v>EPA
UnitM States
Environmental Protection
Aganev
Office of
Solid Wans and
Emergency
owps
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9900. O-IA
TITLE: Enforcement Response Policy
APPROVAL DATE: December 21, 1987
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1988
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
O FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
REFERENCE (other documents): Yes
Enforcement Response Policy OSXER Directive $9900.0
Decanber 21, 1984 Supersede
National Quality Criteria OSWER Directive * 9545.00=1
OSWER OSWER OSWER
'E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE D
-------
United Suits £nwfe" --' ':*:
V>EPA OSWER Directive initiation Reauest
2. Ofi9'"*'«
Nome at Crm«a ftttan Men COM
3. Title *:--.
Enforcement Response Policy
1 Oi'fCt'v* NuTiMr
9900. 0-1A
r ln(e,m«iion
Office
A--_a 1-1;
4 Swrnriury of Directive llnciudt 6rt*/ ttittmtm of puffOHH
The policy updates guidance on classifying violations, selecting appropri;
enforcement action in response to various RCRA violators, and taking
Federal enforcement action in States with authorized programs
Timely, Appreciate, Enforonent, Conpliance, State Oversight
to. Doe* thi« Oireaive SuperMdo Proven* OireciiveOj? fcj Q ** W*< aveetiM//n«ndoy. «Mt;
Enforcement Response Policy - Dec. 21, 1984
OSWER Dir. 9900.0
b. OOM R SupoH*n6*r. toty
National Quality Criteria 9545.00-1
?.. Draft u««i
D A-SignedftyAA/OX* D g - Sorted by Offiee Director D C - far fteview * Comment D In Oewiopnieffi
Thit Aoquett Meets OSW6A Directive* System format
8. Sianetwro of Uod Office Directive* Caorajrator
9. Nome ond Title of Aeorovm^Offioji , ^
""/^/^
Dot*
te
9S !/!/£/? OS I/V£Y? OS !/!/£/?
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE L
-------
I ^^, \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. C.Z. 20450
DEC 2 1-1987
MEMORANDUM
SOLID WASTE AND EMiscENiC" RESPONSE
SUBJECT: Revised Enforcement Response Policy
C^e^, v--^fl^
FROM: J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
I am attaching the final revised RCRA Enforcement Response
Policy for your implementation. The policy updates guidance on .
classifying violations, selecting the appropriate enforcement
action in response to various RCRA violators, and taking Federal
enforcement action in States with authorized programs.
The first Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) was signed by
the previous Assistant Administrator, Lee Thomas, almost three
years ago. Since that time the Policy has helped the program in
making strides toward obtaining compliance with RCRA standards.
The regulated community and the nature of program emphasis have
changed during this time. We have learned a great deal about
the complexities of overseeing authorized State implementation
of this program, and the problems those States have in meeting
Federal guidelines while working under the States' own laws which
often differ substantially from Federal laws.
The revised ERP continues to stress the same principles
as its predecessor, that is, the importance of concentrating
enforcement efforts on the most serious violators and taking
timely and aggressive enforcement action against these violators.
Experience has taught us that the category designated to receive
the most stringent response should be better defined, so as to
emphasize the importance of addressing those facilities which
pose the greatest threat to human health and the environment,
or which show disregard for the regulatory program. The revised
policy does this. Another key change is the broadening of
acceptable "appropriate" responses to High Priority Violators
to include a variety of "economic sanctions".
-------
-2-
In order to effectively implement this policy beginning in
FY 1989, its timeframes and key supporting language shoul-i oe
incorporated into the FY 1989 Enforcement Agreements anc Grants
I appreciate the assistance- tha.t your staffs have provided
us in preparing this revision.
Attachment
-------
9900.0-1A
ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE POLICY
December, 1987
-------
9900.0-1A
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. INTRODUCTION
II. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER AGENCY POLICY AND GUIDANCE 2
III. APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS 3
A. VIOLATION DEFINITIONS .' 4
B. VIOLATOR DEFINITIONS AND ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES 5
1. HIGH PRIORITY VIOLATORS 5
2. MEDIUM PRIORITY VIOLATORS 6
3. LOW PRIORITY VIOLATORS " 7
CHARACTERISTICS OF HIGH PRIORITY VIOLATORS 7
HPV ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE 9
C. TIMEFRAMES 12
1. VIOLATION.DISCOVERY TIMEFRAME 13
2. HPV FORMAL ENFORCEMENT TIMEFRAME 14"
3. CIVIL REFERRAL TO FILING TIMEFRAME ^ "15
IV. ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES 15.
.7. EPA ACTION IN AUTHORIZED STATES 16
STATE REFERRALS TO REGIONS 17
VI. EPA ACTION AT FEDERAL FACILITIES 18
ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TIMELINES
- HIGH PRIORITY VIOLATORS
- MEDIUM PRIORITY VIOLATORS
APPENDIX. EXAMPLES OF VIOLATION CLASSIFICATION
-------
9900.0-1A
I. INTRODUCTION
In December of 1934, the Office of So Lid '.Vaste *nd E.-nerger.cy
Response i?s^ued the first RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (E?.P).
The ERP strengthened the RCRA enforcement program by establishing
a scheme for classifying RCRA violations and violators, providing
guidance on timely and appropriate enforcement response, and
delineating conditions for EPA enforcement action in authorized
States. The policy espoused the concept of quickly escalating
an action when compliance was not achieved.
The policy was intended to establish an approach, for
strengthening the RCRA enforcement program by concentrating
efforts on the most serious violators. The State/EPA was required
to subject High Priority Violators (HPV) to formal enforcement
action and penalty assessment.
After almost three years of policy implementation, it is clear
that the program has made significant strides in enforcing against
the more serious violations, particularly in the areas of ground-^
water monitoring, closure/post-closure, and financial responsibility.
This period of policy implementation has also provided the
opportunity to evaluate this policy.
Since the development of the original ERP, new program
initiatives have developed as provisions of the 1984 HSWA Amendments
have become effective. The December, 1984 ERP placed priority on
enforcement against interim status land disposal facilities which
were out of compliance with ground-water monitoring, closure/post-
closure or financial responsibility requirements. HSWA and
overall development of the RCRA program has mandated closer
scrutiny of additional segments of the regulated community and other
types of violations. This expansion of focus requires a broadening
of programmatic emphasis. For example, corrective action require-
ments and land disposal restrictions direct more attention to
hazardous waste treaters, storers and generators, as well as to
land disposal facilities.
These and other program changes will cause a major shift
in the nature of the compliance monitoring and enforcement program
over the next few years. The majority of the RCRA land disposal
facilities are closing as the 1988 permitting deadline approaches.
Many of these/ as well as facilities being permitted, will be
under schedules of compliance to perform corrective action.
Facilities seeking permits will be subject to permit conditions
specifically tailored to operations at each individual facility.
The land disposal of many wastes will no longer be permitted -
generators will have greater responsibility regarding the dispo-
sition of their wastes. These and other major changes occurring
in the RCRA-regulated universe demand new inspection strategies
and the redefinition and expansion of some of our "serious
violation" definitions.
