial
assessments. Furthermore, some preliminary assessments (PAs) conducted in some
Regions prior to 1991 are not equivalent to an RFA. As a result, some Regions
believe that RFAs still need to be completed at these facilities, while others have
counted these PAs as RFAs.
Developing Regional strategies and time frames for completing remaining
RCRA initial assessments (RFAs or PA-pluses) is one of the key objectives of the
corrective action program in FY'93. Regions should determine the number of
initial assessments still needed. It is important that all Regions undertake this task
using the same rules regarding inclusion of converters and non-notifiers and counts
of PAs/PA-pluses as RFAs. Accordingly, the guidelines in Exhibit 4-1 apply for
determining each Region's universe of remaining unassessed facilities for which
the RCRA corrective action program is responsible.
Due to budget constraints, the EPI will not be in effect for FY'93. CERCLA will
provide PAs for converters and non-notifiers only in FY'93. OSWER urges the
referral of high priority converters and non-notifiers to CERCLA. To the extent that
EPI commitments for FY'92 are not achieved in FY'92, the CERCLA program will
complete PA-pluses at these facilities in FY'93.
4-7 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 4 CORRECTIVE ACTION
Exhibit 4-1
Rules for Determining Unassessed Facilities
DO NOT count as unassessed:
• Converters and non-notifiers that require an RFA/PA-plus, unless they
have been through the Superfund screening process (i.e., PA, SI, HRS,
NPL listing decision) and require no further remedial action under
CERCLA.
This directive is based on the Federal Register notice of October 4, 1989,
concerning the NPL/RCRA Listing Policy. In that notice, the Agency added
four categories of RCRA sites appropriate for CERCLA listing, including
converters and non-notifiers. It is OSWER policy to refer only high
priority converters and non-notifiers to CERCLA. Subsequently, if these
sites are screened out under Superfund, they would be referred to the
RCRA program. Because of this policy, the RCRA program is not
considering these facilities a part of the RCRA universe subject to
corrective action, until they return to RCRA after a Superfund site
evaluation is accomplished.
• Facilities that received a PA-plus in FY'91 or FY'92.
• Facilities that received an adequate PA prior to FY'91. "Adequate" means
that the Region found the PA to be equivalent to an RFA, such that no
further assessment is necessary.
DO count as unassessed:
• Facilities not addressed above that have never received either a PA or
RFA.
• Facilities that received an inadequate PA prior to FY'91. "Inadequate"
means that the PA is not considered to be equivalent to an RFA for
purposes of NCAPS ranking or for issuing a permit or an order.
• RCRA facilities covered under the CERCLA NPL listing policy that have
been returned to RCRA after a "no further action" determination by the
CERCLA program. These facilities should be counted as unassessed only if
the Superfund PA is insufficient for the RCRA program's needs.
4-8 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTERS
OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
This chapter identifies other RCRA hazardous waste implementation priority
areas and describes key activities within each area. Other national priority
implementation activities include State implementation, waste minimization, the
Biennial Reporting System, and comprehensive State ground-water planning.
STATES AS THE PRIMARY IMPLEMENTORS OF RCRA
EPA maintains a strong commitment to authorization of
State programs and to enhancing the State/Federal
relationship.
Congress envisioned RCRA Subtitle C as a "delegated" program through
which States are the primary implementors of the national hazardous waste
management program. As the National Program Manager, EPA's major
responsibilities include supporting and sustaining States in the performance of their
environmental management responsibilities. As the States succeed in
implementing an effective RCRA program, EPA succeeds.
We continue to strive to enhance the State/Federal relationship. As the first
step in following up on State/EPA relationship recommendations contained in the
RCRA Implementation Study (RIS), a joint EPA/State Committee developed
several alternative approaches to the authorization process. These approaches are
among the options being considered as part of the broader charge of the new RCRA
State Implementation Committee, which comprises senior State and EPA managers.
This committee convened in FY'92 to develop broad long term policy for the
State/Federal relationship and RCRA implementation, including the authorization
program. Its charge is to articulate EPA and the States' common and separate
interests and needs; to propose goals and objectives for the State/Federal
relationship, including defining their respective roles; and to develop a strategy for
modifying the present management structure, including the authorization process,
to achieve these goals.
EPA and States have jointly looked at authorization as the primary measure
of success in the transition to State implementation of RCRA. In fact, it is not the
only measure and provides an incomplete picture of RCRA implementation
nationally. When the original authorization deadlines were established, no one
recognized how complex the overall RCRA program and the authorization process
would become. Many States are having difficulty meeting the regulatory deadlines
for authorization. As a result, there are significant delays in authorization of both
the pre-Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) and HSWA based
5-1 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 5 OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
requirements in States. This is especially significant for the pre-HSWA based
requirements that are not implemented by EPA in authorized States. However, to
see the full RCRA implementation picture, we must also recognize that States have
adopted many of these provisions in State law.
As EPA and the States work together to build long term
State program capacity to implement RCRA, Regions and
States should explore shared implementation
arrangements.
EPA also recognizes that both EPA and the States are experiencing serious
resource constraints in fully implementing the RCRA program. The RCRA-
mandated regulatory program continues to grow, and there is little parallel growth
of Federal and State funding to match. Thus, as the States increasingly bear the
burden of managing the RCRA program, EPA and the States are redefining their
roles and responsibilities.
Due to the expanding HSWA regulatory universe, joint RCRA
implementation will continue in the foreseeable future even in a State that is fully
authorized. Thus, to promote optimal program implementation, we hope to
maximize productive sharing of the program between the States and Regions.
EPA encourages Regions and States to develop creative
shared implementation arrangements. Such
arrangements will serve to build State capability to
implement the RCRA program and ensure efficient use of
State and Federal resources for environmental results.
EPA and the State should jointly identify gaps in RCRA program coverage
and define worksharing responsibilities that fill these gaps whenever possible.
Areas that neither EPA nor the State is able to cover may be priorities for further
State regulatory development and authorization.
Worksharing can include both authorized and unauthorized elements of a
State's program (however, activities should address RCRA priorities agreed to by the
Region and State). Worksharing is not determined by a State's authorization status
although authorization may define the lead Agency for specific areas.
An additional tool to facilitate State authorization and
ensure effective program implementation is authorizing
incomplete clusters.
A new interpretation of the cluster rule allows EPA to authorize an
incomplete cluster, even beyond the regulatory deadline for that cluster. This
interpretation supports the drive to authorize States for as many provisions as
possible, especially for rules adopted under statutory authority predating the 1984
5-2 FY'^ RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 5 OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
amendments — so-called non-HSWA rules/clusters - as those provisions cannot
take effect in States with base authorization until the States revise their programs
and receive EPA program approval.
Another means to enhance joint State and Federal
implementation is through interim authorization.
EPA is currently planning to extend the January 1,1993, HSWA interim
authorization deadline and expand the use of HSWA interim authorization.
HSWA interim authorization is currently being used in one State to build corrective
action program infrastructure and expertise. Another State plans to use interim
authorization while developing additional legal authority to implement the full
corrective action program. Another creative use of interim authorization could be
to allow a State, which received corrective action authorization prior to the final
Subpart S, to retain corrective action authorization pending State adoption of and
authorization for the Subpart S rule (55 FR 30798).
The FY'92 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) introduced the State
Authorization and Enhancement Plan (SAEP). The FY'92 SAEPs established a
baseline for how each Region is building State capability for authorization. In FY'93,
SAEPs should be updated from last year, as appropriate and should also discuss State
and Regional cooperative efforts to implement the RCRA program. The plans
should also identify specific impediments to corrective action authorization.
WASTE MINIMIZATION
The minimization of RCRA wastes is an integral
component of the Agency's overall commitment to
pollution prevention. To make pollution prevention
successful, it must be incorporated into every facet of the
RCRA program, including Regional and State
implementation activities such as enforcement actions
and permits.
In the RCRA program, waste minimization is spurred on by the national
policy established by Section 1003 of RCRA to "minimize the generation of
hazardous waste by encouraging process substitution, materials recovery, properly
conducted recycling and reuse, and treatment."
RCRA Section 3002(b) and 3005(h), require hazardous
waste generators and treatment, storage, and disposal
facilities (TSDFs) to certify that they have waste
minimization programs in place at their facilities and to
report, no less than annually, on their waste
minimization efforts.
5-3 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 5 OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
Although HSWA does not give specific authority to assess the adequacy of
these programs, review of these facility programs by State and Regional staff can play
a major role in promoting waste minimization by providing a knowledge base of
the broad range of facility-specific programs and waste minimization opportunities.
This knowledge base enables EPA and the States to foster waste minimization at
similar facilities or for similar types of industries and/or processes. EPA developed
guidance for reviewing such programs and to assist the regulated community in
complying with the requirement to have a waste minimization program in place.
This document has recently been revised and reissued as the Facility Pollution
Prevention Guide to reduce treatment costs prior to disposal. The land disposal
restrictions (LDRs) provide a regulatory incentive for generators to reduce waste
volume and/or toxicity in order to reduce treatment costs prior to disposal.
The RCRA Waste Minimization Action Plan, developed
in conjunction with Region IV, V, and X, outlines major
EPA activities that will increasingly incorporate waste
minimization into existing RCRA programs.
While the Action Plan focuses primarily on hazardous waste and special
wastes, it also addresses other RCRA wastes, and outlines a range of non-regulatory
activities to be pursued by Regional offices and States. These activities include:
facility permitting, enforcement activities, outreach and technical assistance, and
evaluation of waste minimization projections made in State Capacity Assurance
Plans (CAPs). The Action Plan outlines efforts to expand ongoing waste
minimization activities in FY'93 -'95 and provides guidance for Regional staff to
integrate new waste minimization initiatives into their RCRA programs. Current
initiatives by Regional offices include grant set-asides, studies of successful waste
minimization by specific industries or processes, development of criteria or
implementation strategies for evaluation of waste minimization certifications, as
well as targeting (elevating in priority) facilities for permit activities based on waste
minimization opportunities.
This year we have adopted a narrative STARS measure
that allows Regions to report Regional and State waste
minimization initiatives as an effective gauge of
movement in this priority area of the RCRA program.
Because incorporation of waste minimization into implementation activities
is emerging, data in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
(RCRIS) are not readily available to indicate progress and achievements.
Descriptions of individual initiatives and activities that support these initiatives
will serve as the mechanism for evaluating progress in merging waste
minimization goals with other aspects of the RCRA program. This FY'93 narrative
measure will allow Regions to share unique and specific initiatives, such as cross-
media permit projects, special projects or waste minimization case studies, new
5-4 FY'93 R7P
-------
CHAPTEK5
Directive Number 942G.uu-uo
OTHER PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
outreach or technical assistance programs, facility waste minimization program
review implementation plans, targeting strategies, or grant programs.
& STARS Measure
(R/PM-3) Describe waste minimization activities undertaken as part of
waste minimization strategy.
BIENNIAL REPORTING SYSTEM
The Biennial Reports required of hazardous waste
generators and TSDFs provide information which
supports several important RCRA objectives.
Many key decisions and activities in the RCRA program rely on Biennial
Report data. Past Biennial Reports that were unreliable and inconsistent have
weakened the credibility of critical program components. Key among the objectives
that rely on the Biennial Report are:
• Understanding the full hazardous waste management system
including trends in generation, treatment, storage, disposal, and waste
minimization
• Providing baseline and trend data for environmental indicators
• Providing information to assist States in preparing Capacity Assurance
Plan (CAP) submissions due in FY'94.
& STARS Measure
(R/PM-2) Number of States for which the Region provides a final and
complete Biennial Report data submission to Headquarters by
November 30, 1992.
EPA Headquarters has been working with Regions and States to complete the
1991 Biennial Report cycle with quality data. In order to complete the Biennial
Report in time for preparation of the 1994 CAPs, Headquarters must receive a final
and complete submission of 1991 Biennial Report data by November 30, 1992.
5-5
FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTERS OTHER PRIORITY A CTIVITIES
Exhibit 5-1 illustrates that the Headquarters, Regions, and States must complete a
number of interim activities in FY'92 and FY'93.
CAPACITY ASSURANCE PLANS
EPA will use 1993 State capacity assurance plans to assess
whether there is adequate hazardous waste management
capacity on a national level. If any national shortfalls are
identified, States will be required to target their efforts to
address those specific shortfalls.
EPA intends to issue final policy and technical guidance to States for the 1993
CAP submission in the first quarter of FY'93. During FY'93, States will be
developing CAPs for submission in the first quarter of FY'94. We are currently
developing the CAP guidance with State and EPA Regional participation. All States
will have an opportunity to comment on CAP guidance documents before they are
final.
As part of this effort, EPA is currently sponsoring five workgroups designed
to develop methodologies and technical guidance for States to use in preparing their
1993 CAP submissions. The workgroups are addressing (1) waste minimization, (2) .
data, (3) remediation derived waste, (4) new regulations, and (5) economic changes.
EPA Headquarters and Regions will work with States to facilitate preparation
of the 1993 CAPs and to clarify issues that may arise related to EPA policy and
technical guidance.
COMPREHENSIVE STATE GROUND-WATER PLANNING
EPA has responsibility under a number of environmental statutes to protect
and clean up water. Ground-water protection and cleanup is a strong mandate of
RCRA. EPA recognized in the Agency's 1991 Ground-Water Protection Strategy,
that the primary responsibility for coordinating and implementing ground water
protection programs has always been and continues to be vested with the States.
