vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
TITLE:
9541.00-4
Review of State Capability.in RCRA Final
Authorization
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
osw
2/21/84
2/21/84
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
0 FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS: ! !
A~ Pending OMB approval
B- Pending AA-OSWER.approval
Cr. For. review.. &/or comment ,
?~A:^el
-------
EPA
Wasnmgton. uC 2O*60
OSWER Directive Initiation Reauest
• r..-t n.
9541.00-4
Name of Contact Person
SEE
Man Coae - Branch
State Programs
332-2210
L..dOfi,c.
D OERR
Aoprovea tor Review
OWPE
Q AA.
Signature of Office Director
Date
Title
Review of State Capability in RCRA Final Authorization
Summary of Directive
Prior to a final authorization decision on a state's hazardous waste program
under Subtitle C of RCRA, a joint review of state capability should take place.
The capability review should (a) describe the major aspects of past state
performance relevant to state capability under final authorization, (b) outline
the steps agreed to by the region and state to enhance program capability and
(c) include a statement that affirms that these actions will result in the
implementation of a quality RCRA Program. OSW to develop guidance to implement
the new requirements.
•Cey Words:
Capability Assessment
yp« of Directive iMinuai. Policy Oirtcii**. Announcimtnt. ere/
Status
I .M.
! LJ Ortft
! go Final
G New
n
Revision
Does- tnis Directive Supersede Previous Directive**;' | | Yes j_J No Does it Suoo'«Ti«nt Previous Directive^!' I < Yes j | No
Ye»" to Enf.er Question. Whit Directive fnuir>b*r. nil*/
eview Plan
LJ AA-OSWER
U OEBR
O OSW
D OUST
D OWPE
LJ Regions
D OECM
G OGC
Q OPPE
G
Request Meets OSWEB Directives System Format
of Lead Office Directives Officer
Date
of OSWER Directives Officer
' Date
-------
» o^ l . 00-4
o —
i-1- 2
FE5 2 I 1834 " £
(jU UJ
r.
>—i •
3 75
a. '
hasardous waste managenent program under RCRA oust be a cowtitMttt
to quality in the per»lts we issue, the enforcearant actions) we .-..
initiate, the corrective steps we undertake, and the information
we provide to the public on program accomplishments. The State*
are pivotal to the success of this effort. Our joint commitment
to quality under final authorization is critical to nesting our
mandate under the statute. Capable managers at all levels working
together toward coomon objectives is a prerequisite to an effective,
high quality program.
It is appropriate, therefore, to re-affirm the importance of
jointly completing with the States a detailed review of prograw
capability as a Key component of the final authorization process.
The enactment of State statutory authority and promulgation of
regulations, although critical ateps, must he coupled with a firm
commitment to enhance program capability to effectively implement
the authorized state prograia.
It i» imperative that you reach agreement with each State,
t>etore th* final authorization decision is made, on the steps
neceMftry ta strsaqthen program capability and sustain a quality
State BC3A pr*grasi over time. I am optimistic that the States will
have achieved adequate program capability to implement the RCRA
program. However, if your joint review with the State leads
you to conclude that the State does not have this capability,
you should be prepared to recomaend that the State's application
for final authorisation be denied.
-------
The Review of State Capability
The Region and State should jointly conduct a detailed
review of state capability to identify areas that require
strengthening. This review should use information gathered
in previous review* or analyses, particularly the raid-year
and end-of-year evaluations and other activities related to
the annual program grant. The review should address those
portions of the Federal program a State haa been conducting
for EPA (if under a cooperative arrangement) or in lieu of
EPA (if they have interim authorization). In the latter
instance, more stringent State requirements may be included
if they are part of the program authorized by EPA. Areas of
a State's program broader in scope than the Federal program
are not part of the authorized program and need not be included
in the review.