-------
9900.0-1A
-2-
As before, the goal of the RCRA compliance monitoring and
enforcement program is the attainment and maintenance of a high
rate of cofnpliance within the regulated, community by establishing
a comprehensive inspection program and by taking timely, visible,
and effective enforcement actions against serious violators.
The goal of the enforcement action against the violator is to
return the facility to compliance as quickly as possible and
deter potential violators through high visibility enforcement
actions which impose economic sanctions to penalize violators.
The removal of any economic advantage or savings accrued by
noncompliance through the use of economic sanctions- is 'al-so
part of the goal of any enforcement action against the most
serious violators. (The RCRA Penalty Policy provides guidance
on calculating the appropriate penalty.) The revised ERP emphasizes
the need, not only to take timely enforcement action, but more
importantly, to assure that the action results in a return to
compliance.
The Enforcement Response Policy provides response guidance .
on civil actions - both administrative and judicial - pursuant
to Federal and State enforcement efforts. It addresses only
responses to violations of RCRA requirements. Use of §3013 to
compel monitoring, testing and analysis and §7003 for addressing
situations that may present imminent hazards to human health or
the environment is set out in the policies on "Issuance of
Administrative Orders under Section 3013 of the Resource Conserva-
tion and Recovery Act" (9/26/84) and "Issuance of Administrative
Orders Under Section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act" (9/21/84). The use of §3008(h) for addressing releases at
interim status facilities is discussed in "RCRA Sectio.n 3008(h):
The Interim Status Corrective Action Authority" (12/16/85).
While not initially applicable to §3013, §7003, or §3008(h)
actions, ERP guidance does apply when RCRA orders, decrees, or
judgments issued under any RCRA provision are violated.
The policy and procedures set forth in this document are
intended solely for the guidance of employees of the Environmental
Protection Agency and State Enforcement Agencies. They are not
intended to, nor do they, constitute rulemaking by the Agency, and
may not be relied upon to create a right or a benefit, substantive
or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity, by any person.
The revised RCRA Enforcement Response Policy will be
effective in FY 1989.
II. THE ERP's RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER AGENCY POLICIES AND GUIDANCES
The RCRA Enforcement Response Policy is one of several
documents that, together, define the national RCRA Enforcement
Program. The ERP provides a general framework for identifying
violations and violators of concern and describing timely and
-------
9900. 3-LA
-3-
appropriate enforcement responses to noncompliance. It should
be read in conjunction with the RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP),
which establishes annual priorities for compliance monitoring
and enforcement actions based on- the Agency's past experience
in implementing the program and its assessment of future program
directions. The RIP contains reporting measures that focus on
hazardous waste handler activities which are of particular
concern in a given year. Of these, the handlers tracked most
carefully are the Significant Non-Compliers (SNC). The SNCs are
those types of handlers whose violations, ,the Agency believes,
warrant national enforcement program attention. SNCs will be a
subset of the High Priority Violators (HPV). [HPVs are the.
handlers who because of a variety of considerations, including
the nature of their violations, compliance history, and other
factors, are to be addressed most expeditiously and most
aggressively.] Handler categories designated as SNCs may change
from year to year, depending on programmatic needs and areas of
emphasis. It should be emphasized, however, that the SNC category
does not encompass all violators who should be addressed as
described in the Enforcement Response Policy.
Other basic guidances, of importance to the RCRA Enforcement
Program are the Policy Framework for State/Federal Enforcement
Agreements (revised August, 1986)-and the National Criteria for
a Quality Hazardous Waste Management Program Under RCRA (July,
1986). The Policy Framework is an Agency-wide guidance that
calls for enforcement agreements between EPA and the States and
describes what those agreements should address, including oversight
criteria and measures, information needs, procedures for notifi-
cation and consultation, and criteria for direct Federal enforce-
ment. The requirements of the RIP and other RCRA directives are
made applicable to the States through the State/Federal enforcement
agreements. The National Quality Criteria document establishes
basic goals, objectives and general performance expectations to
assure that EPA and the States have a common understanding of
what must be done to effectively implement the RCRA program.
The Quality Criteria document also outlines how performance is
to be measured and describes how EPA and the States should respond
when criteria are not met.
III. APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE CONSIDERATIONS
The RCRA Enforcement Program has established a system to
define enforcement response priorities which support the Program
goals. The definitions were established to assist the Regions
and States in directing enforcement resources against the violators
who pose the greatest threat to human health or the environment.
-------
9900.0-1A
-4-
In addition to the protection of hu.-nan health and the env.ronrr.er.t
is the goal of penalizing noncompliant behavior and reiroval of
the unfair economic advantage non-compliant facilities ray en joy
over their^oompetitors, by aggressive use of economic sanctions.
The RCRA Enforcement Program classifies individual
"violations" into one of two categories - Class I and Class II -
with-Class I violations being the more serious of the two.
The ERP then considers the owner/operator as a whole to determine,
not only appropriate enforcement response, but prioritization of
the handlers to receive enforcement response.
To accomplish this, violators are classified into one of
three "violator" types - High Priority, Medium Priority, or
Low Priority. Classification of a "violator" into one of these
three categories takes into account a handler's "violation(s)"
as well as a number of other considerations, as noted in the
examples outlined below. Finally, the ERP designates the appropriate
enforcement response for the "violator" based upon whether the
violator is classified as High Priority, Medium Priority, or
Low Priority.
This section establishes the RCRA Enforcement Program's
definition of classes of violations, violators, and defines timely
and appropriate enforcement response. These guidelines will be
used by Regional Offices to negotiate an agreement with each
State that will specify, among other things, what constitutes
timely and appropriate enforcement action. The timeframes set
forth in this document are minimum program goals. More stringent
timeframes and enforcement responses may be negotiated and should
be encouraged, where appropriate. However, timeframe^flexibility,
as provided for in Section III.C., may also be appropriate in
these agreements.
A. Violation Definitions
The RCRA Enforcement Response Policy classifies individual
facility violations into one of two categories.
Examples of violation classifications are provided in the Appendix.
1. Claaa I Violation .
Deviations from regulations, or provisions of compliance
orders, consent agreements, consent decrees, or permit conditions
which could result in a failure to:
a) Assure that hazardous waste is destined for and delivered
to authorized treatment, storage, or disposal facilities
(TSDFs); or
b) Prevent releases of hazardous waste or constituents,
both during the active and any applicable post-closure
periods of the facility operation where appropriate; ^r
-------
9900.0-1A
-5-
c) As'sure early detection of such releases; or
d) Perform emergency clean-up operation or other
corrective action for releases.
.*. -
2 . Class"-I-1 Violation
Any violation of a RCRA requirement that does not meet the
criteria listed above for Class I violations.
Class II violations are defined in the negative, i.e., they
include all violations that are not considered Class I, and
therefore are those violations which.do not involve deviations
from requirements which could result in failure to:' 1) "assure
that wastes are destined for only authorized TSDFs, 2) prevent
releases, 3) assure detection or 4) perform corrective action
for such releases.