Currently, EPA is working with States to develop a framework for comprehensive
State ground-water protection plans. These plans will assist States in developing
ground-water protection programs and ensure, through shared EPA/State efforts,
effective protection of ground-water resources.
The RCRA Subtitle C program can make valuable contributions to this
planning process and can benefit from an integrated State plan to protect its ground-
water resources. At the Regional level, RCRA program managers can share the
annual Beginning of the Year Plans (BYPs) and End of the Year Reports (EYRs) with
the Regional EPA ground-water coordinator. At the State level, the hazardous
waste management program should be coordinated with the State program
responsible for comprehensive ground-water planning.
5-6 FY'93 RIP
-------
(Jl
Exhibit 5-1
1991 Biennial Report Cycle
Activity
States collect, enter, and QA
ki o nftlor
nanaier
data
States provide initial submission
of data to Regions
HQ, Regions, and States conduct
QA, identify and correct errors
Regions provide initial
submission of data for each State
to Headquarters
HQ conducts national data QA;
States address problems HQ
identified
Regions provide final data
submission for each State to
complete BR data requirement
Target Dates
Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
1
L
r
Mar
.1992
1
i
r
June 30. 1992
Julyl
July
.1992
t, 1992
C
C
Od
Key: "Start Date 1
ACtose or Due Date |
A
015.199
A
« 15. 19!
5. 1992 1
2
2
i
*>v30. 1i
92
Nov 30, 1992
g
*^ H*
i«
H
.- j \JO
^% ^v.
^ M
o P
oo
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 5 OTHER PRIORITY A CTFVTTIES
Examples of relevant RCRA Subtitle C program outputs that could contribute
to comprehensive State plans include hazardous waste permit application
information (e.g., hydrogeology); permit based ground-water protection standards;
monitoring and reporting requirements for ground-water wells (e.g., construction,
location data analysis, and detection monitoring compliance); and coordination of
State RCRA permits with underground injection control, National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, and 404 permits whether they are controlled by the
State, EPA, or the Corps of Engineers.
State comprehensive ground-water planning may support the RCRA Subtitle
C program in several ways. Identified valuable and vulnerable ground waters (e.g.,
well head protection areas) may be the basis for targeted geographic initiatives and
identifying high environmental benefits facilities. Ground-water classification may
provide valuable inputs to EPA and State corrective action programs in determining
appropriate cleanup options and levels. Application of ground-water data from
comprehensive resource assessments can supplement the RCRA Subtitle C
assessment and remedy selection process as part of an overall plan for ground-water
protection and can be used to identify high-resource ground waters over which
construction of new facilities may be banned.
5-8 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number
CHAPTER 6
COMPLIANCE MONITORING
AND ENFORCEMENT
The goal of the RCRA enforcement program is to attain and maintain a high rate
of compliance within the regulated community by establishing a comprehensive
inspection program and taking timely, visible, and effective enforcement actions against
violators. The program recognizes the need to focus its limited resources on the most
environmentally significant handlers and is committed to furthering the Agency's goals
of preventing pollution and encouraging a holistic view of compliance through its
support of multi-media enforcement.
In FY'92, the program focused on implementing the recommendati&ns of the
RCRA Implementation Study (RIS). Specifically, the program concentrated on enforcing
new regulations, targeting and publicizing enforcement actions, increasing penalties,
and using innovative enforcement techniques. The program increased attention on
violations committed by generators and non-notifiers and targeted exporters and
importers of hazardous waste who failed to comply with the notification and reporting e
requirements of RCRA. This focus will continue in FY'93.
Also, consistent with the program direction established in FY'92, the FY'93
program will continue to strike a balance among competing program priorities. In
FY'93, Regions and States should allocate compliance monitoring and enforcement
resources to perform a mix of the activities that will best achieve the objectives outlined
in the RIS and the OSWER and Regional strategic plans. The priority activities outlined
in this document support the RIS and OSWER Strategic Plan.
This year's RIP provides significant flexibility to assist Regions and
States in selecting FY'93 activities. In FY'93, we will continue to
provide 25 percent flexibility.
As in FY'92, Regions and States will be able to tailor their compliance monitoring
and enforcement programs to achieve the greatest environmental benefit. Regions and
States should, however, carefully consider any decisions made to trade off the FY'93
national priority activities in favor of Regional or State-specific enforcement activities.
Determining the best mix of priority activities to achieve the maximum environmental
benefit will be the greatest challenge for each Region and State.
The FY'93 RCRA enforcement program embraces the major objectives, principles,
and operating guidelines of the FY'93-'96 OSWER Strategic Plan and February 4,1992,
revision for FY'94-'97. Specifically, in FY'93, the program will use its authorities to
reduce hazardous waste generated by industries; encourage pollution prevention
through the use of outreach and enforcement settlement agreements; help create a more
6-1 FY'93 RJP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTERS COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
effective and rational RCRA Subtitle C program; and help ensure the proper
management of hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste in all States and on Tribal
lands.
The FY'93 RIP is consistent with the Office of Enforcement's FY'93 Operating Year
Guidance, which implements the risk-based and targeted approach contained in the
Enforcement Four-Year Strategic Plan and the Enforcement in the 1990's project. These
documents maintain an integrated, multi-media focus designed to identify violations
involving the most significant risks to the public's health and the environment and also
serve as the foundation for aggressive cross-media enforcement.
The R1S recognized that increased inspection and enforcement workloads
associated with newly regulated universes would continue to tax RCRA resources and
further limit Regional and State abilities to address priorities outside of the national
priorities. To address these concerns, the FY'92 RIP provided Regions and States with
increased flexibility in managing their hazardous waste enforcement programs. This
approach allowed Regions and States to focus on Regional and State-specific
environmental priorities by trading off some of the national priority activities
established in the RIP.
RIP-FLEX CONCEPT
In FY'93, as in FY'92, the RIP provides Regions and States the ability to disinvest
up to 25 percent of Regional or State enforcement resources allocated for national
priority activities and re-invest in Regional or State-specific enforcement priorities. In
FY'92, disinvested resources had to be redirected to perform other RCRA enforcement
activities and disinvestment from Federal facility inspections was not allowed. These
restrictions continue to apply in FY'93. In addition, pursuant to the Off-Site Policy
(OSWER Directive 9834.11, November 13,1987), TSDFs which receive waste from
CERCLA response actions, must be inspected every 6 months to remain eligible to
receive waste from CERCLA response actions. Inspections at TSDFs that receive waste
from CERCLA response actions, therefore, are ineligible for RIP-Flex.
This chapter identifies FY'93 national priority activities. It should be noted that
specific levels of activity for some types of inspections are described. Examples of these
include: inspect all boiler and industrial furnaces (BIF) and hazardous waste
incinerators; inspect 8 percent of large quantity generators; and inspect any TSDF not
inspected in FY'92, etc. In these cases, if a Region wishes to do less than the specified level of
activity in favor of a State or Regional enforcement priority, this trade-off must be done as part of
RIP-Flex and described in the Region's Beginning of Year Plan (BYP). "^"o assist Regions,
these activities are marked with an asterisk.) The specification of a- activity level does
not necessarily mean the activity is more important. Rather, it may reflect a statutory
mandate, a desire to have a determined minimum level of presence nationally, or a
commitment due to a specific concern. Regions are always free to do more thar. the
specified activity level and in some cases may wish to use RIP-Flex to do so.
*Tk:s enforcement priority requires a 6-2 FY'93 RIP
?f cijK level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number y^2u.uu-uo
CHAPTER 6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
For other categories of national priority inspections, no specific level of activity is
mandated. Examples of these categories include "Mineral Processing Waste" and
"Transporters." Although we expect some level of activity in every category, if a level is not
specified, Regions should determine the appropriate level in light of the activity's importance,
Regional priorities, and resources available. Regions need not use RIP-Flex in making these
determinations. However, if a Region plans todisinvest totally from any activity in this
category, this trade-off must be done as part of RIP-Flex and described in the Region's BYP. (Of
course, if a category is not applicable because the Region does not have any of the type
of facility or handler, no activity is required.)
With respect to national priority enforcement activities, existing guidance like the
Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) and RCRA Civil Penalty Policy (RCPP) determine when
and what response should be taken. If Regions wish to disinvest in these activities, they
should do so through RIP-Flex.
As in FY'92, the 25 percent enforcement resource flexibility provided includes the
10 to 15 percent enforcement flexibility provided by the October 22,1990, memo
transmitted from the Assistant Administrator for Enforcement to the Deputy Regional
Administrators. Regions are strongly encouraged to extend the 25 percent enforcement
flexibility to authorized States.
FV93 NATIONAL PRIORITY ACTIVITIES
The following inspection, enforcement, and capability enhancement activities
comprise the RCRA enforcement program's FY'93 national priorities. Regions are
expected to devote their compliance monitoring and enforcement resources to these
priorities and, therefore, are expected to maintain some level of activity in each priority
area. States and Regions should work together to agree on the best mix of priority
activities based on available resources, environmental benefit to be achieved, and State
priorities. As previously mentioned, any planned disinvestments in the priority
activities in favor of other Regional or State priorities should be addressed under RIP-
Flex in the FY'93 BYP.
National Priority Inspections
Inspection priorities for FY'93 are reflective of the OSWER Strategic Plan
objectives and the RIS recommendations. In support of the strategic plan objective to
encourage pollution prevention and minimize risk, the Regions and States should
continue to identify inspection targets by considering volume, toxicity, and potential
human health and ecological risks from exposure to hazardous waste.
In keeping with the RIS recommendations, Regions and States should continue
to intensify efforts to inspect generators and identify non-notifiers while maintaining a
strong presence at TSDFs. To accommodate the increased inspection efforts at
*This enforcement priority requires a 6-3 FY'93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
generators and non-notifiers, Regions and States should focus on inspecting the most
"environmentally significant" TSDFs that are out of compliance or have histories of non-
compliance.
The following national priority inspection activities should be conducted by
Regions and States in FY'93.
Handlers that Pose an Immediate Threat to Human Health or the Environment
Inspections should be conducted to provide necessary documentation for
enforcement actions where EPA or the State has information that handlers may present
an immediate threat to human health or the environment.
Inspections to Support Targeted Enforcement Initiatives
Inspections should be conducted to support the Agency's FY'93 multi-media
initiatives, national program-wide RCRA initiatives, and Regional/State initiatives.
Conducting these inspections may result in temporary shifts of inspection priorities.
State Oversight Inspections
Oversight continues to be a critical component of the inspection program.
Therefore, it is extremely important for Regions to maintain a strong oversight presence
at regulated facilities. In FY'93, oversight inspections should be continued at the level
suggested in the FY'90 RIP and referenced in the FY'91 and FY'92 RIPs (10 percent of
the TSDFs committed to in the State grant agreements) or adjusted to a level
commensurate with the State's inspection capabilities. Oversight inspections should be
conducted in accordance with the RCRA State Oversight Inspection Guide (December
1987).
TSDF Inspections
In FY'93, statutorily mandated inspections of TSDFs shall continue to be a high
priority. When considering priorities, Regions and States are encouraged to maintain
the highest sustainable level of inspection presence at these facilities. Inspections of
TSDFs should focus on assuring that these facilities comply with facility-specific
operating requirements, permits (where applicable), worker health and safety
requirements, and corrective action or other compliance schedules. Further, compliance
with ground-water monitoring requirements should be emphasized to assure that
releases from regulated units are detected and properly addressed.
Statutory Inspections:
• *A11 government TSDFs (land or non-land), as required by statute.
This enforcement priority requires a 6-4 FY 93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
•Any TSDF not inspected in FY'92, including new TSDFs.
• Commercial TSDFs: These facilities must receive a Compliance
Evaluation Inspection (CEI) within the 6 months prior to receiving
CERCLA waste. In addition, a Comprehensive Ground-Water Monitoring
Evaluation (CME) or Operation and Maintenance Inspection (O&M) must
be conducted within 1 year prior to the receipt of CERCLA waste.
Other Inspections at TSDFs:
• 'Ground-Water Monitoring Inspections (CMEs and O&M): A CME
should be conducted at all new (or newly regulated) land disposal
facilities (LDFs). Once it is determined that the facility's ground-water
monitoring system is adequately designed and installed, the O&M
becomes the appropriate ground-water monitoring inspection.
*A CME or O&M should be conducted at every at least once every 3 years.
Inspectors should conduct CMEs more frequently under any of the
following circumstances:
Complex compliance or corrective action requirements exist at
regulated units
The ground-water monitoring system is determined to be
substantially inadequate
Significant changes to the ground-water monitoring system have
been made
Significant changes to the local ground-water (hydrological or
hydrogeological) regime have occurred or are suspected.
• Closed and Closing LDFs: Where LDFs are closed or closing, inspections
should evaluate compliance with closure plans in addition to assuring the
adequacy of ground-water monitoring systems. Particularly at closing
facilities, inspectors should be cognizant of illegal activities, such as
continuing to receive hazardous waste.
• TSDFs Out of Compliance with Orders: Inspections should be conducted
at facilities out of compliance with orders. (Note the discussion on
returning regulated facilities to compliance.) Regions and States must
make an ongoing commitment to follow up on facilities that fail to comply
with enforcement actions. In addition, Regions and States should
routinely conduct inspections to determine whether facilities have
complied with orders previously issued.