The review must be broad enough to isolate the issue* and
needs of both EPA and the State to manage the program under
final State authorization. It must provide for:
* An Assessment of the Quality of The State's Past
Performance Under Interim Authorization or Cooperative
Arrangements. Areas to consider include:
The compliance monitoring and enforcement program
under interim authorization or cooperative arrange-
ments/ including an analysis of the number and
thoroughness of inspections, th<3 number, type and
timeliness of enforcement actions, and the
ment shown by tne State in orin^iavy vio
into compliance.
- The permitting program under interim authorization
^r cooperative arrangements, including the numb«r
and types of permit actions handled, conformance
to technical and procedural requirements, and
future permitting strategy.
— State program management, including resources, skill
•ix. State organization, institutional constraints
(organization, salary rate, etc.), training needs,
legal support, and timeliness for filling vacancies.
Even when auch areas cannot be directly influenced
by EPA or the State program (e.g., salaries) they
should be noted.
• The Identification of State and SPA Actions Which will
Be Taken To ensure State Capabilities. The actions
shouldt
-------
• D*fin« resource levels, skill nix, training needs
and other factors necessary to address management
issues raised in the assessment of past performance.
• Address the level of Regional involvement in direct
activities after final authorization, and the form
and content of oversight and assistance over time.
- Recognize the value of flexible State management
approaches and, where appropriate, account for state
institutional constraints or other unique features
that determine the fora of the authorized program.
Use of The Review In Pinal Authorisation Process.
The joint review of State capability should take place as
early in the final authorization process as possible, most
appropriately before the draft application is submitted to
The tteraorandua of Agreement (MOA) or an equivalent document .->
(e.g., joint letter of intent) should reflect agreement on the
responsibilities of both EPA and the State in sustaining prograa
quality over time. Through the MOA, the Regions and State*
should agree to uae the program grant process to annually (-or
more frequently) identify and commit to specific actions required
to strengthen the State program, the specific commitments and
associated resource impact should be incorporated into the State's
grant work program.
To facilitate the final authorization decision, your Action
Memorandum transmitting the federal Register Notice of Tentative
Decision (or Final Decision if State is later in the authorization
process) must: (a) describe the major aspects of past State perform-
ance relevant to State capability under final authorization, (b)
outline the steps agreed to by the Region and State to enhance
program capability, and (c) include a statement that affirms that
these actions will result in the implementation of a quality RCRA
program. As stated before, if you conclude from your review that
a state do«* not have the capability to implement the RCRA program,
then you should reccanend that the State's application be denied.
Tiswly completion of the review is critical to demonstrate
that proper consideration has been given to identifying and
resolving State capability questions prior to the decision on
final authorization. Because we have already received several
draft and official applications, the following schedule should
be followed:
-------
0 For States whicn nave not yet submitted an otficial
application, the capability assessment should oe
addressed in tne Action Memorandum tor tentative
decision.
* For states which have submitted an official applica-
tion the assessment should also be addressed (where
possible) in the Action Memorandum for tentative
decision. However, if it is too late in the review
process to permit this, the assessment should be
addressed in the Action Memorandum for final
determination.
In no case is the review of State capability to be completed later
than the final Action Memorandum and Federal Register Notice) of
Final Decision.
As you Know, I have established a joint Region/State task forqe.
to consider the question of RCRA program quality. The outputs frc* .
this task force will provide more specific guidance and policy on ,-.-
criteria to be used in evaluating program performance under final '•"
State authorization, we do not expect to issue the final policy on
RCRA program quality until April, 1984. However, to -the extent
feasible you may wish to use the criteria developed by the task
force to assist you in performing the State capability reviews
outlined above. The criteria you use snould be based on the
circumstances appropriate to your situation and your experience
with each state.
Support and assistance in completing the reviews during the
final authorization process will De provided by the Permits and
State Programs Division, Office of Solid waste. The State Programs
branch will be developing recommended MOA language, a model Action
Memorandum and a sample review of State capability to implement
the new requirements. This will be completed in spring, li»84.
ccs Kegional Hazardous Waste Management Division Directors
usWBR Office Directors
Kirk Sniff, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring
Lisa ?rie
------- |