B. Violator Definitions and Enforcement Responses
A RCRA handler is classified as a violator based upon the
nature of his or her violation(s) along with a number of other
factors (e.g., compliance history, previous recalcitrant behavior,
etc.). The Enforcement Response Policy establishes three categories
of violators - High Priority, Medium Priority, and Low Priority -
and define timely and appropriate enforcement response.
1. High Priority Violator
Definition: A High Priority Violator is a handler who:
o Has caused actual exposure or a substantial likelihood of
exposure to hazardous waste or hazardous constituents; or
o Is a chronic or recalcitrant violator (This may include
some handlers who are regularly found to have many Class I
or Class II violations.); or
o Deviates from terms of a permit, order or decree by not
meeting the requirements in a timely manner and/or by failing
to perform work as required by terms of permits, orders, or
decrees; or
o Substantially deviates from RCRA statutory or regulatory
requirements.
High Priority Violators (HPV) represent the category of
violators that merit the most stringent and immediate enforcement
response. These violators should be the highest priorities for
enforcement action in conjunction with those program priorities
set out annually in the RIP.
The response timeframes allow 45 days from the day an
inspection is completed to identify or "discover" the violations.
-------
9900.0-LA
-6-
Once violation discover/ is made, it is expected that, for
HPVs, within 90 days a fornal administrative enforcement, ictl-)-'.
will be taken, or a referral will be made for judicial or E?^
action. 'If a judicial referral is made, it is exoecte.1 that
the case wTl-1-.b.e filed within 60 -days of referral". These ti-e-
frames are discussed in greater detail on page 12.
The goal of any enforcement action against a High Priority
violator is to impose sanctions which will:
o Compel a rapid return to compliance;
o Penalize the violator and recover economic s-avirtgs- the
violator may have accrued; and
o Deter members of the regulated community from violating
the law.
2. Medium Priority Violators
Definition: A Medium Priority Violator is a handler with
one or more Class I violations who does not meet the criteria
for a High Priority Violator. Handlers with only Class II
may also be Medium Priority Violators when the compliance
official believes an administrative arde.r is the appropriate
response to a facility with only Class II violations.
The appropriate response to the Medium Priority Violator
is either the issuance of an administrative order or a less
formal response which results in compliance within 90 days of
violation discovery. The issuance of an administrative order
with penalties is the preferred response to a Medium Priority
Violator. If the decision is made to issue an order, the order
should be issued within 120 days of violation discovery. A
penalty is not required.
Where there is reason to believe a Motice of Violation
(NOV) or Warning Letter (WL) will bring about a timely return-to
-compliance, this less formal action may be used in response
to Medium Priority Violators. If the initial NOV or WL does not
result in final compliance or a compliance schedule incorporated
in an enforceable order within 90 days of violation discovery, a
decision must be made to escalate. Escalation entails either
development of a judicial referral or development and issuance
of an administrative order. For generators with no violations
of land disposal restriction requirements, up to 120 days may be
allowed to return the facility to compliance before escalation
is required.
If an administrative order is chosen as the escalated
response, the State/Region has 60 days to develop and issue the
order. If a judicial referral is selected, the State has 90
days to develop and refer the case to the Attorney General, or
appropriate State official. The case should then be filed within
60 days of referral.
-------
9900.0-iA
-7-
While it is acceptable for a State/Region to initially
address a Medium Priority Violator with an MOV or Warning Letter,
no more than one WL or N'OV should be issued. If compliance does
not result, escalation should immediately follow.
3. L^ow-.Priority Violators " -
Definition: A handler who has only Class II violations who
is not a Medium or High Priority Violator.
While EPA and most authorized States have the authority to
respond to any Subtitle C violation with an order or referral, a
Low Priority Violator will normally receive an NOV or Warning
Letter as the initial response within 60 days of violation
discovery. If this response does not result in expeditious
compliance, normally within 30-60 days of issuance, the Regional
Office or authorized State should consider whether the violation
warrants issuing an order. In cases involving large numbers of
Class II violations, repeated Class II violations, or any other
case the enforcement authority considers serious, the handler
should be carefully evaluated to determine whether the handler
meets any of the High Priority Violator criteria, or may be
better addressed as a Medium Priority Violator therefore
requiring an enforcement action as described under the
appropriate section.
Characteristics of High-Priority Violators
The following criteria are set out to assist the agencies
in determining the category of violators that must consistently
receive the highest priority for enforcement.
a) A handler who has caused actual exposure, or substantial
likelihood of exposure to hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents.
Handlers that have caused actual exposure or a threat
of exposure are always considered High Priority Violators.
Evaluating when a handler "...caused a substantial likeli-
hood of exposure to hazardous waste..." should be done on
the baais of the case-specific information. All violations
at a site should be considered in making this determination.
Additional factors such as the quantity of waste involved,
toxicity, environmental persistence, or other hazard posed
by the waste, waste management practices, proximity of
human and environmental receptors (including employees),
exposure pathways, etc. should be considered.
In examining whether there is a substantial likelihood
of exposure caused by a violator, the focus should be on
the potential of a situation to cause exposure. Examples
of violators who cause a substantial likelihood of exposure
include, but are not limited to, handlers that:
-------
9900.0-LA
-8-
o Fail to install or maintain an adequate ground-water
monitoring system at a facility (i.e. one capable
of producing samples indicating all releases to the
-.«-..- groundwater);
o Fail to prevent unauthorized entry into the hazardous
waste management area (by livestock or humans);
o Systematically, or substantially deviate from manifest
requirements (especially any violation which could
result in a failure to deliver hazardous waste to an
authorized TSDF or failure to file a discrepancy
report); or
o Fail to clean up spills.
b) Chronic or recalcitrant handlers (this may include some
handlers who are regularly found to have many Class I or
Class II violations)
Repeated violations (even if minor in themselves) or
failure of a handler to quickly correct violations in the
past may characterize a handler as a High Priority Violator.
Again, this criterion should be evaluated based on case-
specific information, and. should consider the following:
o Does the handler have a history of repeated Class I
and/or Class II violations that indicate a general
unwillingness or inability to comply with applicable
requirements?
o Is the facility regularly found to have Class I
violations, or Class II violations which are not
quickly resolved, or is regularly found with the
same type of violations?
Where a person or corporation owns several facilities it
should be routine to consider all such facilities in answering
the above questions, whenever possible.
c) A handler who deviates from the terms of a permit, order
or decree by not meeting requirements in a timely manner
and/or by failing to perform work as required by terms of
permits, orders, or decrees.
The following should be considered:
o Failure to perform work of the minimum quality, as
stipulated in orders, decrees or permits should
indicate KPV status.
-------
9900.0-LA
-9-
o Does the fact I it/ have any violations of the permit,
order, or decree that rrvay interfere with the facility's
ability to tinely and fully comply with the cer-.3 of
.-s-._-the document?
o Where compliance schedules in orders are .aissed '-!?'/
designation is indicated unless circumstances delaying
compliance are beyond the facility's control, and
where the responsible government entity (EPA or the
State) was promptly notified of the problem and
agreed to, and .documented, the necessary schedule
changes. . ' - .
^) A _handler _wh_q substantially deviates from RCRA statutory
or regula'tory "requTrements.
The following should be considered:
o Does the facility have any violations listed as
examples in the Appendix as indicating HPV status?
