UniMdSUtes
           Environmental Protection
           Agency
              Off.ce of
              Solid Waste and
              Emergency Response
&EPA
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
                     9938-5
           TITLE:, Enforcement Strategy for the Land Disposal
                '.Restrictions First Third Rule
                        - -""'
                       1 '    ,            i
           APPROVAL DATE:  JAN 23 IS89
           EFFECTIVE DATE:  JAN 23 1989
           ORIGINATING OFFICE:  OWPE
           0 FINAL
           D DRAFT
             LEVEL OF DRAFT
               DA — Signed by AA or DAA
             -08 — Signed by Office Director
             -• •;• Q C —.Review & Comment
           REFERENCE (other documents):
  * Note to MARY ESCAWLLE and Regions. I - X
  * This Directive 9938x5?;-aj^4;onlY.r6l^&sable, •"
  '                         feis*. 552,
  >exemption b (7) (E). .       .>,•,.
 WER       QS WEfi       OS WER
                          DIRECTIVE    D!

-------
                               Washington DC 20480
                OSWER Directive initiation Request
                                                           11. Direct** Number
                              Z. Originator Information
Name of Contact Petto*
  Jim
                           Hays
Mail Code
  OS-520
        2439
QWPE/RED/GEB
Telephone Codt
  475-9329
     3. Title
           Enfor'
           First
               V Strategy Land Disposal Restrictions
                  Rule
     4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)                     ....    .    c e    j
      This  directive  presents guidelines to  use  in  identifying the affected
      universe,  targeting  inspections, and reviewing  soft hammer certifications
      and demonstrations submitted  to EPA.   the  strategy is  intended to assure
      that  the most significant  violations of  the LDR program are addressed.
     5. Keywords
      inspections,  Land  Disposal  Restrictions,  soft  hammer, enforcement
     St. Does This Directive Supersede rrevious mrecuve(s).'
     b. Does It Supplement Previous Oirective(s)?
                                I X I No   I   I Yes   What directive (number. We)
                                        No
                                          Yes   What directive (number. We)
     r. Draft Level
         A - Signed by AA/DAA    [  |  B - Signed by Office Director   [  [ C - For Review & Comment      D - In Development
8.
Document to
be
distributed to
States
by Headquarters?
—
Yes | X | No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
9. Signature oHLead Office Directives Coordinator
&&£«*. /J^g^J
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
Date
//^?
Date
    EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
  OSWER   f     OSWER     '        OSWER              O
IE     DIRECTIVE         DIRECTIVE       DIRECTIVE

-------
                               9938.5
   ENFORCEMENT STRATEGY
 LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
      FIRST THIRD RULE
     Environmental Protection Agency
   Office of Waste Programs Enforcement

         December 16, 1988
ENFORCEMENT CONFIDENTIAL

-------
              ENFORCEMENT  20OTENTIAL
9938-5
 I.   Introduction

      The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA)  to the Resource
 Conservation and Recovery Act (KCRA) enacted on November 8, 1984, included
 amendments  requiring EPA to evaluate all hazardous wastes according to a
 strict schedule to determine whether land disposal of these wastes is
 protective  of human health and the environment.   EPA is setting levels or
 methods of  treatment which substantially diminish the waste's toxicity or
 reduce the  likelihood that the waste's hazardous constituents will migrate.
 Wastes that do not meet these treatment standards are prohibited from land
 disposal.

      The following strategy is intended to assist the Regions and States in
 implementing the Land Disposal Restrictions (I£R) First Third Rule.  This
 strategy primarily provides guidelines for Regions and States to use in
 identifying the affected universe, targeting inspections, and reviewing
 "soft haittner" certifications/demonstrations submitted to EPA.  The strategy
 is also intended to assure that the most significant violations of the
 land  disposal restrictions program are identified and that appropriate
 enforcement response is pursued.

      Under  HSWA, had EPA failed to promulgate treatment standards for
 solvent, dioxin, or California List wastes by the applicable statutory
 deadline, these wastes would have  been prohibited from any land disposal .
 However, where the Agency has not  promulgated treatment standards for First
 Third wastes, the statute allows land disposal of the wastes, provided that
 if the waste is land disposed in a landfill or surface impoundment, the
 following requirements are
 (1)  the unit in which the waste  is placed must meet the minijiun     -
     technological requirements  (i.e. double liners,  leachate collection
     systems, and ground water monitoring) or be exempt from such
     requirements pursuant to RCRA sections 3004 (o) (2) , 3005(j) (2) or
     (j)(4); and
 (2)  the generator most certify to the Regional Administrator that he has
     made a good faith effort to  locate and contract with treatment and
     recovery facilities practically available which provide the greatest
     environmental benefit.

     These demonstrations and certifications should be submitted by -the
generator to the Region where the waste(s) is generated.  In sane cases the
generator may forward the demonstration/certification to EPA Headquarters.
Headquarters will in turn,  forward the information to the Region where the
generator is located.  Each Region should review the certifications for
     1 When such wastes are land disposed in units other than landfills and
surface iirpDundments (e.g.,  waste piles, land treatment units), these
requirements do not apply.

-------
                                                                       9938.5
 completeness and accuracy by evaluating the general Regional conditions and
 identifying actual treatment available.  The Regional office where the
 specific generator is located has  the responsibility for determining
 whether the information meets the  regulatory soft hammer provisions.   A
 national directory of commercial hazardous waste management facilities will
 be sent to all Regions to assist in these evaluations.  Information
 acquired from "soft hammer"  certifications/demonstrations received will be
 a continuing source of information on the actual availability of treatr-ient
 in a Region.