*This enforcement priority requires a 6-5 FY'93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
• Permit Compliance Inspections: Regions and States should maintain a
high level of presence at all permitted TSDFs. All TSDFs with significant
corrective action measures required under permits should also receive
CEIs. Additionally, Regions and States should ensure that permit and
compliance enforcement personnel coordinate their efforts prior to
conducting inspections so that inspectors are fully cognizant of all facility-
specific permit requirements.
• *Follow-Up Inspections' Follow-up inspections are necessary to
determine whether TSDFs are in compliance with their enforcement
actions, compliance schedules, and/or have returned to compliance.
These inspections are essential to promote deterrence. Follow-up
inspections should be conducted at TSDFs which have had (1) a formal
enforcement action and (2) compliance schedules set for any Class I
violations.
• "Combustion (Incinerators and Boilers and Industrial Furnaces)
Inspections: The BIF rule and the Incinerator rule regulate combustion
units that burn hazardous wastes for destruction, energy recovery, and/or
materials recovery. The BIF rule allows for several exemptions including *
small quantity burners and smelting, melting, and refining furnaces that
burn hazardous waste solely to recover metals.
Due to the concerns associated with the combustion units, all BIFs and
hazardous waste incinerators should be inspected in FY'93. The
inspections should include: (1) BIFs operating under interim status
pursuant to compliance certifications; (2) permitted BIFs; (3) BIFs that
have notified under one of the exemptions; and (4) all commercial and on-
site operating hazardous waste incinerators. In addition, BIFs that
qualified for interim status and submitted pre-compliance certifications
but failed to submit compliance certifications should be inspected. The
latter inspections should verify that hazardous waste burning has ceased
and closure activities have commenced.
On December 31,1991, guidance was transmitted to the Regions on
developing specialized hazardous waste combustion (HWC) inspectors.
This guidance recommended that the Regions create and fill a position for
a specialized HWC inspector by the end of March 1992. For Regions with
a large universe of hazardous waste combustion units, the document
recommended more than one HWC inspector.
For authorized States, the guidance recommended that the specialized
HWC inspector(s) conduct oversight inspections with State inspectors. In
unauthorized States, the Region inspects all HWC units. In outlining the
*This enforcement priority requires" 6-6 FY'93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Nximber 9M20.uu-Oo
CHAPTER 6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
qualifications and training required for the person(s) filling the HWC
position(s), the guidance emphasized that training and/or experience in
certain areas may be obtained within the first 18 months on the job. This
allows a phase-in period for the development of a fully qualified
individual. By FY'93, the Regions should have designated one or more
specialized HWC inspectors.
• 'CERCLA On-Site Incinerators: A December 11,1991, memorandum from
Don Clay requires RCRA inspectors to inspect all CERCLA on-site
incinerators in FY'93. This will require dose coordination between the
Regional CERCLA and RCRA enforcement programs. All CERCLA on-
site incinerator trial bums must be attended by a RCRA permitting staff
member and the Regional HWC inspector.
Inspections to Enforce New Rules
Toxicity Characteristic (TC) Rule
Under the TC rule, facilities are required to determine if they are managing TC
wastes. Facilities can determine this by their knowledge of the process or by
performing the toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP). In FY'93, Regions and
States should focus on assessing facilities' compliance with the TC requirements and
continue to identify potential non-notifiers, particularly LDFs.
Air Emissions Rule
Under the air emissions rule, TSDFs are required to comply with rules on
equipment leaks and certain process vents (Phase I). By FY'93, facilities should have
installed devices to control air emissions from equipment. As a result, inspections to
determine compliance may involve a more in-depth review. In FY'93, Regions and
States should continue to monitor facilities' compliance with the rule.
In addition, it is expected that Phase II of the Air Emissions Rule will be
promulgated in the first quarter of FY'93 and become effective in the third quarter of
FY'93. As proposed, this rule applies to organic air emissions from hazardous waste
tanks, surface impoundments, and containers and requires some control devices to be
installed. If promulgated as proposed, the final rule will increase the level of effort to
conduct CEIs at affected TSDFs.
Mineral Processing Waste
In March 1990, a final rule regulating mineral processing wastes became
effective. There are approximately 390 mineral processing sites nation-wide that were
listed in a March 1990 guidance document. These sites are potential generators of
characteristic wastes. Mineral processing sites that notified as generators should be
This enforcement priority requires a 6-7 FY'93 RJP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number 9A20.00-08
CHAPTER 6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
inspected on a schedule similar to other generators. The Regions and States should
determine whether these mineral processing sites have notified of hazardous waste
activity. In addition, the Regions should continue to evaluate and inspect, as necessary,
the phosphoric acid manufacturing facilities to determine if further action on these sites
is needed.
Wood Preservers
On November 15,1990, EPA finalized the Wood Preservers rule. The main focus
of this rule is to properly identify and manage wood preserving wastes in accordance
with 40 CFR Parts 264/265 Subpart W standard? for drip pads.
In FY'93, Regions and States should inspect:
• Sites operating without a Subpart W drip pad or equivalent hazardous
waste management unit (e.g., hazardous waste tank system)
• Sites operating with an existing drip pad as defined in 40 CFR Parts 264
and 265, Subpart W
• Sites operating with a new drip pad as defined in 40 CFR Parts 264 and
265, Subpart W.
Generators, Transporters, and Non-Notifiers
'Generators and Non-Notifiers
Section 3010 of RCRA requires generators, transporters, and owners/operators of
TSDFs to notify EPA of their hazardous waste management activities. With the
implementation of the TC rule, additional waste handlers and generators fell within the
purview of Section 3010.
In FY'93, Regions and States should continue to increase generator inspections
and identify non-notifiers. Regions and States should target at least 8 percent of large
quantity generators. Large quantity generators are defined as those facilities that
generate more than 1000 kg. of hazardous waste per month.
Transporters
In FY'93, Regions and States should continue the approach outlined in the FY'92
RIP to target transporters and identify and address transporter non-compliance.
Several States have begun work on the issue of transporters and Regions are urged to
support these efforts.
*T/iis enforcement priority requires a 6-8 FY'93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number 9-t^o.uu-uo
CHAPTER 6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
*Delisting Inspections
In FY'93, Regions and States should conduct inspections at generators that have
successfully petitioned for delisting of one or more waste streams pursuant to 40 CFR
Sections 260.20 and 260.22. The Regions and States should inspect generators with both
conditional exclusions and standard exclusions. In scheduling these inspections,
Regions should inspect one out of every three generators that have standard exclusions.
Hazardous Waste Exports/Imports
The transport of waste across international borders continues to be a highly
publicized environmental problem. Congress and international organizations are
actively addressing the management of transboundary movement of wastes. Attention
will continue to increase on the transboundary movement of hazardous waste.
In FY'93, Regions and States with import and/or export activity should increase
their efforts to track the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. Regions may
wish to work with their States to obtain additional import/export waste manifest
information and TSDF notification of imports under 40 CFR Part 264. These Regions
and States should focus inspections, where appropriate, on facilities' import and export
activities. Regions should continue to coordinate with the National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC). This coordination includes maintaining an effective
information exchange program, informing NEIC and the RCRA Enforcement Division
(RED) at Headquarters of the progress and/or outcome of all referred cases, and
notifying NEIC of potential enforcement actions involving hazardous waste import and
export violations. Additionally, the Regions should continue to carefully review the
import notifications from Canada and other foreign countries that require EPA consent.
Specifically, for Canadian notices, EPA has 30 days to object or consent to an import.
National Priority Enforcement Principles and Activities
The FY'93 RCRA enforcement priorities support the objectives of the OSWER
Strategic Plan and the continued implementation of RIS recommendations. The Strategic
Plan encourages seeking opportunities to incorporate pollution prevention provisions
into enforcement settlement agreements; working with the States to take timely
enforcement actions with penalties; and using the revised RCRA Civil Penalty Policy
(RCPP) to obtain higher penalties. The Strategic Plan also suggests deterring non-
compliance through the use of sanctions and penalties, based upon economic benefit of
non-compliance, and using non-traditional and creative approaches to enforcement.
Regions and States should continue to implement the primary RIS
recommendations pertaining to enforcement. These include giving special attention to
pollution prevention, by enforcing the Biennial Report Requirement of Certification of
Waste Reduction and the waste reduction requirements in permits; seeking higher
penalties and using other economic sanctions; strategically targeting enforcement and
*7Viis enforcement priority requires a 6-9 FY'93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
publicizing those efforts; pursuing judicial enforcement, where appropriate, and
increasing the use of innovative enforcement such as field citations and model orders.
Fundamental Enforcement Principles for FY'93
As a complement to the "fundamental principles" set forth in the OSWER
Strategic Plan, the following enforcement principles should guide all Regional and State
enforcement efforts in maximizing deterrence and obtaining compliance by the
regulated community.
Seeking Higher Penalties
In FY'91, the RCPP was issued. Among other things, the RCPP requires multi-
day penalties, documentation of penalties, and recoupment of a violator's economic
benefit. The RCPP has already enabled the Agency to significantly increase the assessed
and collected dollar amounts for civil penalties. Its continued implementation will
strengthen the deterrent impact of Regional and State enforcement actions.
In FY'93, Regions should continue to implement the RCPP and related guidance
from Headquarters. Additionally, the Regions should continue to encourage the States
to utilize the RCPP. As in FY'92, Regions will continue to submit penalty calculations to.
Headquarters and to perform self-assessments of their efforts to implement the revised
policy. Headquarters will continue to review Regional penalty calculations and provide
additional penalty policy guidance, where required or requested by the Regions.
Timely and Appropriate Enforcement Response
Timely and appropriate enforcement response is a key factor in maintaining the
RCRA enforcement program's credibility and encouraging compliance by the regulated
community. In FY'93, Regions and States are encouraged to improve the timeliness of
their enforcement responses. The ERP sets forth the RCRA program's enforcement
priorities. It established these priorities by classifying violations, mandating
appropriate actions, and establishing time frames for enforcement actions. Regions and
States should continue to address problems and issues that affect enforcement response.
It is recognized that participation in targeted enforcement initiatives may have an
impact on the adherence to the time frames in the ERP.
Publicizing Enforcement Actions
Since FY'91, the enforcement program has endeavored to publicize the nature
and environmental significance of enforcement actions. In FY'91 and 92, the land
disposal, lead, and illegal operators' initiatives all received substantial publicity. In
addition, a multi-media cluster filing of export and import cases was also effective in
drawing attention to the need for strict compliance with RCRA requirements for
international shipments of hazardous waste.
*This enforcement priority requires a 6-10 FY'93 RJP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
uireccive iv
CHAPTER 6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
During FY'93, the enforcement program should continue to seek media coverage
for initiatives and significant individual cases. Regions and States should also evaluate
more effective ways to disseminate information to the general public and specific
audiences by using the news media, trade press, and other mechanisms.
Utilizing Civil and Criminal Judicial Enforcement
In FY'93, administrative, judicial, and criminal enforcement actions will continue
to be effective enforcement tools. While most cases are expected to be administrative,
judicial actions send a strong message for deterrence.
Regions and States should consider judicial action for cases involving egregious
or repeat violators or violators of administrative agreements. Examples of other
appropriate cases are those requiring court supervised injunctive relief, supporting
multi-media enforcement approaches, seeking large penalties, or that may establish
legal precedents.
Criminal enforcement actions should also be considered. The publicity and
stigma attached to a criminal conviction makes criminal enforcement a very effective
tool. Guidance prepared by the Office of Enforcement (OE) emphasizes the integration
of criminal enforcement with civil enforcement.
In FY'93, Regions and States are encouraged to carefully screen RCRA cases to
identify those that may warrant further criminal investigation. The enormous deterrent
effect of well-targeted criminal cases will enhance the RCRA enforcement program's
compliance goals and advance the credibility of the Agency's enforcement program.
Using Innovative Enforcement Tools
Economic sanctions, model orders, and field citations are some of the innovative
enforcement tools which the Regions and States may use in FY'93. Regions and States
should identify appropriate cases for economic sanctions such as suspension and
debarment and refer the cases to the Grant Administration Division. Prior to referring
the cases, Regions and States should refer to the Suspension and Debarment Guidance,
finalized in FY'92.
Model orders are also available to the Regions and States in FY'93. Headquarters
expects to issue a revised model Section 3008(h) order in late FY'92. In FY'93, Regions
are expected to use the model order when drafting Section 3008(h) complaints.
In FY'92, some States were using field citations. This innovative enforcement tool
allows inspectors to issue small fines and orders immediately, when they identify
relatively minor violations. In FY'93, Headquarters encourages other States to use field
citations as a part of State RCRA enforcement programs. For additional information
*This enforcement priority requires a 6-11 FY 93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number 9-4-o.uu-uo
CHAPTERS COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
concerning field citation programs, please contact the Technical Assistance and Training
Branch in Headquarter's RED.
Priority Enforcement Activities for FY'93
Enforcing Corrective Action, Permit, and Closure Requirements
Regions, with appropriate assistance from States, must act aggressively to
enforce corrective action requirements at TSDFs. Regions are also encouraged to use
the appropriate enforcement authorities to compel corrective action which is necessary
and consistent with Regional priorities. Chapter 4 addresses corrective action and its
relationship to the Strategic Management Framework.