These have been determined to be essential to the
integrity of the RCRA program or to create a potential
threat to human health or the environment.
o Does the facility have any serious violations?
Taken together these may represent a substantial
deviation from program required-its.
The Enforcement Response For High Priority Violators
Facilties designated as Significant Won-Compliers (SMC)
should be the first violators subject to enforcement action in
the Regions and States, followed by other High Priority Violators.
High Priority Violators represent the most serious RCRA violators
and consequently should receive the swiftest and most stringent
enforcement response available. Every HPV should be the object
of a formal enforcement action as well as penalized with an
economic sanction or penalty. Terms of final agreements will be
documented through an enforceable order or decree.
The appropriate enforcement response against a High Priority
Violator is one which achieves compliance with RCRA or the
authorized State equivalent, achieves a final or enforceable
order or remedy within an expeditious tineframe and incorporates
the compliance terms and/or schedule into an enforceable order or
decree. This response is selects-1 *n.1 implemented based on
consideration of the following factors:
1) Compliance should be achieved is quickly as possible;
2) The violator should be penalized in as short a timefrar.e
as possible (sus thd "PA Penalty Policy for ability-*. ">-p-v/
considerations for final settlements); and
-------
9900.O^IA
-10-
3) The target violator, as well as other generators, facility
owners/operators and transporters, should be deterred or
prevented from causing or allowing future violations.
Therefore, the enforcement response is not defined by the type
of legal action (i.e. administrative, civil, or criminal) which
must be taken, but is defined by whether or not the particular
action is designed to a) achieve the desired result, and b) achieve
that result in a timely fashion. Compliance must be achieved in
accordance with RCRA or the authorized State equivalent. Criminal
prosecution of a handler is encouraged where criminal conduct
may have occured. Timeframes are generally much longer for such
cases, however, violations should not be allowed to continue
which pose a threat to human health or the environment. Civil
action to compel a return to compliance should be taken in such
a case. A parallel process may be possible for continued pursuit
of criminal charges.-:/
Examples of appropriate High Priority Violator enforcement
response actions are those that will result in cessation of
violating activity, an enforceable compliance order or decree
and economic sanctions against the violator by:
o Judicial or administrative imposition of civil penalties
against the corporation as well as, where appropriate,
responsible corporate officials;
o Temporary or permanent shut-down of -he hazardous waste
management activities at the facility;
-by administrative order
-by seeking injunctive relief in the courts .
-by permit or license revocation or suspension;
o Seeking to have a violator held in contempt - when violation
is of a court decree (or any administrative order (AO) in
those states which punish the violator of an AO by contempt)
L/ Agency guidelines on parallel proceedings were issued on
January 23, 1984. (See memorandum "Policy and Procedures on Parallel
Proceedings at EPA", AA OECM to AAs, RAs, Regional Counsels, and
Director, NEIC, January 23, 1984). Also see memorandum from Courtney
Price "Functions and General Operating Procedures for the Criminal
Enforcement Program" (January 7, 1985).
-------
9900. 0-LA
-11-
o Denial of any pending oc future permits to operate *r.y
facility in the State, as well as denial or revocation of
the violating facility permit, i.e. "perrnit bars":!/
o SomV'other permit actions ; -L
[Any non-monetary economic sanction must have a quantifiable
economic impact at least as great as the monetary penalty
which would have been sought. EPA will compare the economic
impact with the EPA Penalty Policy.]
Enforcement actions should be publicized to serve ^notice
on the regulated community a-s well as the general public "that
violators are caught and punished. A stipulation that the
violator place a public notice in local newspapers admitting
guilt is often an effective addition to a final settlement.
!/ The term "permit bar" as used in this document is a statutory
requirement which authorizes or mandates the automatic and immediate
denial or withholding of a permit (including a permit amendment,
modification, or renewal) based upon the present existence of a
violation of any program requirement at any facility in the State.
The "permit bar" shall be deemed an economic sanction only within
those States which do not require a prior hearing or "finding"
of violation before the permit bar becomes effective. Further,
the "permit bar" shall not be deemed an appropriate economic
sanction unless (1) the permit action, if granted, will provide
a significant economic benefit to the applicant, and (2) the
right or privilege to operate which would be granted by the
permit will be immediately terminated or operation otherwise
prevented, if the permit is denied or withheld.
I/ Any State may petition a Region to request that certain types
of permit actions be deemed "appropriate economic sanctions" for
addressing High Priority Violators. The petition shall demonstrate
to the Region that all objectives, purposes, and results which
can be achieved by an order/civil penalty action, will be achieved
by use of the proposed permit action. If the Region, with concurrence
of the Office of Waste Programs Enforcement, finds the proposed
permit action equivalent to or more stringent than an order/civil
penalty action for purposes of this policy, the petition may be
granted.
-------
9900.0-LA
-12-
The actions specified above are designed to achieve -he
results specified in this section. For all actions specified
above, forynal enforcement action must be issued, referred,i./
and/or effective within 90 days of the 'discovery of the
violations) .
In addition to the above list of economic sanctions, two
other possible situations need to be noted where an action
(enforceable administrative order) may result in an economic
sanction and correct the compliance problem at a facility.
One such example may be a CERCLA type action which, results in
significant economic sanctions in addition to cleah-up:costs
(e.g. CERCLA §106 action with economic sanctions at a RCRA HPV
facility). A second example may be where a State has EPA-
authorized corrective action authority which carries a penalty
(where a release is a violation under State law). While these
two situations provide the economic sanction (penalty) necessary
to be considered an appropriate response to a High Priority
Violator; the Federal corrective action order authority under
RCRA does not. For a Federal corrective action under §3008(h),
a separate action would be necessary to impose an economic sanc-
tion. Generally, even where the §3008(h) order returns a
facility to full compliance, another action would be expected
to impose .the economic sanction, in order to satisfy ERP
requirements.
C. Timeframes
In the majority of cases ERP timeframes should be met.
In this revision to the ERP a ceiling of 10% per year is being
established as the number of cases allowed to exceed standard
ERP timeframes. Only those reasons specifically permitted by
the policy will justify extensions to ERP timefranes. Should a
State or Region exceed standard ERP timeframes on more than 10%
of its cases during a given fiscal year, the Region or Headquarters
EPA will need to evaluate the reasons for all timeframe exceedances
The evaluation will help determine what changes may be needed to
the Region's/State's procedures, or whether, in fact, case load
or other circumstances justify allowing a greater percentage of
the cases to exceed ERP timeframes. This limit to exceeding ERP
timeframes will be reevaluated each year, and appropriate changes
will be noted in the RIP.
I/ States that do not have administrative penalty authority,
or other administrative means of imposing economic sanctions,
should refer High Priority Violators to the Attorney General
(AG), or other appropriate legal official, for .judicial action
or reach agreement with EPA regarding Federal action.
-------
' . '9900.0-LA
-13-
Th e Agency recognizes that circumstances may arise where
the enforcement response tine frames" specified may be insufficient
to prepare and initiate the appropriate enforcement responses
specified .-sin- this policy. It is. also recognized that instances
may occur where immediate action is appropriate. The Agency
expects that the Region or the State will take appropriate
enforcement action much more expeditiously than provided for by
the ERP established timeframes in the following cases:
o Where a release or other violation poses an immediate
threat to human health and the environment; or
o Where activities of the owner/operator must be
- stopped or redirected, such as cases in which the
Agency or the State seeks to immediately halt improper
construction or installation.
Within the framework of this guidance, flexibility may be
necessary regarding the timeliness of an enforcement response,
particularly regarding the following timeframes:
o The timeframe from inspection to violation discovery;
o The timeframe for formal enforcement action in the
case of High Priority Violators; and
o The timeframe from referral to filing, in the case
of civil referrals, both to the AG and to DOJ.
In cases where these timeframes will be exceeded due to the
case-specific circumstances described below, the States and
Regions must .monitor case development. In cases where timely
enforcement action (as defined by this policy) will not be
feasible, the Regions and States must be prepared to justify the
delay and develop an alternative schedule for case resolution.
In all cases in which the State or Region deviates from ERP
timeframes, the States and Regions must closely track case progress
and adhere to their alternative case resolution schedule. In
addition, in the event that the Region does not find the State's
reasons for the delay within ERP guidelines, the Region may decide
to take Federal action.
1. Violation Discovery Timeframe
A violation is discovered as of the date when the case
development staff determines, through review of the inspection
report, record review, and/or data (e.g. laboratory reports),
that a violation has occurred. The violation discovery date
for evaluation purposes, assumed in the National Quality Criteria
and restated here, is 45 days from the date of inspection.
-------
9900.0-LA
-14-
Cases in which circumstances r.ay require more than 45 days
from inspection to violation discovery are cases in which:
.*". - .
o The laboratory analyzing samples taken during an
inspection can not return the results to the Region or
State within 45 days from the day of inspection;!/
o Analytical results of samples taken during an inspection
are inconclusive, thus requiring additional sampling and
analysis to confirm the discovery of the violation(s);
o Contractor inspection report is not received by the
State or Region in a timely manner.!/
2. HPV Formal Enforcement Timeframe
In the case of High Priority Violators, 90 days from viola-
tion discovery is the established timeframe for issuing, referring,
and/or initiating formal enforcement action. Because formal
enforcement action is required, unissued drafts and informal
discussions within 90 days of violation discovery are not
considered timely and appropriate actions.
Where a violation may pose a potential threat to human
health or the environment, the correction of that violation is
of paramount importance. If a State has administrative order
authority and no administrative penalty authority, the State
may use the administrative process to force the facility into
compliance on a fast-track, while pursuing a penalty by referral
to the AG, or other appropriate authority on a somewhat longer
timeframe.
Cases in which circumstances may require greater than 90 days
from violation discovery to formal enforcement are cases involving:
o Site abandonment;
o Potential criminal conduct which is under investigation; or
o Need for outside technical experts.
2/ The regulating agency is responsible for assuring that contracts
stipulate that reports and other deliverables are made available
in a timely manner so that ERP timeframes may be met.
-------
9900.0-1A
-15-
3. Referral to Filing Timef ra.Tie
In all cases involving either State referral to the AC- or
other appropriate legal authority or.referral of a case by EPA
to the Department of Justice, the established tineframe is 60
days from case referral to filing. However, some complicated
cases may require more than 60 days. I/
Circumstances which may require more than 60 days from civil
referral to case filing are cases in which:
o Additional data or information collection is requested by
the Attorney General's office or DOJ for case development;
o The Attorney General or DOJ is investigating to determine
if criminal prosecution is appropriate;
o Cases involving other media (e.g. air pollution violations
were also involved at the facility); or
o Novel legal issues or defenses.
IV. ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES
The Regions and States should prioritize their enforcement
efforts in the following order: 1) Significant Non-Compliers,
2) High Priority Violators, 3) Medium Priority Violators, and
4) Low Priority Violators. However, enforcement actions need
not be taken against all High Priority Violators before any
actions are initiated against Medium Priority Violators. Because
the different categories of violators merit different levels of
response with- varying resource requirements, most Regions and
States will want to respond to a mix of the various categories
of violators. This is an acceptable approach, although the Regions
.and States should keep in mind that oversight activities will
focus first on Significant Non-Compliers. Therefore, the emphasis
must be on these and other High Priority Violators.
§/ In order to assist the State Attorney General (AG) or other
appropriate legal authority in meeting established timeframes,
the State should provide both technical and funding support to
that authority. It is the responsibility of the program office
to fully prepare a case so that it is complete when referred for
judicial filing. This preparation includes conferring with the
legal staff in advance of referral in order to know and develop
what the legal staff .need to support the anticipated enforcement
action. After referral, the program office must be prepared to
provide further case development support.
-------
9900.0-1A
-16-
V. EPA ACTION IN AUTHOR I ZED STATES'
State§--wath authorized prograrrvs - have the pri.rr.ary response's i Livy
for ensuring compliance with the RCRA program requirer.ents.
Nevertheless, EPA has the authority to take independent enforcement
action in authorized States.
It is EPA's policy to take enforcement actions in authorized
States when:
o The State asks EPA to do so and provides jus'-tifrca-tion
based on unique case specific circumstances;
o The State fails to take timely and appropriate action;
o The State is not authorized to take the action; or
o A case could establish a legal precedent -
(such cases are expected to arise infrequently.)
The previous section described what is considered timely
and appropriate action in response to various categories of
violators. The timelines set out in that section establish
trigger points at which EPA should initiate action if the State
response is not considered adequate. Where alternative schedules
have been agreed to by EPA and the State, these will define
timely action on a case specific basis. If the State has failed
to take formal enforcement action within the appropriate timeframe,
the Regional Office should notify the State that EPA will take
action. The Regional Office may also choose to take an -enforce-
ment act-ion to impose a penalty against a High Priority Violator
if the State's action failed to include a penalty at least equal
to that which could have been obtained through the administrative
process.Z/
The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Understanding (MOU)
or Grant Agreement between EPA and each State should set out the
process for providing notice to the State. The Regional Office
may need to conduct its own case development inspection, and
prepare additional documentation before proceeding to initiate
an action. Only if the Region feels the State has made reasonable
progress in approprately addressing the facility should the
Region hold off federal response when the timeframe or alternative
schedule agreed to by EPA is not met by an authorized State.
2.1 EPA may also consider taking enforcement actions seeking
'penalties if it feels that the economic sanction imposed by a
State was inadequate, particularly when non-compliance continues
Before initiating any penalty-only action, EPA must weigh the
benefit of that action against the need to take action against
other handlers that are out of compliance with RCRA.
-------
9900.0-LA
-17-
In order to facilitate achievement of "timely a.-id appropriate"
enforcement responses against nonconpliant facility owners and
operators State/EPA coordination is essential. Regular case
status meetings, written and telephone contacts should supplement
use of monthly Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log "(CMEL)
sheets. Status updates on specific cases are especially important
when alternative schedules are being followed.