It is imperative that Regions and States vigorously monitor and enforce RCRA
permits. EPA has assured the public that final permits, which are more site-specific
than regulations, will better protect the public's interests. A vigorous enforcement
program is needed to assure compliance with permit terms and conditions. Regions
and States should use RCRJS to track schedules contained in issued permits. Permit
violations must be addressed in accordance with the ERP. Violators of permit
conditions must be classified as high priority violators. In FY'93, Headquarters will
continue with the permit enforceability project. The project will assess the enforcement
of permit conditions and make recommendations, as appropriate.
The Regions and States should continue to initiate enforcement actions at
facilities in violation of closure/post-dosure requirements. Enforcement of conditions
in approved closure plans is important.
Returning Regulated Facilities to Compliance
Regions received a copy of the Return to Compliance (RTC) Study in October 1991.
The study examined the histories of 259 LDFs that had been out of compliance for 3 or
more years. The study highlighted the important deterrent effect and program
credibility associated with returning facilities to compliance.
Returning facilities to compliance continues to be an enforcement priority. In
recent years, EPA and the States have taken numerous enforcement actions in an effort
to bring the regulated community into full compliance with RCRA interim status
standards.
Land disposal facilities, in particular, have been the subject of great scrutiny by
both EPA and Congress. This increased attention results from the belief that, among
RCRA-regulated facilities, ground-water contamination from LDFs poses the greatest
threat to human health and the environment. It is important to emphasize that initial
enforcement actions must be accompanied by a continued commitment to an
*This enforcement priority requires a 6-12 FY'93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTERS COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
appropriate level of follow-up to return such facilities to compliance as expeditiously as
possible.
In FY'92, a workgroup was established to develop a strategy to implement the
recommendations of the RTC Study. The workgroup focused on developing methods to
rank and address facilities that have remained out of compliance for extended time
periods and examined ways to expedite the negotiation process and to prevent non-
compliance.
In establishing FY'93 enforcement priorities, Regions and States should place
added emphasis on identifying sufficient resources to prioritize and address those
facilities that have been in significant non-compliance for extended periods of time.
Regions and States should consider the environmental benefits associated with
correcting identified violations. In addition, Regions should specify how they plan to
address such facilities in their BYPs. In FY'93, the program should continue to
emphasize tracking, ranking, and addressing these facilities with appropriate
enforcement actions and return the facilities to compliance.
Participating in FY'93 Enforcement Initiatives
The Agency's approach to enforcement and overall environmental protection is .
rapidly evolving towards multi-media activities. Multi-media inspections and
enforcement will continue to be a priority in FY'93. States are encouraged to move in
this direction. The program will build upon its experiences from FY'92 multi-media
cluster filings, inspections, and case screenings. In addition, the program will continue
to participate in the activities of the multi-media enforcement workgroup.
Regions and States are expected to participate in and support the FY'93 multi-
media initiatives and case cluster efforts endorsed by the Agency's Enforcement
Management Council (EMC). These include FY'92 national initiatives, which continue
in FY'93, and two new national initiatives under consideration for FY'93, which focus on
data quality and Federal facilities.
The data quality initiative was selected because every environmental statute
requires the regulated community to develop and/or report some type of test or
monitoring data. EPA relies heavily on the submission and accuracy of such data to
develop rules, reduce pollution, detect non-compliance, and target enforcement actions.
If EPA is to achieve its regulatory and enforcement goals, it is essential that all
individuals that are required to comply with data development and reporting standards
submit accurate information. In FY'93, the RCRA enforcement program's involvement
with this initiative could include enforcing compliance with: RCRA Section 3007
(inspections and reporting), Section 3010 (notifications), Part A submissions, biennial
reporting, ground-water monitoring data, TCLP test data, operating records, BIF
notifications, and requirements for Waste Analysis Plans (WAPs).
*This enforcement priority requires a 6-13 FY'93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number y420.00-0e>
CHAPTERS COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Federal facilities are of special concern and the focus of a multi-media initiative
in FY'93. Traditionally, the compliance rates for Federal agencies have been low in all
media. Moreover, RCRA compliance rates for Federal facilities have been consistently
below 50 percent. Thus, Federal facilities are appropriate subjects for more enforcement
attention in RCRA. Since RCRA is usually a key component of most multi-media
inspections and compliance rates are below 50 percent, an increase in inspection
activities at Federal facilities is necessary during FY'93. Also, geographic initiatives,
such as the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay, as well as Regional and State initiatives
may incorporate Federal facilities into compliance inspections and evaluations.
The RCRA enforcement program will continue to work with the EMC's multi-
media enforcement initiatives workgroup to further develop the RCRA component of
these two initiatives. Regions and States are also encouraged to participate in other
multi-media activities (i.e., case screenings, inspections, and enforcement actions). In
addition, Regions should provide cooperation and support to States initiating multi-
media efforts.
Emphasizing Pollution Prevention
The enforcement program has sought to create specific incentives to encourage
the regulated community to implement pollution prevention/waste minimization
programs. These programs promote source reduction, recycling, and reuse methods,
and foster research on waste reduction technologies and alternative industrial
processes.
In FY'93, the following areas should be targeted for enforcement activities:
• Enforcing the Biennial Report requirement
• Incorporating pollution prevention projects into enforcement settlements
• Appropriately incorporating pollution prevention/waste minimization
activities into inspections:
Determining compliance with waste minimization requirements
Assisting in educating the regulated community about pollution
prevention
• Increasing the enforcement program's focus on undiscovered generators
of hazardous waste.
This enforcement priority requires a 6-14 FY'93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
uireccive
CHAPTERS COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
ENHANCING ENFORCEMENT CAPABILITY
The OSWER Strategic Plan recognizes that a successful State/EPA partnership
needs to be tailored to each State's capability and needs. With this in mind, the plan
commits to providing technical and administrative assistance and training to States and
Tribes in a variety of areas that will enhance the States' and Tribes' capability to enforce
State and Federal requirements. Areas of particular focus include pollution prevention,
management of special wastes, industrial Subtitle D waste, and municipal solid waste.
The R1S found that a lack of training accounted in part for poor inspector performance
and recommended approaches to enhance the RCRA enforcement program.
Headquarters Training Efforts
Headquarters remains strongly committed to providing the opportunity and
resources to ensure that adequate training is made available to Regional and State
enforcement personnel. RED, therefore, will continue to provide training to the Regions
and States in FY'93. RED plans to expand the successful RCRA Inspector Institute to
include an Advanced Institute. It is anticipated that the following specific training and
guidance will be conducted in FY'93:
• RCRA Inspector Institute (Denver, Colorado)
• Advanced RCRA Inspector Institute
• BIF Enforcement Training
• Corrective Action Inspection Training
• Revised CME and O&M Inspection Training
• Pollution Prevention Training
• LDR Interactive Enforcement Training
• Used Oil Enforcement Training.
In FY'93, Headquarters will continue its efforts to develop innovative techniques
to deliver training and increase its efforts to institutionalize training. Some of the
innovative techniques involve satellite technology, computer-based training programs,
and video training courses. Regions and States are strongly encouraged to procure the
necessary hardware and make the appropriate arrangements to take advantage of these
new training techniques.
Also, it is recommended that the Regions and States develop in-house training
courses to promote a better understanding of the RCRA program. Headquarters will
*This enforcement priority requires a 6-15 FY'93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 6 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
support these efforts by sending knowledgeable personnel from RED to the courses
presented by the Regions or States.
Headquarter's Strategies, Policies, and Guidance
Headquarters will continue to issue guidance and enforcement strategies as
needed on new regulations. Every effort will be made to issue enforcement strategies
prior to the effective date of the new rules. RCRA enforcement guidance documents
that are expected to be available in FY93 include:
Used Oil
• Corrective Action Inspections.
State Efforts
States should continue to enhance their enforcement capability. EPA believes
that many authorized States need to make changes in their enforcement authorities and
capabilities and recommends that, where appropriate, they begin work to enhance their
enforcement authority. Recommended changes include:
• Administrative authority to impose penalties
• Removal of impediments to taking enforcement actions, such as boards or
review committees that must "approve" enforcement actions
• Capability to support an effective criminal enforcement program
• Update of criminal penalties and definitions to reflect 1980 and 1984
amendments to RCRA
• Statutes of limitations of a least 5 years
• Authority to order corrective action for releases at interim status facilities
(similar to that found in Section 3008(h) of RCRA).
The Agency believes that these changes will allow authorized States to achieve a
higher compliance rate within the regulated community. The Agency plans to include
these recommended changes in a proposed revision to the RCRA Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement State Authorization Requirements (40 CFR 271.15 and
271.16)inFY'92.
*This enforcement priority requires a 6-16 FY'93 RIP
specific level of activity.
See page 6-2 notation.
-------
Directive Number 9A20.00-08
CHAPTER 7
ACCOUNTABILITY
EPA Headquarters, Regions, and States are accountable to our constituents for
our progress and accomplishments. Traditionally, EPA has relied on the Strategic
Targeted Accomplishments for Results System (STARS) to track progress in key
activities. In FY'92, we broadened RCRA accountability mechanisms to include the
Beginning of Year Plan (BYP) and the End of Year Report (EYR). In FY'93, our goal
is to make these documents more effective toe Is for articulating program
expectations and accomplishments.
The public spotlight on the RCRA program, and correction action in
particular, is only expected to grow more intense as we enter the second decade of
program implementation. As significant Federal resources are dedicated to this
program, Headquarters is asked to supply statistics and information on what
environmental improvements these resources are buying. Even in a program that
will ultimately be delegated entirely to the States, there will always remain a role for
Headquarters in monitoring the progress and quality of implementation efforts
nation-wide. Information on what is occurring in the field is essential to our ability •
to represent these aspects of the program accurately.
Effective accounting will enhance our management of the RCRA program by
providing a reliable gauge of progress and environmental success as the basis for
defining future program needs and direction. Accounting mechanisms must allow
OSWER to provide a national picture of the progress we are making in meeting
EPA's public commitment to manage the RCRA program effectively and to
implement key Government Accounting Office and RCRA Implementation Study
(R1S) recommendations for improvement. They must also be well structured so
that they do not become needlessly burdensome and time consuming. For FY'93,
we have carefully defined the purpose and content of each accountability
mechanism and how we will use these tools in a yearly RCRA management cycle.
The accountability mechanisms that the RCRA program will rely on are
STARS, the BYP, and EYR. The BYP provides a comprehensive description of how
the RCRA program is being implemented at the Regional and State level. The EYR
contains quantitative baseline performance measures including STARS and
supplemental data from RCRIS. OSWER will use this information to present status
reports on our program to EPA's senior managers and to respond to inquiries
regarding our accomplishments and goals from interested parties. The information
in the BYP and EYR collectively will indicate how the Regions are balancing the
many RCRA program activities to address competing environmental priorities.
7-1 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 7 ACCOUNTABILITY
These accountability mechanisms are designed to accomplish the following
goals:
• Articulate environmental priorities in the RCRA program, as
identified by Regions and States
• Portray our management choices to balance activities to meet these
diverse and competing environmental needs with available resources
• Provide reporting flexibility for Regions and States to define their
environmental priorities through a combination of qualitative and
quantitative reporting mechanisms
• Provide sufficient detail to critically evaluate program
accomplishments and direction and make timely corrections when
necessary.
STARS
STARS highlights a limited number of program activities
and accomplishments that are key indicators of progress
for the highest levels of EPA management.
RCRA permitting, corrective action, and enforcement STARS measures are
benchmarks for facilities meeting their regulatory obligations and surrogate
measures for progress toward environmental results. They also emphasize strategic
management goals for the program (i.e., emphasis on activities that are likely to get
the most timely and efficient environmental results for our program resources). A
compilation of FY'93 STARS measures is presented in Appendix A.
In FY'93, consistent with direction throughout EPA, we are redefining STARS
in three key aspects. First, recognizing that STARS cannot adequately portray the
complex environmental priorities and range of activities in the RCRA program, we
have substantially reduced the number of STARS measures to capture only the
highlights of program progress. As indicated in Chapter 2, consistent with the
Strategic Management Framework, corrective action STARS are focused on
measuring progress at high priority facilities. We will work with Regions and States
to focus other STARS measures at high priority facilities in FY'94. In addition to
limiting STARS measures, we have developed baseline performance measures in
the EYR (discussed below) for our own program management purposes.
Second, we have eliminated targeted measures. This approach highlights the
full set of STARS performance measures and the importance of all these activities.
Further, measurement of accomplishments across these highlighted activities n.ay
provide stronger encouragement for continual improvement than targets set in
advance. FY'93 will be a pilot year to test this approach to STARS.
7-2 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9j4~U.uu-U6
CHAPTER 7 ACCOUNTABILITY
Third, while STARS will continue to highlight program accomplishments,
we recognize that the bottom line measures of program success are environmental
indicators. Ideal environmental indicators are direct measures of the health and
environmental effects resulting from RCRA activities. Because these data are not
readily available, the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) and the Office of Waste Programs
Enforcement (OWPE) are currently reporting surrogate or intermediate measures
that indirectly indicate environmental effects of the RCRA program. We are
actively working to improve our data collection and reporting ability so that we can
report environmental indicators in STARS.