State Referrals to EPA
In carrying out the responsibilities for the enforcement
of RCRA, authorized States sometimes find it necessary, and
desirable to refer certain cases to the Region for Federal
enforcement. As with other responses, if the State decides to
refer an HPV to EPA, this must be done within 90 days of Violation
Discovery. In such cases it is not expected that the Regions
would start the timeframe "clock" all over again; nor is it
anticipated that the Region will need as much time to develop
a complaint or DOJ referral.
For HPV cases a complaint should be issued, or referral
made to DOJ, within 90 days of receipt of the referral package.
The State should provide any case development information
available to the Region as part of the referral package. This
should provide a reduction in the time needed for Regional
case development, allowing the Region to address the situation
more expeditiously. There is some flexibility in the timeframes,
however, so that where necessary, a Region may verify the
nature of the violations through a case development inspection.
Where a referral arises from a joint inspection, familiarity
with the case should expedite Regional handling of the case.
If a Region finds more time is necessary in dealing with a
State's referrals, the Region should work out an agreement
with the State to provide early notice of referrals in advance
of the "timely" referral date indicated by the policy (i.e.
where the State's "appropriate" response must be a referral to
EPA because it cannot otherwise appropriately address a violator).
-------
. 9900. WA
-18-
VI. EPA ACTION AT FEDERAL FACILITIES I/
EPA and the States are responsible for implementing the
timely and.-appropriate enforcement criteria at Federal.
facilities iri-the same manner that "the criteria are applied
to non-Federal facilities. However, due to certain limitations
on EPA's enforcement authorities at Federal facilities there
will be some differences in EPA's response to these facilities
which are HPVs.
The Agency remains committed to supporting Federal Facilities
in their efforts to comply with RCRA. While the appropriate
response to a High or Medium Priority Violator is a formal
enforcement action, where a Federal Facility is determined to
fit into one of these violator categories, EPA will issue a Notice
of Noncompliance (NON) as the initial enforcement action. Since
the issuance of a NON is parallel to the issuance of a RCRA
§3008(a) administrative complaint, the NON must specify the
violations, remedy, and timefframes for implementing the remedy
in the same manner that an administrative complaint would.
This action will be taken against High Priority Violator facilties
within 90 days of violation discovery. After the NON has been
issued, EPA will work with the Federal Facility to develop a
Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA) which will describe
actions the Federal Facility will take in order to return to
compliance. The terms and conditions of the final FFCA will be
enforceable through citizens suits, and State actions under
citizens suit provisions. The requirement for economic sanctions
against High Priority Violators will not apply when EPA is the
lead enforcement agency.
EPA should encourage the States to take the enforcement
lead and pursue appropriate action against Federal Facilities.
States, at a minimum, should issue administrative .orders against
Federal Facilities which are HPVs. States may also be able to
pursue other actions under their own authorities. States are
expected to take appropriate enforcement actions within the
timeframes set forth in this document.
I/ This Section does not apply to Government-Owned Contractor-
Operated (GOCO) facilities. GOCOs should be treated the same
as private facilities.
-------
Enforcement Response Timeline
High Priority Violators
90
Days
Develop
Administrative Enforcement
Action
INSPECTION/
HI CORD RE VIEW
Days
VIOLATION
DISCOVERY
Develop Judicial
Referral
90
Days
ADMIN ACTION
TAKEN
H
Admin.
Process
CASE
REFERRED
TO JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY
60
Days
COMPLIANCE
NOT IN
COMPLIANCE
CASE
FILED
t
'« ^.l'*1-
-------
'))()(). ()- I A
Enforcement Response TimeliriW
Medium Priority Violators
1
Develop A<
Enforcem
INSPECTION/ 45 VIOLATION
HLCbHD REVIEW DayS DISCOVERY
Warninc
NOV
120 FORMAL/
Days TAKE
Iminislralive
ent Action
Dev
A
6
D,
i Leller / ny
ssued v.
\CTION_JAdmlnl INCOMPLIANCE /
N -iprocessp ORON ~^V
1 ' SCHEDULE? V
(NO)
etop ^-X
O.
1
0
ys
TJV 90 Days fc REFER 60 CASE
J Develop CASE Days FILED
^ Judicial Referral
IN COMPLIANCE -_
90 ORON ./TI.N
Days* COMPLIANCE ^V^/
SCHEDULE? ^"^
YES
* t20 Days lor Non Land Disposal Restriction Generator Violations
(SB)
-------
9900.0-1A
APPENDIX
Violation^Classification Examples and How to Classify Vi.olat.or5
Violation Classification examples are presented to help
guide compliance officials in making case-specific decisions
necessary in determining violation classification as well as
classification of the violator for purposes of determining
appropriate enforcement response.
The Violator characteristics are briefly restated Tiere.
The Medium Priority Violator is a handler with one or more Class
I violations not meeting criteria to be designated a High Priority
Violator. The High Priority Violator is a handler who caused or
poses substantial likelihood of exposure to waste or constituents;
is a chronic or recalcitrant violator; or substantially deviates
from the program requirements or terms of a permit, order or decree
by failing to perform work as required or in a timely manner.
Violations of certain program requirements (such as examples
provided in this appendix) will be considered to be "substantial
deviations", requiring HPV status. Examples of these violations
are listed in this appendix as "HPV". In looking at handlers
which do not have these particular violations, the compliance
official should consider, the combined effect of violations, the
results of previous inspections at the facility, as well as the
violator's responsiveness in rectifying previous violations, in
determining whether the violator is an HPV.
The Class I violation is defined as a deviation from
regulations, Compliance Orders, or permits which could result in
a failure to: assure hazardous waste is destined for and delivered
to authorized TSDFs; prevent releases; assure early detection of
releases; or perform corrective action for releases. The Class
II violation is defined in the negative; violations not meeting
criteria for Class I designation are classified as Class II.
As indicated in the ERP text, classification of the handler
violator category is made using information about the likilihood
of exposure, the violations (extent of deviation from requirements)
violation history (have the same requirements been a compliance
issue in the past?), and past experience in dealing with handler
(in the paat has enforcement escalation been necessary, or has
the initial WL/NOV been sufficient to obtain compliance?).
If in past dealings with a facility informal actions have not
been successful in addressing violations, resulting in a delay
in returning the facility to compliance, the compliance official
should consider whether an informal action is likely" to obtain
compliance in this case. Where formal action is taken an economic
sanction may well be appropriate, even though not required in
-------
9900.0-iA
-2-
response to Medium Priority Violators. If a handler has in the
past not responded to formal actions (orders) issued in response
to violations, this should indicate a handler needs to be
treated as., a High Priority Violator. If past orders against a
handler ha've-not been taken seriousTy, with the facility not
carrying out terms in good faith or have resulted in drawn-out
disputes, HPV status is indicated.
Just as the violator classification is a case-specific
decision, the classification of a. violation as a Class I or II
often must consider site specific information as well. While
some violations are easily categorized as being a ~lass I, or a
Class I requiring HPV response; others must take i::to account
conditions at the facility and extent of deviation from the
requirements. An example of the former is operating, a treatment,
storage, or disposal facility without a permit or interim status.
In every case this should be classified as a Class I violation,
and HPV response is required, as indicated on page 5 of this
appendix. On the other hand, while a "systematic failure ...or
substantial deviation from manifest requirements" requires an
HPV response, lesser deviations from the manifest requirements ;
may be considered Class I violations requiring only a Medium
Priority Violator status; the most minor violations (e.g.,
omission of generator ID number) may be a Class II.
The examples presented are a small sarr.ple of violations
fitting each category. Those dealing with ground-water monitoring
violations are most detailed, following the thought process
which is used to make the violator classification. The other
examples briefly describe a situation or type of violation, then
note the appropiate designation.
Ground-Water Monitoring Requirement Violations/Violator Classification
Example 1.
Inadequate well number or placement
In evaluating violations of subpart F for classification,
the compliance official must realize that a system may trigger
assessment monitoring and still be grossly inadequate. In
order for the appropriate assessment plan to be designed and
implemented, all releases, and extent of releases (including
rate and chemistry!must be detected. Thus, a system which
fails to cover a significant pathway due to insufficient numbers
or inappropriate location of wells, or inadequate understanding
of the subsurface geology, is a Class I violation. [It involves
a deviation from a regulation or permit requirement "which could
result in a failure to assure early detection of such releases".]
-------
9900.0-iA
-3-
Such a handler should be considered a High Priority Violator
(HPV) because the system inadequacies may allow a plume or part
of a plume 'to. migrate unaddressed, "or postpone detection until a
large volume of waste or leachate has been released. [This
violation has caused a "substantial likelihood of exposure".]
Example 2.
Ground-water monitoring well screens are too long, dilution
causes low indicator readings. While corrective action is
indicated (i.e. samples indicate need for further investigation
of possible release), levels are too low to trigger assessment
monitoring (or compliance monitoring). This is a violation
of the ground-water monitoring system performance standard and
is a Class I violation because the ground-water monitoring system
was inadequate to trigger the appropriate monitoring system
response.
As long as' the corrective action process proceeds to
provide the necessary characterization to allow the release to
be appropriately addressed, this handler does not have to be
characterized as an HPV. However, if o/o delays response, HPV
designation may be indicated.
Example 3.
Damage to. a well may impede follow-up sampling critical to
a site evaluation or other inspection. A case in point is where
an initial sampling indicates need for further sampling from a
specific well to further evaluate a possible release., Upon
returning to the well at a later date, the well is found to be
damaged so .as to prevent the taking of reliable samples. This
is a Class I, and the handler must be considered to be an HPV
due to the nature of the violation and the suspicious circumstances
Example 4.
Sampling and analysis
Regulations require that sampling and analysis of ground
water be performed at certain intervals. Failure to sample at
proper intervals or for all required parameters could result in
the failure to detect changes in ground-water quality... Class I
violation - HPV may be indicated depending on extent of deviation
from requirements. Class I violation and HPV status would be
required where a facility fails to perform sampling or analysis
when required or uses poor techniques or procedures which
invalidate results.
-------
9900.0-1A
-4-
Example 5.
,40 CFR~-f265. 93 (b) thru (e)'requires owner/operator of
facility to make comparison between upgradient and downgradient
ground-water monitoring wells. If significant increases (or pH
decreases) are confirmed, a ground-water assessment program must
be implemented. Failure to comply with these requirements
for comparing well data or implementing a ground-water assessment
program is a Class I violation, HPV response is indicated.
Example 6.
Records of data and analyses from facilities GWM systems are
to be kept for specified periods of time. Minor deviations
from these requirements which do not impede compliance monitoring
or enforcement efforts may be Class II violations.
Example 7.
Analyses from GWM systems must be submitted to the appropriate
State or Federal authority. Parameters exceeding maximum contaminant
levels and/or significant differences from background concentrations
must be identified, failure to submit analysis of GWM data or to
notify appropriate State or Federal official of increases in
indicator parameters is a Class I violation. Where violation
results in delay to further investigation of possible release,
HPV designation is indicated.
-------
9900.0-iA
-5-
Examples of Violation and Violator Classification
o Failure to.carry out waste analysis for a waste stream. HPV
(unless o/o is properly applying "knowledge.-of-process ")
o Operating without a permit or interim status. HPV
o Failure to comply with 90 day storage limit by generator. Class I
(Gross deviation from requirement or failure to rectify
upon notice elevates this to HPV.)
o Commencing construction prior to permit approval at a new HPV
facility or new part of a facility where permit is
required before such construction is commenced.
o Complete failure to respond to a §3007 request. HPV
o Systematic failure of a generator or transporter to HPV
comply with the manifest system or substantial deviation
from manifest requirements . [More; routine manifest
violations of a limited nature may not require HPV
designation, such as where one manifest out of a large
number was not signed (and the waste was properly handled
and disposed of anyway). In such a case, a Class I violation
is appropriate, however HPV designation is not required.
The most minor manifest violation (e.g. omission of a
generator ID number) may be a Class II.
o Failure to satisfy manifest discrepancy reporting HPV
requirements.
o Failure to prevent the unknown entry or prevent the HPV
possibility of the unauthorized entry of persons or
livestock into the waste management area of the facility.
o Failure to properly handle ignitable, reactive, or HPV
incompatible wastes as required by 264 and 265.17(b)(1),
(2),(3),(4), and (5).
o Disposal of hazardous waste in a regulated quantity HPV
at a non-regulated TSDF.
o Improper disposal of waste in violation of the land HPV
disposal restrictions.
o Mixing, solidifying, or otherwise diluting waste to HPV
circumvent land disposal restrictions.
o Incorrectly certifying a waste for disposal/treatment
in violation of the land disposal restrictions.
o Failure to submit notifications/certifications
as required by land disposal restrictions.
-------
Class I
Class II
9900.0-1A
-6-
o Deficient waste determination (land ban).
o Failure of an o/o of a TSDF to have a closure or pose.
post-d'osru-re plan or cost estimates.
o Failure to maintain a copy of the closure plan or
financial assurance documentation at the facility
when it is maintained when it is maintained at the
corporate headquarters and/or regional corporate office.
(Failure to supply documentation upon request is a
Class I violation.) .
o Minor deviations from timeframes set out for facility Class II
closure.
(except as related to requirement that o/o submit closure
plan at least 180 days before begining closure - Class I,
possibly HPV depending upon deviation and potential impact).
o Failure to submit professional engineer's certification
of closing to proper State, or Federal official.
Class I
o Failure of o/o to retain professional engineer to oversee HPV
closure activities and certify conformance with closure
plan.
o Failure to establish or maintain financial assurance HPV
for closure and/or post closure care.
o Failure of o/o to provide updated documentation for Class I
financial test for closure, post-closure, and/or
liability insurance, within 90 days of the close of1.
the company's fiscal year.
o Failure to submit an originally signed duplicate of the Class I
trust agreement to the PA.
o Failure to submit biennial report Class II
o Failure to meet general inspection requirements (265.15) Class I
for developing a written inspection plan.
If inspections are not conducted or hazardous conditions
are not corrected. HPV
Failure to designate the facility emergency coordinator. Class I
-------
9900.3- LA
-7-
° Failure to follow emergency procedures contained -:=v
in the^-response plan which could result in serious harr. .