In the FY'93 STARS, the corrective action measure for risk reduction
activities underway is an intermediate environmental indicator while we develop
ways to measure contaminant reductions more directly. The measure tracking
completion of the Biennial Report marks a critical foundation for environmental
indicators, since the Biennial Report, along with RCRIS, will be a source for
environmental indicator data.
BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN
The BYP describes the environmental priorities, planned
activities, and strategic choices that the Regions and States
are making.
The BYP combines narrative information with quantitative information on
the RCRA universe and STARS projections. Regions should develop the BYP in
coordination with States and describe specific implementation priorities and the
balance of activities to meet environmental needs and maintain progress across the
RCRA universe.
OSWER will use BYPs for several purposes. While we have eliminated
STARS targets, we are asking Regions to provide projections and a list of candidate
facilities for the STARS measures, which we will negotiate with each Region at the
beginning of the fiscal year. The projections may be provided as a range of actions
(for example, 15-20 operating permits). We will not enter projections into STARS,
but will use them to indicate relative emphasis on activities, and to project time
frames to complete activities at particular categories of facilities. We will also use
the BYPs to understand environmental priorities in the RCRA program, from
Region to Region, and aggregated at the national level. The BYP will also highlight
the Regional/State strategy for addressing different types of facilities, initiatives, and
priority activities that may not be reflected in STARS.
We are asking that Regions submit several facility lists (name, identification
number, and priority ranking) by category as a supplement to the FY'93 BYP. These
lists are necessary for near term reconciliation of Headquarters and Regional data on
the size and composition of the RCRA universe. They are also needed to ensure
7-3 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 7 ACCOUNTABILITY
that Headquarter's review of Regional implementation plans is based on the same
set of data that the Regions used to make program management decisions. In FY'92,
by comparing Headquarters and Regional lists, we identified some policy and
management issues underlying assumptions regarding what should be included in
certain categories. As a result, we have resolved these issues with the Regions and
this RIP clarifies how to count clean closures, converters, and non-notifiers
consistently across the program. Ultimately, when we can rely on RCRIS to provide
us with complete and accurate facility specific information, we will ask for numbers
only in the BYP.
The FY'93 BYP is due October 15,1992, and should cover the following major
areas:
• Proposed STARS Measures
• Universe: Describe RCRA universe by facility category, including new
facility universe. A list of facilities in each category should be provided
(Supplemental for FY'93 only, provided we make substantial progress
in data reconciliation and cleanup in FY'93).
• Facility Priority Ranking: Describe approach and progress in ranking .
all facilities in the universe. Describe efforts to focus activities at high
priority facilities.
• Waste Minimization: Describe activities to promote waste
minimization.
• Safe Waste Management: Describe emphasis among permitting
activities to address environmental priorities and maintain some level
of progress across the RCRA universe.
• Corrective Action: Describe corrective action activities related to
NCAPS ranking, pipeline management efforts, and stabilization
activities.
• Non-High Priority Facilities: Discuss efforts to adhere to the 15 percent
limit on the number of medium and low priority facilities being
addressed through corrective action and permitting activities.
• Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement: Discuss the Region's
approach to implementing four key enforcement activities: permit
enforcement, enforcement at closed and closing facilities, returning
regulated facilities to compliance, and participating in enforcement
initiatives. Also, identify any investments and disinvestments being
made through RIP-Flex.
7-4
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 7 ACCOUNTABILITY
• Program Management: Discuss efforts to ensure maintenance of
accurate and reliable RCRIS data, timely and complete submission of
1991 Biennial Report data by States, and continuation of State
authorization efforts (i.e., State Authorization and Enhancement
Plans).
• Other Regional and State Initiatives: Discuss initiatives not captured
in previous sections (e.g., geographic, multi-media, cross-program, etc.).
A more detailed framework, which can be used by the Regions as guidance in
preparing the BYP, is provided in Appendix B.
END OF YEAR REPORT
The EYR presents an accurate and thorough picture of
program accomplishments.
The EYR consists of two components: (1) a quantitative report of baseline
performance measures prepared by Headquarters and (2) a narrative Regional
report. The baseline performance measures (including STARS) are organized by
specific activity areas — operating permit issuance, closure/post-dosure activities,
facility priority ranking, corrective action, compliance monitoring and enforcement,
and State authorization. All measures except State authorization are in RCRIS and
authorization data is available from the State Authorization Tracking System
(STATS).
The baseline performance measures have several purposes:
• Provide a More Complete Picture of Accomplishments: Different
regulatory mechanisms may be appropriate at different facilities to
achieve timely environmental results. Because RCRA is such a
complex program, a single measure may flag a key activity, but it does
not provide an accurate picture of environmental results or program
accomplishments. For example, in order to understand
environmental progress at post-closure facilities, we need to look at the
status of corrective actions, enforcement, and permitting activities at
those facilities.
• Compare Progress Across the RCRA Universe: Once we have defined
the most effective set of baseline performance measures to track
progress toward environmental results and program accomplishments,
we can compare progress across the RCRA universe. We can then
compare our activities to facility priority rankings to judge our progress
relative to environmental needs. In addition, we can make mid-course
corrections to more effectively carry out strategic goals or to modify
those goals to reflect real world constraints.
7-5 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 7 ACCOUNTABILITY
Provide Common Ground for Measuring Accomplishments: These
baseline performance measures are a powerful program management
tool for State and Regional implementors and national oversight. By
using the same measures, making the same comparisons, and tracking
results in the same way, we are making significant progress toward a
common definition of our expectations for success and accountability
for accomplishments.
In Headquarters, we will use the baseline performance measures in two ways,
for periodic RCRA baseline performance reports and for a RCRA EYR. The baseline
measures will be produced using standard select logic, like that developed for
STARS, and will be available to Regions and States during the summer of 1992.
In addition to the baseline performance report, OSWER will produce, Regions
should provide narrative to explain accomplishments, as well as to discuss priorities
that may not be represented in the baseline performance measure reporting (e.g.,
geographic or multi-media initiatives, comprehensive State ground-water
protection planning, waste minimization, etc.). The Regional component of the
EYR is due to Headquarters on November 15, 1993. In this report, each Region
should summarize the accomplishments associated with each activity outlined by
the Regions in FY'93. Regions and States are encouraged to use the baseline
performance reports on a regular basis. A more detailed framework for the EYR can
be found in Appendix C.
Periodic RCRA baseline performance reports will be produced in OSWER
from RCRIS. Within OSWER, they will support national program oversight
activities, such as tracking program accomplishments and progress toward the
strategic management and policy goals in the RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP).
OSWER may also use this management information to supplement STARS in the
Deputy Administrator's quarterly management briefings.
DATA MANAGEMENT
Beginning in FY'93, Headquarters will rely on RCRIS
and Biennial Reporting System (BRS) for information
to support all official reporting on the RCRA universe,
program activity, and environmental results.
Effective data management through RCRIS and BRS is central to EPA's ability
to ensure accountability for actions undertaken to implement the RCRA program.
In the past, STARS measures have been the focus of reports generated from RCRIS.
However, beginning in FY'93, OSWER will rely on the broader baseline
performance measures reported from RCRIS as well. We encourage program
implementors at the Regional and State level to use this same set of performance
measures as a tool to manage and oversee the program
7-6 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 7 ACCOUNTABILITY
Headquarters, Regions, and States strongly agree on the importance of relying
exclusively on RCRIS and BRS as the common basis for RCRA data management
and reporting. This will require a focused effort to ensure that these systems are
fully operational and reliable. Regions and States must be responsible for routine
maintenance of the data base to ensure completeness and accuracy of the data.
Quality assurance/quality control at the data entry level is essential to guarantee that
Regions and States get proper credit for their activities and accomplishments.
Headquarters is responsible for ensuring the adequacy of system software, providing
guidance, and maintaining operations.
We are fully aware of current mainframe capacity problems and have
committed resources to expand the platform to guarantee timely access to all users.
Finally, there are a number of issues related to standardization of RCRIS data entry
and retrieval procedures. A Total Quality Focus Team has been established at
Headquarters to address these problems. The group is currently working on
standard definitions for universe categories, handler types, and status. Regions and
States will be asked to comment on any proposals developed by the group.
Successful data management depends on our shared commitment to our
respective responsibilities. We must work together to ensure that our major
information systems operate reliably and efficiently and that the data they maintain
accurately and completely reflects critical program accomplishments.
In FY'93, as we review BYPs and EYRs and negotiate STARS projections, we
will carefully evaluate the quality of RCRIS data from each Region. When we find
significant discrepancies, we will work with the Region to improve the quality and
reliability of RCRIS data. Previous data reconciliation efforts have not always
resulted in permanent improvement in the reliability of RCRIS for all Regions. If
we cannot improve the reliability of RCRIS data in all Regions in FY'93, expanded
requests for Regional reporting of facility lists and the status of activities may be
necessary, in the near term. Ultimately, however, our goal is to rely solely on
RCRIS for quantitative information contained in the BYP and EYR.
RCRA ANNUAL ACCOUNTABILITY CYCLE
A well defined yearly RCRA accountability cycle will help
all RCRA implementors to develop and use these
management and accountability tools most effectively.
Exhibit 7-1 outlines the schedule for the annual accountability cycle. This
cycle integrates the key management and accountability tool for RCRA
implementation including State grants and workplans, the BYP, STARS, RCRIS, the
EYR, Regional management visits, and the RIP.
7-7 FY'93 RIP
-------
Exhibit 7-1
Annual Accountability Cycle for RCRA Implementation
00
Activity
Region/State negotiation of State grants
and work plans
BYP submitted to EPAHQ
HQ/Regions negotiate STARS
projections and identify RCRIS quality
and reliability issues
OSWER pulls end of year baseline
measures; Regions submit narrative
portion of EYR
OSWER/Agency managers briefed on
status of RCRA implementation (using
EYR and BYP)
OSWER provides information on status
of RCRA implementation to Regions anc
States (based on BYP and EYR)
Comment period for Draft RIP and
proposed grant allocation formula
Regional management visits for
discussion of Regional
accomplishments, BYP, etc.
Final RIP released
Target Dates
April May June July Aug S«pt Oct Nov D«c Jan F«b Mar April May
AF
ril
A
k
jg
i
A
OcMJ
»—
3d 15
-A
Nov
A
Yov1!
i
D
5
I ii i
ec J
Ja
i
k
in
. A
n1 .
•^
Ian 15
F
Key:
an 30
-Jk
Feb
ab
• Start Date 1
A Close or Due Date|
15
Af
Me
L
K1
|
y
O Er
o ™
o
f** vD
*«* r>
w o
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTERS
MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The objectives of EPA's municipal solid waste (MSW) program are to (1)
ensure protection of health and the environment; (2) comply with the mandates of
Subtitle D of RCRA; (3) facilitate attainment of the national recycling goal, focusing
on procurement guideline implementation and market development initiatives; (4)
foster source reduction efforts; (5) support an Agency team approach to promote and
implement integrated waste management and the goals outlined in The Solid
Waste Dilemma: Challenges for the 1990's; and (6) renew a national leadership
presence through technical assistance and information development and
dissemination.
The objectives for EPA's industrial solid waste program are to (1) characterize
the universe of industrial (non-hazardous) solid waste and management practices;
and (2) set priorities for detailed risk assessment. These municipal and industrial
solid waste objectives directly support OSWER's strategic planning goals of
minimizing waste and ensuring that wastes are managed in an environmentally
sound manner. While States, Tribes, and local governments remain the primary
implementors of the national municipal and industrial solid waste program, EPA's
role is to facilitate effective implementation. Facilitation activities include
regulation, policy, and guidance development; training; technical assistance; and
information development and dissemination. The priorities and activities set forth
below will help achieve the strategies in the OSWER plan for meeting our goals.
MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE NATIONAL PRIORITIES
Enhance the Federal-State/Tribal partnership and foster
implementation of the revised criteria by assisting States/
Tribes to develop effective and approvable permit
programs.
The primary focus of our activities in FY'93 will be to assist States/Tribes in
implementing the revised municipal solid waste landfill criteria through the
development of permit programs that meet the requirements of Section 4005(c) and
the requirements of the State/Tribal Implementation Rule (STIR). The revised
criteria were promulgated in final form on October 9, 1991 (40 CFR 258). The STIR
proposal is scheduled for publication in 1992.
8-1 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 8 MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
States are required to adopt and implement a permit program to ensure
compliance with the revised criteria. RCRA requires the Administrator to
determine whether State permit programs are "adequate" for purposes of RCRA.
Authority to approve State permit programs as adequate will be delegated to the
Regional Administrators. Additionally, EPA is providing the opportunity for
Native American Tribes to seek program approval. Headquarters and the Regions
are currently working together to develop an implementation policy for MSW on
Tribal lands.
States/Tribes should review applicable statutes, regulations, and guidance to
determine the adequacy of their permit programs to ensure compliance with 40 CFR
Part 258 based on Section 4005(c) and the adequacy determination criteria in the
STIR. States/Tribes should be working with the appropriate Regional office during
these reviews and application development. The Regional offices will make all
adequacy determination decisions; thus, all letters of intent, schedules, and
applications are to be submitted to the Regional offices for review and
determination.