Therefor"e'-f-ai l.ure 'v> .:^rry out tvie followi-vj f.yoes of
activities during an emergency would be considered a
Class I viola tio n_ and indicate a' HPV :
Response activities include: activating alarm and/or
notify appropriate emergency officials; assessing extent
and seriousness of release; reporting findings of spills
outside a facility; containing hazardous waste; monitoring
any shut-down operations; properly treating, storing and
disposing of the spill; and cleaning up completely "after
the accident.
o Storage of waste in a container that is not in good Class I
condition.
- General use of containers which are in poor condition. HPV
o Fail re to give police, fire department, and hospitals Class I
information that will be -lee.led if there is an emergency
at the facility. [MOTE: HPV is indicated if fire department
is not made aware of risks and special equipment needed. to
respond to emergencies at facility or lack of preparedness.
poses potential thr^'t to human health.]
o Failure to label a H.W. drum with required information. Class I
- If this incorrect labeling could cause aa inappropriate
response to a spill or leak and subsequent release or HPV
potential harm to human health or the environment.
- a general failure to follow drum labeling requirements HPV
or lack of knowledge of drum contents.
o Failure to date containers/tanks with accumulation date. HPV
o Failure to placard or incorrectly placarding a Class I
vehicle carrying hazardous waste.
- Multiple placard violations, past similar problems HPV
or if there is a spill or accident during transportation
and this results in inappropriate response.
o Failure to conduct adequate personnel training. Class I
- Failure to maintain complete records. Class I'
o Deviations from export rule requirements. Class I
- Systematic failure to comply with export rule
or substantial deviation from requirements. HPV
-------
FY87 HEADQUARTERS LIBRARY ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The FY87 major accomplishments of the Headquarters
library are listed below according to different library
functions. But I wish to stress that the entire staff
is involved in one way or another in many of these areas.
As members of a working team we do not restrict ourselves
to any single function or section.
GENERAL
0 Throughout the library procedures were streamlined
whenever possible, from operational procedures to
statistics keeping.
0 The library increased its visibility through more
active staff participation in EPA programs.
0 We were more responsive to users' needs.
0 We analyzed our services to determine usefulness and
consider improvements.
LIBRARY SERVICES
ACQUISITIONS/COLLECTION DEVELOPMENT
0 Creation and maintenance of the Acquisitions database
to track materials at every step of the ordering process
Database allows production of specialized reports
based on different criteria.
Reports from the database have been sent to other
network libraries to help their collection
development effort.
It facilitates journal subscriptions renewals
decision process.
0 Massive effort to identify materials to be purchased
for the Management collection.
0 Responded promptly and effectively to sudden
availability of end-of-year money.
BIBLIOGRAPHIES
0 Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention, at
the request of the Preparedness Staff, OSWER.
0 Waste Minimization, for the Office of Solid Waste.
0 Youth Bibliographies, at the request of the Office
of Youth Affairs, for distribution to schools
-------
nationwide.
Environmental books for young people, K-6
and 7-12 grades.
Articles on the popular press on five
environmental topics.
0 Role of federal-managers in affirmative action programs,
at the request of the Office of Civil Rights, to be
used by the EPA task force on affirmative action.
CATALOGING
0 Compilation of the EPA Network Journal Holdings report.
0 New forms and procedures for providing support to the
regional and laboratory libraries.
New coding sheets.
Cataloging articles published in the Library News-.
0 Active participation on the online catalog project.
CIRCULATION
0 Overdue notices were produced more frequently.
Procedures were streamlined.
Better response from library borrowers.
0 Responded quickly to users' suggestions, e.g.:
Issued new circulation printouts with
improved access to documents.
Kept better control of current issues of
popular magazines.
COLLECTION MAINTENANCE
0 Improved access to various components of the collection.
e.g. List of pesticide data sheets.
0 Intensive, weeding of the collection.
DATABASE SERVICES
0 Analysis of Selective Dissemination of Information
(SDI) service to determine usefulness and consider
improvements.
INTERLIBRARY LOAN
0 Expanded contacts with other environmental and
scientific librarians in the Washington area.
0 Established a faster turnaround time when responding
to requests.
-------
0 Eliminated unnecesary (duplicative) recordkeeping.
OUTREACH
0 Developed specific information products for EPA
programs, e.g.
Extensive reading list for the staff of the
Assistant Administrator in the Office of water.
0 Participation in agency-wide programs, e.g.
Alternative technologies clearinghouse project.
Presentation to the Clean Air Act task force
and subsequent suppor of information seeking
effort.
Participation in evaluation of Groundwater
Information Center and database operations.
Youth program.
0 Improved access to information.
Production of combined HQ/OTS journal subscription
list.- We are also inclusing OTS's new acquisition
in the 'what1 s New.
Microfiche finding aid.
Contacts database, subsequently expanded to be
used by PIC and INFOTERRA. A
Developing a file of information on clearingiWises
and an advisory service.
Participation in Reports Roundtable group.
0 Improvements on production and format of the What's New.
0 Contacts with other libraries, clearinghouses, inter-
agency task forces to exchange ideas and information
products.
0 Consulted by different EPA programs to provide feedback
on new products, e.g.
EDRS (Enforcement Document Retrieval System), OECM.
Directory of Environmental Statisticians.
REFERENCE
0 Creation of a vertical file for easy subject access to
a variety of brochures, pamphlets and other ephemeral
literature which otherwise would not be available
in the library.
0 New form to keep track of ready-reference questions.
Helps analyze current trends.
Identifies materials needed in the collection.
-3-
-------
SPECIAL SERVICES
HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION
0 Database grew to contain close to 1800 records.
0 Developed a hierarchical thesaurus of the keywords
used in the database.
0 Participation in active marketing of the collection
through demonstrations, training and installation
in different EPA offices.
MANAGEMENT
0 Developed a special collection on management topics.
0 Identified books, journals and videocassettes for
the collection.
0 Developed and produced special information products,
Bibliographies.
What's New in Management.
0 Developed a database for the collection.
RISK
0 Took over production of the updates to the risk guide
TRANSLATIONS/INFOTERRA
0 Improved quality and quantity of INFOTERRA responses.
0 Completed update of the Source Directory.
0 Improved format of the What's New in Translations.
0 Revised Procedures Manual.
ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS
EQUIPMENT
0 Improvement in equipment with the arrival of a new
CANON micrographics reader/printer, more are on
order.
0 Selected by Dun and Bradstreet as one of six libraries
to test a prototype CD-ROM database.
0 Supply order forms were revised to facilitate
library's and PIC's ordering process.
-4- .
-------
0 Have received new software packages
SPACE
Technical Services staff moved to Waterside Mall
in October. The move increased their participation
in the daily operation of the Main library.
STAFF CHANGES
0 Added two new positions to the staff.
0 Overall improvement in the quality and skills of the
library staff.
STAFF TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
0 Increased participation in outside workshops and
training sessions.
0 Internal training sessions/ e.g. Wordstar, DBase,
Lotus. As a result the majority of the staff uses
one or more of these programs.
0 Technicians' seminars to encourage sharing of
individual expertise.
0 Production of Nexis Daily Update to improve ability
of staff to answer questions on current issues.
-5-
------- |