States/Tribes need not wait for the final STIR. They are encouraged to review
current permit programs, develop permit programs that will meet the adequacy
determination criteria, and prepare adequacy determination applications. This
review is based on the adequacy criteria in the STIR.
In addition to developing permit programs that meet the adequacy
determination criteria, States/Tribes need to prepare for implementation of the
revised criteria. Efforts should be focused on ensuring that closing facilities comply
with the revised criteria, developing permitting and enforcement strategies, and
addressing the need for continued capacity as facilities dose. As throughout the
RCRA program, environmentally significant facilities should be addressed first.
Promote the goals of Challenges for the 1990's to en-
courage necessary lifestyle changes in government,
corporate, and individual actions, through imple-
mentation and education.
While implementation of the landfill criteria, through development and
approval of State/Tribal permit programs, is our primary activity, efforts on source
reduction and recycling must continue. The Agency's updated national strategy,
The Solid Waste Dilemma: Challenges for the 1990's, will be issued in 1992.
Challenges highlights accomplishments since February 1989 for all levels of
government, business/industry, public interest groups, and private citizens, and
outlines a number of MSW activities. It focuses on education and encourages
necessary lifestyle changes. Outreach and development efforts in the areas of source
reduction and recycling, especially among businesses and Federal agencies, will
continue.
8-2 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTERS MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
Regions are encouraged to work with States, local governments, and
businesses to conduct waste audits to find opportunities to reduce and recycle waste.
In general, EPA will continue to provide technical assistance, including training,
speeches, and guidance, to States, Indian Tribes, and local governments.
Support recycling efforts through market development
and procurement implementation activities.
EPA will continue to support recycling efforts through market development
activities. These activities include development and implementation of
procurement guidelines, procurement workshops and follow-up activities, and
outreach and education efforts. EPA also will continue to facilitate State and local
market development initiatives.
Encourage source reduction activities among localities,
businesses, and households through education, project
support, and technical assistance.
Outreach and education efforts in source reduction will continue. Voluntary
reductions of topics by industry will be fostered through workshops and other
information initiatives. The MSW program will facilitate State/Tribal and local
source reduction efforts by providing technical assistance.
INDUSTRIAL SOLID WASTE NATIONAL PRIORITIES
Complete data collection and analysis activities.
Relatively little is known about the large and diverse universe of industrial
non-hazardous waste. However, it is clear that these wastes range from relatively
benign to nearly hazardous in nature. EPA's primary goal will be to identify which
industries and/or wastes pose potentially the greatest risks and to collect and analyze
detailed information to characterize these risks.
Characterize the industrial solid waste universe and
establish priorities on additional information collection
efforts and detailed risk assessments.
After analyzing this data and characterizing the industrial solid waste
universe, EPA will assess the nature of potential risks to human health and the
environment. The Agency will set priorities by waste type, industry and/or
management practices, for additional detailed information gathering, and
commence the process of obtaining needed information. We will begin
development of general risk assessment methodology to selected priority industries,
waste, and/or waste management practices.
8-3 FV93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
CHAPTER 8 MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL
COMPREHENSIVE STATE/TRIBAL GROUND-WATER PROTECTION PLANS
As discussed in Chapter 5, EPA is working with State/Tribes in developing
comprehensive State/Tribal ground-water protection plans. The RCRA Subtitle D
program activities can contribute to comprehensive State/Tribal ground-water
protection programs. For example, States/Tribes with approved municipal solid
waste landfill permit programs may consider the quality of ground water in
approving landfill designs, develop a ground-water monitoring compliance
schedule considering potential risk, and establishing alternative ground-water
protection standards if maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) have not been
established. Additionally, the development of comprehensive State/Tribal ground-
water protection programs may assist Subtitle D program implementation by
providing ground-water data from comprehensive resource assessments that can
supplement Subtitle D facility assessments.
8-4 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX A
STARS MEASURES
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1993
RCRA Subtitle C; Permitting and Closure
Goal; Ensure the environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous waste.
OBJECTIVE:
ACTIVITY;
MEASURE;
Create a more effective and rational RCRA Subtitle C program.
Track operating permit final determinations and
permit modifications at RCRA TSDFs.
Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive operating permit
final determinations during fiscal year.
STARS CODE: R/C-la
TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/93
ACTIVITY; Track progress of closure activity at RCRA TSDFs
MEASURE; Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closure plan
approval during fiscal year.
STARS CODE: R/C-2a
TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/93
o
H-
n
(D
n
rr
H-
rt)
vD
-C-
o
00
-------
ACTIVITY; Track progress of Post-Closure permitting
activity at closed and closing Land Disposal
units at RCRA TSDFs
MEASURE:
Number of Post-Closure Part B applications
called in.
STARS CODE: R/C-3a
TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/93
MEASURE;
Number of Post-Closure final
determinations
STARS CODE: R/C-3C
TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/93
o
H-
n
ft)
o
vD
r-o
O
OO
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1993
RCRA Subtitle C; Permitting And Closure Definitions
R/C-la
Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive operating permit final determinations during fiscal year.
Count only one permit per facility per date. A single permit covering multiple processes
(e.g., Land Disposal and Storage and Treatment) at a single facility will be counted only
once. Facilities receiving two permits will be counted twice.
R/C-2a
Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closure plan approval during fiscal year. Count only one
closure plan approval per facility per date. A single closure plan covering multiple
processes (e.g., Land Disposal and Storage and Treatment) at a single facility will be
counted only once. Facilities receiving two closure plan approvals will be counted twice.
R/C-3a
Number of RCRA TSDFs Post-Closure applications called-in during fiscal year. Count only one
Post-Closure application called-in per facility per date. Facilities with two separate Post-
Closure applications called-in will be counted twice.
q
R/C-3C 8
n
rr
Number of RCRA TSDFs Post-Closure final determinations made during fiscal year. Count only <
one Post-Closure final determination during fiscal year per facility per date. Facilities ro
with two separate Post-Closure final determinations during the fiscal year will be counted &
twice. §•
to
O
o
oo
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1993
Program Area; Municipal Solid Waste Program
GOAL; Ensure the environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous wastes.
OBJECTIVE: Ensure the proper management on municipal solid wastes in all States.
ACTIVITY; Submittal of State application for determination
of adequacy of State MSWLF permit program.
MEASURE; Number of States submitting applications for
determination of adequacy under Section 3.
ACTIVITY; Regional determination of adequacy of State
permit program.
MEASURE; Number of Regional determinations of adequacy
completed (include both determinations of
adequacy and determinations of inadequacy).
STARS CODE: R/D-la
TARGETED: NO
REPORTED ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/93
STARS CODE: R/D-lb
TARGETED: NO
REPORTED ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/93
n
n>
o
rt
H-
ro
vD
-C-
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1993
Municipal Solid Waste Program Definitions
R/D-la
Number of States submitting complete applications for determination of adequacy.
R/D-lb
Number of determinations Region publishes in the Federal Register; report number of
determinations by adequate and inadequate.
o
H-
o
rt
H-
»•
n
N)
O
6
oo
-------
Goal:
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1993
RCRA Subtitle C; Corrective Action
Prepare for and respond to in a timely and effective manner to releases of
hazardous substances into the environment.
OBJECTIVE:
Develop an integrated cleanup program
ACTIVITY; Track progress of facilities through two of the three corrective action pipeline
stages.
MEASURE; STAGE I:
MEASURE; STAGE II:
Information Collection and Study at
High NCAPS Priority Facilities.
Remedy Development and Selection at
High NCAPS Priority Facilities.
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY:
SUNSET:
STARS CODE:
TARGETED:
REPORT ONLY;
SUNSET:
R/J-la
NO
YES
2/93
R/J-lb
NO
YES
2/93
ACTIVITY; Track progress toward completing key activities
in the corrective action program.
o
MEASURE; Number of TSDFs evaluated for near term actions
to reduce risk and control containment releases
(i.e., stabilization evaluations).
STARS CODE: R/J-2
TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/93
sr
n
o
oo
-------
MEASURE: Number of TSDFs with actions initiated to reduce STARS CODE: R/J-3
and control the spread of containment releases. TARGETED: NO
(Actions are Stage III at High NCAPS priority REPORT ONLY: YES
facilities and near term risk reduction (i.e., SUNSET: 2/93
stabilization measures underway) at H/M/L
NCAPS facilities).
MEASURE; Number of Stage I, II, or III actions at STARS CODE: R/J-4
High Overall Environmental Priority TSDs that TARGETED: NO
are a Medium or Low NCAPS priority. REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/93
1-1
m
o
8
o
OO
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1993
RCRA Subtitle C; Corrective Action Definitions
R/J-la
Stage I: Information Collection and Study at NCAPS high priority facilities. Consider
the following activities to be part of this Stage of the corrective action process: RFI
Workplan Approved (CA150), RFI Approved (CA200). This measure will count the number of
facilities which have moved into this stage for the first time. The facility must also
have received at least one stabilization measures evaluation (CA225) to count for this
measure. Facilities should only move into this stage if they are not feasible candidates
for stabilization and are still of high corrective action (NCAPS) priority OR
stabilization is underway, but the facility must continue through to final remedy for
other acceptable reasons.
R/J-lb
Stage II: Remedy Development and Selection at NCAPS high priority facilities. Consider
the following activities to be part of this Stage of the corrective action process: CMS
Workplan Approved (CA300), CMS Approved (CA350), Remedy Selected (CA400), Corrective
Measures Design Approved (CA450). Count facilities which have moved into this stage of °
process for the first time. The facility must also have received at least one jjj
stabilization measures evaluation (CA225) to count for this measure. Facilities should £
only move into this stage if they are not feasible candidates for stabilization and are 5
still of high corrective action (NCAPS) priority OR stabilization is underway, but the n
facility must continue through to final remedy for other acceptable reasons. =?
R/J-2 *
.c-
This measure will count the number of facilities which have received at least one ?
stabilization measures evaluation (CA225). o
00
-------
This measure will count the sura of: (1) the number of H/M/L corrective action (NCAPS)
priority facilities with stabilization measures implemented (CA600) at one or more areas,
and (2) the number of high corrective action (NCAPS) priority facilities which have moved
into Stage III for the first time. Stage III — Remedy Implementation, incorporates the
following activities: CMI Workplan Approved (CA500), CMI Completed (CA550). Facilities
should only move into Stage III if they are not feasible candidates for stabilization and
are still of high corrective action (NCAPS) priority OR stabilization is underway, but the
facility must continue through to final remedy for other acceptable reasons.
Stabilization measures implemented at an area (as defined in RCRIS) of a facility while
that area is in Stage III, should be considered Stage III remedy implementation
activities.
R/J-4
This measure will count the completion of Stage I, II, and III activities at medium
and low corrective action (NCAPS) priority facilities which are also a high overall
environmental priority. The Stage I, II, and III activities will be counted as specified
in R/J-la, R/J-lb and R/J-3. A facility with activities in more than one Stage in a
single quarter will be counted as completing activity in the furthest along Stage. Each
quarter, HQ will compare the list of medium and low NCAPS priority facilities with Stage
I, II, and II activities to each Region's Beginning of Year Plan submission in order to
identify the subset of those facilities which are also a high overall environmental
priority. Only this subset is counted for this measure.
n>
8
00
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1993
RCRA Subtitle C; Biennial Report
Goal: Ensure the environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous wastes.
OBJECTIVE: States actively plan for adequate capacity to ensure the safe management of
their wastes.
ACTIVITY: Track progress of States Submission of the 1991 Biennial Report.
MEASURE; Number of States for which Region provides a
final and complete 1991 Biennial Report data
submission to HQ by 11/30/92
STARS CODE: R/PM-2
TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/93
1-1
n>
n
.c-
8
oo
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
FY 1993
RCRA Subtitle C; Waste Minimization
Goal: Minimize the quantity and toxicity of waste created by commercial, industrial and
governmental activity.
ACTIVITY: Track Regional and State waste minimization initiatives as an effective gauge of
movement in this priority area of the RCRA program.
MEASURE; Describe waste minimization activities undertaken STARS CODE: R/PM-3
as part of the waste minimization strategy. TARGETED: NO
REPORT ONLY: YES
SUNSET: 2/93
n
n>
n
f
H-
n>
to
O
8
o
CO
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1993
Program Area; RCRA Enforcement
GOAL:
Ensure the environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous wastes.
OBJECTIVE:
MEASURE;
MEASURE;
MEASURE;
MEASURE;
Create a more effective and rational RCRA Subtitle C Program.
Report the number of formal administrative actions
issued year-to-date (including 3008(a), 3008(h),
3013, and 7003).
Report the number of SNCs that have had formal
actions and have not returned to compliance with
any violations which caused them to be in SNC.
Report, year-to-date, the number of enforcement
settlements which incorporate pollution prevention
or pollution reduction activities (administrative
and judicial orders).
Report, year-to-date, the number of TSDFs in full
physical compliance (no outstanding Class I
violations).
STARS CODE: R/E-1
TARGETED: N
REPORTED ONLY: Y
SUNSET: 1994
STARS CODE: R/E-2
TARGETED: N
REPORTED ONLY: Y
SUNSET: 1994
STARS CODE: R/E-3
TARGETED: N
REPORTED ONLY: Y
SUNSET: 1994
STARS CODE: R/E-4a
TARGETED: N
REPORTED ONLY: Y
SUNSET: 1994
o
H-
i-t
n>
n
<-r
H-
i-i
vD
ro
o
eb
oo
OSWER - 1
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1993
Program Area; RCRA Enforcement
GOAL:
Ensure the environmentally sound management of solid and hazardous wastes.
OBJECTIVE:
MEASURE:
Create a more effective and rational RCRA Subtitle C Program.
Report, year-to-date, the number of TSDFs where
there are no violations of the compliance schedules
for Class I violations.
STARS CODE: R/E-4b
TARGETED: N
REPORTED ONLY: Y
SUNSET: 1994
MEASURE:
MEASURE:
Report the ratio of TSDs with subsequent violations
of the same type after a FY 90 final enforcement
action to TSDs without subsequent violations of the
same 'type after a FY 90 final enforcement action.
Report the ratio of TSDs with subsequent violations
of the same type after a FY 91 final enforcement
action to TSDs without subsequent violations of the
same type after a FY 91 final enforcement action.
STARS CODE: R/E-5a
TARGETED: N
REPORTED ONLY: Y
SUNSET: 1994
STARS CODE: R/E-5b
TARGETED: N
REPORTED ONLY: Y
SUNSET: 1994
0>
n
N>
O
O
O
O
00
OSWER - 2
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1993
RCRA Enforcement Definitions
R/E-l This measure reports the number of formal administrative actions issued year-to-
date (including 3008 (a), 3008(h), 3013, and 7003).
R/E-2 From the universe of SNCs in existence as of October 1, 1992 which have been out-
of-compliance for three or more years, this measure reports the number of SNCs that
have had formal actions and have not returned to compliance with all violations
which caused them to be in SNC. In this measure, SNCs are defined as: (1) For the
period prior to 1988 , LDFs with Class I violations of GW, FR, or C/PC; (2) For FY
88-89, LDFs with Class I violations of GW, FR, C/PC or corrective action compliance
schedules at all TSDs; or (3) For FY 90, TSDFs that are classified as High Priority
Violators (HPVs) according to the revised Enforcement Response Policy (ERP).
Included are those TSD facilities that are designated HPVs because of land disposal
restriction violations.
R/E-3 This measure reports the number of EPA enforcement settlements which require the
performance of a specific pollution prevention or waste minimization projects
(administrative and judicial orders). It only includes the following projects:
pollution prevention, pollution reduction, environmental restoration, environmental 0
auditing, and enforcement-related environmental public awareness. %•
R/E-4(a) This measure reports, year-to-date, the number of TSDFs in full physical compliance
with no outstanding Class I violations. " *" <
rr,
ro
R/E-4(b) This measure reports, year-to-date, the number of TSDFs where every outstandina Hf
Class I violation is on a compliance schedule as a result of a formal enforcement I
action and there are no violations of any of the compliance schedules $
O
CD
Pre-fiscal 87 data will not be pulled.
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1993
RCRA Enforcement Definitions (continued)
R/E-5(a) The purpose of this measure is to determine whether formal (initial or final)
enforcement actions deter non-compliance. The universe of facilities for this
measure is all TSDFs that had at least one formal enforcement action issued against
them in FY 90 (October 1, 1989 - September 30, 1990). From this universe, the
measure compares the number of TSDFs that had a subsequent violation of any type
addressed in any of the FY 90 actions against the number of TSDFs that did not have
a subsequent violation of any type.
R/E-5(b) The purpose of this measure is to determine whether formal (initial or final)
enforcement actions deter non-compliance. The universe of facilities for this
measure is all TSDFs that had at least one formal enforcement action issued against
them in FY 91 (October 1, 1990 - September 30, 1991). From this universe, the
measure compares the number of TSDFs that had a subsequent violation of any type
addressed in any of the FY 91 actions against the number of TSDFs that did not have
a subsequent violation of any type.
fD
n
N)
O
c,
00
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX B
BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN GUIDANCE
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX B
BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN FY'93
Note: Qualitative information requested in the Beginning of Year Plan
(BYP) should reflect both Regional and State programs, priorities, and
strategies, particularly where States have distinct initiatives. When
providing requested facility lists, include facility names and identification
numbers.
I. PRIORITY RANKING
A. Status of Ranking: Indicate the number of facilities remaining to be
ranked in FY'93. Provide time frame to complete the ranking.
B. Environmental Benefits: Explain approach and criteria used to evaluate
environmental benefits.
C State Participation: Describe the role of each State in the ranking process..
IL POLLUTION PREVENTION/WASTE MINIMIZATION
Provide a narrative report for the following FY'93 STARS measure:
R/PM-3 Briefly describe waste minimization/
pollution prevention activities in FY'93.
Identify specific initiatives.
IIL PERMITTING
A. FY93 STARS Measures: Provide numerical projections and a list of
facilities to be addressed under each measure (projections may be
provided as a range (e.g., 15-20)).
R/C-3c Number of post-closure final determinations
R/C-3a Number of post-closure Part B applications
called in
R/C-la Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive final
determinations during fiscal year
R/C-2a Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closure
plan approval during fiscal year
!T~1 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX B BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN
B. Permitting Priorities: Describe priority ranking of facilities in permitting
universe (e.g., how many facilities in each facility category ranked high,
medium, or low and how the Region or State will balance priority
activities to meet environmental needs) and demonstrate progress across
the universe.
C Closure and Post-Closure Strategy: Discuss a strategy for addressing the
dosure/post-dosure universe. For post-closure facilities, discuss the
strategy for completing facility priority ranking if not yet completed; use
of permitting and corrective action activities to achieve dosure and post-
dosure goals;, and time frames for completing activities to achieve these
goals at all facilities. Indude both near and long term activities (i.e.,
interim risk reduction as well as permit issuance).
D. Capacity Assurance Plans: Describe approach to addressing capacity
assurance planning needs, including issuance of new permits and permit
modifications, interstate planning and agreements, and waste
minimization to support capacity planning.
E BIF Certification: Describe Regional/State approach to review of boiler
and industrial furnace (BIF) pre-compliance certification submissions.
IV. CORRECTIVE ACTION
A. FY93 STARS Measures: Provide numerical projections, a list of facilities
to be addressed under each measure, and a brief discussion of the basis
for projections, relative priorities, etc. (Reporting is cumulative.)
R/J-la Stage I: Information collection and study at
high NCAPS priority facilities
R/]-1b Stage II: Remedy development and selection
at high NCAPS priority facilities
R/J-2 RCRA TSDFs evaluated for near term actions
to reduce risk and control contaminant
releases (i.e., stabilization evaluations)
B - 2 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX B BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN
R//-3 Number of TSDFs with actions initiated to
reduce risk and control the spread of
contaminant releases. (Actions counted under
this measure are Stage III actions at high
NCAPS priority facilities and near term risk
reduction measures (i.e., stabilization
measures underway) at high, medium, or low
NCAPS facilities)
R//-4 Number of Stage I, II, or III actions at high
overall priority TSDFs that are a medium or
low NCAPS priority
B. Prioritization/Pipeline Management: Provide strategy and schedule (by
fiscal year) for completing initial assessments and NCAPS ranking at
unassessed facilities. Include the facilities scheduled to receive PA-
pluses under the Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI) in FY'92, but
for which the assessment has not yet been completed. Indicate whether
extramural resources are available to complete RFAs and whether
Superfund will complete FY'92 scheduled PA-plus facilities in FY'93.
Indicate when ranking will be completed for any unranked pipeline
facilities.
Describe how you plan to manage the pipeline. How will the Region
shift resources toward cleanup actions at high NCAPS priority pipeline
facilities? Include a brief summary of tiered oversight approaches,
addressing such issues as the use of extended schedules of compliance,
number of facilities affected by tiered oversight shifts, interactions with
the States, reactions from owner/operators and the impact this shift has
had on "doing business."
C Stabilization: How will the Region address facilities with stabilization
completed or underway, but potentially requiring additional effort for
final cleanup?
How are Regions directing the gathering of data needed to make
stabilization determinations early in the RFI process?
D. Other Overall Corrective Action Issues: Where is the Region's emphasis
for implementation of the corrective action program? What level of
effort is being placed on the major activities (prioritization, initial
assessments, pipeline management of high priority facilities, transitions
away from medium and low priority facilities, stabilization, and others).
B - 3 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX B BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN
V. NON-HIGH PRIORITY FACILITIES
A. "Other Considerations" Facilities: Describe efforts to adhere to the 15
percent limit on number of facilities addressed for "other
considerations." If the percentage is higher than 15 percent, indicate the
number of high NCAPS or high environmental significance facilities
that are not being actively addressed, project time frame for addressing
them, and present approach the Region or State will use to meet the 15
percent limit.
B. Corrective Action: How many medium or low priority facilities are
being addressed through corrective action activities for other
considerations?
C Permitting: How many medium/low priority facilities are being
addressed through permitting activities for other considerations?
VI. BIENNIAL REPORT
Provide a numerical projection for the following FY'93 STARS measure:
R/PM-2 Number of States for which the Region
provides a final and complete 1991 Biennial
Report data submission to Headquarters by
November 30, 1992
VII. STATE AUTHORIZATION
A. Worksharing: Discuss efforts to implement worksharing. Describe plans
to tailor the RCRA program to meet State's needs and resources. (This
section should be developed jointly between the State and Region.)
B. Authorization Status: Describe current and anticipated impediments to
State authorization for corrective action. Discuss Regional and State
efforts to improve this process.
C Authorization Priorities: Describe authorization priorities in the coming
year.
VIII. OTHER INITIATIVES
Describe planned activities that are not captured in previous sections, such as
geographic, multi-media, or cross program initiatives (e.g., comprehensive
ground-water protection).
B - 4 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9^20.00-08
APPENDIX B BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN
IX ENFORCEMENT
A. RIP-Flex: Describe any investments or disinvestments in national
priority activities planned through the RIP-Flex process. Include plans to
perform less than specified levels of activity in those inspection
categories marked in the RIP with an asterisk (*). Discussions should
include FIT and extramural monies associated with planned tradeoffs
and the environmental significance of proposed investments.
B. Permit Enforcement: Discuss plans to improve compliance at permitted
facilities. Describe plans to enhance the coordination between the permit
and enforcement staffs for permit inspections.
C Enforcement at Closed and Closing Facilities: Discuss plans to improve
compliance at dosed and closing facilities, including efforts to prioritize
and conduct inspections and enforce facility compliance at closed or
dosing facilities.
D. Improvements in Facility Compliance Status: Provide a spedfic
prioritization scheme for identifying and addressing, based on
environmental significance and benefit, those facilities that have
remained out of compliance for extended periods of time (3 or more
years). Provide a list of these facilities that need to be prioritized and a
schedule for completing the prioritization.
E Targeted Initiatives (RCRA-specific or Multi-media): Describe planned
partidpation of the Region or States in FY'93 initiatives, including
multi-media, geographic, or other Regional or State initiatives.
B - 5 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 942G.Gu-Ot>
APPENDIX B BEGINNING OF YEAR PLAN
FACILITY CATEGORIES AND COUNTS
This is a one time supplement to the FY'93 BYP. This
information will be pulled directly from RCRIS in the
future.
Facility categories include LDFs, TSDFs, incinerators, and BIFs (i.e., facilities
with each type of unit). Provide the following information, by facility category, for
each of these categories and include facility identification numbers. For facilities
with more than one type of unit list the facility under each category:
• List, number, and rank (high, medium, or low overall priority and
NCAPS priority) of facilities with units seeking operating permits,
units that have received permits, or units that are closed or dosing.
• List, number, and rank of facilities subject to post-closure
requirements*
• List, number, and rank of new universe facilities:
Indicate facilities newly regulated by final rulemakings effective
since October 1,1990.
Indicate whether new universe facilities are included in overall
universe numbers above.
* Facilities subject to post-closure requirements are the facilities for which the
Region or State is required to issue a post-closure permit. This includes :
• All facilities with land disposal units that are closed or closing, that have
not:
Submitted a certification of clean closure accepted by the Region or
State as satisfying the requirements of Part 264; or
Completed the post-closure period
• All facilities with units other than land disposal that are closed or closing
but are required by the regulations to close as a landfill because they cannot
achieve clean closure and have not:
Submitted a certification of clean closure accepted by the Region or
State as satisfying the requirements of Part 264; or
Completed the post-closure period
B-6 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX C
END OF YEAR REPORT GUIDANCE
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX C
END OF YEAR REPORT
Baseline performance measures will be prepared by Headquarters using RCRIS
data. The select logic for these measures will be provided to Regions and States
this summer. Headquarters will use fourth quarter FY'91 data as a baseline for
"snapshots" of accomplishments and to compare activity levels over time. All
measures will be reported as cumulative and for accomplishments of the
previous fiscal year. Non-RCRlS information should be provided directly to
Headquarters by the Regions.
PART I - RCRIS DATA
Headquarters will pull this information directly from RCRIS.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITY RANKING
Number of facilities ranked for overall environmental priority
IL PERMITTING
A. Operating Permits: List of facilities (name and identification number)
by facility category (e.g., land disposal facilities):
1. Number RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities
(TSDFs) to receive operating permit final determinations during
fiscal year*
2. Number of post-closure permit final determinations*
3. Number of RCRA TSDFs to receive closure plan approval
during fiscal year*
4. Number of post-closure Part B applications called in*
5. Number of completed technical reviews of boiler and industrial
furnace (BIF) pre-compliance certifications
•FY'93 STARS /Aeasure C -1 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9A20.00-08
APPENDIX C END OF YEAR REPORT
B. Closure: List of facilities (name and identification number) by facility
category:
1. Facilities with closure plan received
2. Facilities with closure plan approved
3. Facilities that have certified closure.
C Post-Closure: List of facilities (name and identification number) by
facility category
1. Closed and dosing land disposal facilities
2. High NCAPS dosed and closing land disposal fadlities
3. Fadlities with post-dosure Part B submitted
4. Facilities with public notices of intent to approve/deny post-
closure Part B applications issued
5. Fadlity with post-closure permit issued
6. Corrective action at dosed and dosing land disposal facilities (by
NCAPS rank):
Facilities with RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) completed
Facilities evaluated for near term actions to reduce risk and
control contaminant releases (stabilization)
Facilities with actions underway to reduce risk and control
the spread of contaminant releases (stabilization and Stage
m)
Facilities with Stage I and Stage II activities underway.
IV. CORRECTIVE ACTION
A. List of fadlities (name and identification number) by facility category:
1. Stage I: Information collection and study at high NCAPS priority
facilities*
2. Stage II: Remedy development and selection at high NCAPS
priority facilities *
*FY'93 STARS Measure C^2 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX C END OF YEAR REPORT
3. RCRA TSDFs evaluated for near term actions to reduce risk and
control contaminant releases (i.e., stabilization evaluations) *
4. RCRA TSDFs with actions initiated to reduce risk and control
the spread of contaminant releases [actions are Stage in at high
NCAPS priority facilities and near term risk reduction (i.e.,
stabilization measures underway) at high, medium, or low
NCAPS facilities.] *
5. Stage I, n, or IE actions at high overall priority TSDFs that are a
medium or low NCAPS priority. *
B. Total counts and list of facilities (name and identification number) by
facility category by NCAPS priority (high, medium, or low):
1. RFAs completed, with associated status code, total and in fiscal
year
2. RCRA Facility Investigations (RFIs) imposed for early data
collection for stabilization, total and in fiscal year
3. RFIs completed, total and in fiscal year
4. Stabilization evaluations, with associated status code, total and
in fiscal year
5. RFI workplans approved, total and in fiscal year
6. Corrective Measures Study (CMS) workplans approved, total and
in fiscal year
7. CMS completed, total and in fiscal year
8. Remedy selected, total and in fiscal year
9. Corrective measures implementation workplan approved, total
and in fiscal year
10. Stabilization measures underway, total and in fiscal year
C. For all TSDFs with RFAs and beyond by NCAPS priority (high,
medium, or low):
1. Facilities in the pipeline which are not TSDFs
*FY'93 STARS Measure C-3 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX C END OF YEAR REPORT
2. Facilities in the pipeline that have received stabilization
evaluations
3. Non-pipeline (high, medium, or low) facilities that have
received stabilization evaluations
4. Number of stabilization measures actually underway.
PART II - NON-RCRIS REGIONAL INFORMATION
This component of the End of Year Report (EYR) is to be provided
directly to Headquarters by the Regions.
I. POLLUTION PREVENTION/WASTE MINIMIZATION
Briefly describe waste minimization/pollution prevention activities in FY'93.
Identify specific initiatives.
IL CORRECTIVE ACTION
A. Identify types of stabilization measures that have been selected or are
underway, provide basis for decisions and indicate frequency that
stabilization was selected. Describe how evaluations are conducted (e.g.,
stabilization evaluation checklist or other mechanism) and indicate
length of time and resources required to complete the evaluation.
B. Provide list (name and identification number) and overall priority rank
of all pipeline facilities (defined as RFI imposed and beyond).
C. Provide a list of facilities with a high qualitative environmental
significance ranking that are not yet in the corrective action pipeline.
IIL NON-HIGH PRIORITY FACILITIES
Describe efforts to limit to 15 percent the number of non-high priority
facilities being addressed through permitting and/or corrective action
activities.
IV. BIENNIAL REPORT
Identify the number of States for which Region provides a final and complete
1991 Biennial Report data submission to Headquarters by January 30,1992.
*FY'93 STARS Measure C-4 FY'93 R-P
-------
Directive Number y<4iU.uu-ua
APPENDIX C END OF YEAR REPORT
V. STATE AUTHORIZATION
Outline progress in getting States authorized for RCRA Subtitle C program.
VI. OTHER INITIATIVES
Describe activities not covered in previous sections, such as geographic,
multimedia or cross program initiatives (e.g., comprehensive ground-water
protection).
VII. ENFORCEMENT
A. RIP-Flex: Describe the environmental benefit(s) achieved as a result of
your RIP-Flex investments.
B. Permit Enforcement: Discuss the progress achieved towards improving
compliance at permitted facilities and coordination between permit and
enforcement staffs for permit inspections.
C. Enforcement at Closed and Closing Facilities: Discuss specific Regional
efforts to prioritize, inspect, and address high priority facilities in the
closed/closing universe of TSDFs.
D. Improvements in Facility Compliance Status: Discuss Regional efforts to
identify and target activities (i.e., follow-up inspections and enforcement
actions) at priority facilities within the universe of facilities that have
been out of compliance 3 or more years. Provide facility-specific
information on high priority facilities from this universe that have been
returned to full physical compliance.
E. Targeted Initiatives (RCRA-specific or Multi-media): Describe planned
participation of the Region or States in FY'93 initiatives, including
multi-media, geographic, or other Regional or State initiatives.
*FY'93 STARS Measure . C-5 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX D
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
AOG
BIF
BRS
BYP
CAP
CH
CERCLA
CERCLIS
CME
EMC
EPI
ERP
EYR
GAO
HRS
HSWA
LDR
MCL
MSW
APPENDIX D
LIST OF ACRONYMS
Agency Operating Guidance
Boiler and Industrial Furnace
Biennial Reporting System
Beginning of Year Plan
Capacity Assurance Plan
Compliance Evaluation Inspection
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
Comprehensive Ground-Water Monitoring Evaluation
Enforcement Management Council
Environmental Priorities Initiative
Enforcement Response Policy
End of Year Report
General Accounting Office
Hazard Ranking System
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
Land Disposal Restrictions
Maximum Contaminant Level
Municipal Solid Waste
D-l
FY'93 R7P
-------
APPENDIX D
Directive Number 9420.00-08
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
NCAPS
NEIC
NPL
O&M
OERR
OSW
OSWER
PA
RCPP
RCRIS
RFA
RIP
RIS
RTC
SEAP
SI
STARS
STIR
SWMU
TCLP
TSDF
UIC
National Corrective Action Priority Ranking System
National Enforcement Investigations Center
National Priorities List
Operation and Maintenance Inspection
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Office of Solid Waste
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Preliminary Assessment
RCRA Civil Penalty Policy
Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System
RCRA Facility Assessment
RCRA Implementation Plan
RCRA Implementation Study
Return to Compliance
State Authorization and Enhancement Plan
Site Investigation
Strategic Targeted Accomplishments for Results System
State/Tribal Implementation Rule
Solid Waste Management Unit
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facility
Underground Injection Control
D-2
FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIXD GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
Beginning of Year Plan (BYP)
A BYP is a management document prepared by each Region, in coordination
with the States, to outline environmental ranking of all TSD facilities in the
Region; the strategic approach to balance activities to meet these needs;
projected accomplishments in the coming year; and Regional/State priorities
and initiatives. This planning and management tool must be submitted to
Headquarters by October 15,1991
End of Year Report (EYR)
An EYR is a document prepared by each Region to summarize Regional and
State accomplishments and progress, priority shifts, and emerging
issues/events. This accountability tool must be submitted to Headquarters by
November 15, 1992.
Environmental Benefits
This is one of two criteria used to evaluate a facility's priority; this addresses the
opportunities to avoid future risks and make long-term environmental
improvements. Factors that support this evaluation include: new capacity;
innovative technologies; waste minimization; cross-media benefits; incentives
for compliance; and enhanced regulatory control. The environmental benefits
criterion should be evaluated at facilities ranked medium and low for
environmental significance to determine whether to elevate them to high
priority.
Environmental Indicators
Direct measures of the health and environmental effects resulting from RCRA
activities. Since these data are not readily available, OSW currently reports
surrogate or intermediate measures that indirectly indicate environmental
effects of the RCRA program. These measures include trends in the amount of
hazardous waste generated by industry group, as well as a baseline to track the
effectiveness of future waste minimization efforts, and the number of facilities
with actions underway to control contaminant releases.
Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI)
The EPI is a program led by the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
which utilizes Superfund resources to complete PAs at RCRA facilities. These
initial assessments are called PA-pluses because they should provide the level
of SWMU information necessary to support a RCRA permit or order. The PA-
plus's should also provide sufficient information for both NCAPS in RCRA
and the HRS in Superfund.
D-3 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX D GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS (continued)
Environmental Significance
Environmental significance is one of two criteria used to evaluate a facility's
priority. This term addresses known and potential releases from TSDF
regulated units and other SWMUs. Factors that support this evaluation include
known or suspected release, migration potential, exposure potential, and
waste/unit characteristics. If RFA, EPI/PA or equivalent data are available, the
facility should be ranked using NCAPS; if not, a qualitative ranking should be
assigned.
Facility Priority
The Strategic Management Framework uses two criteria to evaluate a facility's
priority: environmental significance and environmental benefits to be gained
from Regional or State actions.
Initial or Preliminary Assessment
This activity is completed when a facility has received an RFA or PA-plus. The .
data obtained from the initial assessment is used to complete a priority ranking
under NCAPS.
National Corrective Action Prioritization System (NCAPS)
A nationally uniform facility ranking tool that is used to evaluate the overall
environmental significance of the facility and rank it for corrective action
purposes. The evaluation is based upon RFA or equivalent data.
Other Considerations
While the Strategic Management Framework uses environmental significance
and environmental benefits as the criteria for determining a facility's priority
ranking, EPA recognizes that there are circumstances when facilities that are
not ranked as high priority must be addressed. In these cases, other
considerations (such as public concern and State law provisions) may be the
basis for taking permitting or corrective action at a facility. The goal is to limit
the number of "other consideration" facilities where long term, resource
intensive activities are being conducted to 15 percent of total facilities being
actively addressed.
RIP-Flex
Regions and States may disinvest up to 25 percent of Regional or State
enforcement resources allocated for national priority enforcement activities
and reinvest in Regional or State-specific enforcement priorities.
D-4 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.00-08
APPENDIX D GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS (continued)
Stabilization
Any near term actions taken to reduce risk and prevent or minimize the
further spread of contamination. For data entry purposes, cleanup actions
initiated while a facility is at the RFA Stage or Stages I or n will be considered
stabilization actions. Cleanup actions initiated during Stage in will be
considered final remedial action.
Stages I, II, and III
A means of categorizing the facilities in the corrective action pipeline. Stage I
includes information collection and study; Stage n includes remedy
development and selection; and Stage IE includes remedy implementation.
STARS
The Strategic Targeted Accomplishments for Results System (STARS) is an
Agency-wide mechanism to highlight a limited number of program activities
and accomplishments that are key indicators of progress for the highest levels
of EPA management. In addition to this quantitative accountability
mechanism, the RCRA program also relies on the BYP and EYR to articulate
environmental priorities, portray management choices, provide reporting
flexibility, and evaluate program accomplishments and direction.
State Authorization and Enhancement Plan
Regions will submit these plans as part of the BYPs. They will outline
Regional activities to build State capability and encourage authorization. The
plans will include the work currently shared and should present a schedule of
milestones for improving a State's capability.
Strategic Management Framework
A national management tool in the RCRA Subtitle C permitting and corrective
action programs to target resources to environmental priorities. The
components are: (1) ranking a facility's environmental priority, (2) choosing
appropriate prevention and/or cleanup activities to address priority facilities,
and (3) providing accountability for projected activities and measures for these
choices. The Strategic Management Framework does not apply to the non-
facility aspects of Subtitle C, the Subtitle C enforcement program, or the Subtitle
D municipal and industrial solid waste program.
D-5 FY'93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420.GG-Gt>
APPENDIXD GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS
GLOSSARY OF KEY TERMS (continued)
Worksharing
A cooperative approach to maximize the opportunity for productive sharing of
the RCRA program between States and EPA Regions. It serves to build State
capability as a basis for authorization and ensures efficient and complementary
use of State and Federal resources to achieve environmental results.
Worksharing can include both authorized and unauthorized elements of a
State program.
D-6 FV 93 RIP
-------
Directive Number 9420. 00-08
ft EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9420.00-08
TITLE: FV '93 RCRfl IMPLEMENTflTION PLflN
APPROVAL DATE: flPRIL 27, 1992
EFFECTIVE DATE: RPRIL27.1992
ORIGINATING OFFICE: PERMITS & STflTE PROGRflMS
BRRNCH, OS ID
FINAL
DRAFT
STATUS:
E A - Pending OMB Approval
D B • Pending AA-OSWER Approval
REFERENCE (Other Documents):
FV 1992 RCRfl IMPLEMENTRTION PLRN (PD #: 9420.00-07)
OSWER OSWER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
------- |