      Regions should consider developing a database on treatment available
 for particular industries and waste codes to supplement the national
 directory.   Furthermore,  sharing of such information among the Regions
 would be most beneficial.  The Regions should also contact States and
 review State or biennial reports to further identify "soft hammer"
 treatment capacity available.  A more detailed discussion on the "soft
 hammer" certification review process will be given in section III.


 II.  Universe and Inspection  Targeting

    1.   INSPECTION TARGETING

     The First Third rule addresses a number of RCRA wastes which,  for the
 large  part, are associated with particular industry segments (the exception
 to this being the P and U wastes) .  In targeting facilities for
 inspection,  it is important  to consider a wide variety of factors which
 determine the responsibilities of  the industry, and its probable response
 to the requirements of this  rule.  These considerations include, but are
 not  limited to:  the status of the  industry (waste generator, treater,
 storage facility,  or disposer) , the capability for and availability of
 on-site storage,  treatment and disposal of First Third wastes, and  current
 industry waste management practices.  In many cases, information necessary
 to characterize an industry  may be available to the enforcement staff
 through a permit or Part B permit  application.  Additional information on
 industry characterization may be obtained if a RCRA Facility Assessment
 has  been completed at the facility.

     This inspection strategy resulted from consideration of each of the
 above-mentioned targeting considerations.  The universe of affected
 facilities was identified, the characteristics of wastes were investigated
 (wastewater vs.  ncnwastewater) , and the treatment technologies currently
employed by the affected industries were reviewed.

     The type of treatment technologies currently employed is of importance
because, to the extent that  existing treatment technologies will achieve
compliance with Best Demonstrated  Available Technologies (BOAT) standards,
the  facilities can be expected to  continue their current practices, and
likely pose a lesser compliance problem.  Where technologies designated as
BDftT are not  currently in widespread use, and the treatment in place will
hot achieve treatment standards, industry will have to either make  process
changes, or change their treatment practices  (onsite or off site) .   Where

-------
             ENFORCEMENT  CONFIDENTIAL
9938.5
 such changes (and possibly added expenses)  are incurred, the possibility of
 compliance problems  increase.

      Table 1 lists the twelve industries primarily affected by the First
 Third rule.   It may  be seen from this table that the  number of wastes
 regulated under each industry group varies from one to thirteen.  However
 some of these wastes may be more ubiquitous than others.  For example,
 bottom sediment sludges from the treatment of wastewaters from wood
 preserving processes using creosote and/or pentachlorophenol (K001) is
 edition to the wood preserving industry.  By comparison, a relatively small
 percentage of organic chemical plants generates distillation bottom tars
 from the production  of phenol/acetone from cumene (K022).  Realizing that
 thesa differences exist, the inspection strategy must be sensitive to the
 number of facilities within each regulated industry.  On the other hand,
 large volumes of  regulated wastes may be generated by a relatively few
 plants.   Thus,  both  the size of the regulated community and the volume of
 wastes generated  must be taken into consideration when developing and
 refining inspection  priorities.

      The BOAT standards for wastewater categories include the following
 treatment technologies: steam stripping, solvent extraction, chlorine
 oxidation, and stabilization.  Solvent extraction and steam stripping are
 already employed  by  some industries for recycle/recovery purposes as the
 result of internal incentives, e.g., the recovery of  process residues from
 the production of aniline (K103).  These onsite technologies likely will
 continue.  Also,  facility treatanent units are available for wastewater
 treatment.  Many  facilities may be conducting onsite  treatment of First
 Third wastes  without being subject to RCPA permitting requirements using
 boilers,  furnaces, distillation units, waste-water treatment tanks, etc..
 If  the waste  introduced into these "RCRA exempt" units is restricted, then
 any process residues also would be a restricted material based on the
 "derived from"  rule.  Furthermore, the facility treating a restricted waste
 in  such units must comply with all LCR requirements (e.g. waste analysis,
 notifications,  certifications) placed on a regulated  treatanent facility.
 Approximately 10  to  20 percent of the organic chemical plants are
 classified as Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities  (TSDFs).  The
 remainder of  the  facilities either send the waste off-site for disposal,
 manage the wastes on-site in RCEA exempt units,  or claim that they are not
 managing hazardous wastes.
                                        »
     Other circumstances which may modify priorities  include the
characteristics of the industry and the regional distribution; for example,
a high proportion of the petroleum industry facilities are TSDFs and they
are located in significant numbers in certain Regions.  These should be
given priority over other generators.

     The BOAT treatment standards for nonwastewaters  are largely based on
combustion technologies or stabilization.   Most RCRA  generators do not have
RCRA permitted or interim status incinerators and stabilization
capabilities.  Therefore,  the likelihood for offsite  management of
nonwastewaters appears greater than for wastewaters.  Considering this
 fact,  inspection activities should recognize the importance of inspecting

-------
              ENFORCEMENT  »!lW*i          9938.5
 off site commercial  facilities managing nonwastewaters.  Inspectors should
 also be aware of the potential for the use of onsite  furnaces and "sham"
 energy recovery operations for illegal disposal  of  restricted wastes.

    2.  INSMat.TJ.ON PRIORITIES

      The general strategy is to conduct inspections in the order of
 priority stated below, recognizing that acccnmodations must be made for
 site specific conditions and circumstances.  Inspectors should also
 consider giving priority to facilities that generate  wastes subject to the
 F-solvents and/or California waste provisions of the  land disposal ban, in
 addition to First Third wastes.  Finally,  inspection  priorities should be
 sensitive to past compliance problems at the facilities, particularly with
 respect to land ban compliance.

 (a)   Commercial Land Disposal Facilities

      As with the earlier land ban inspection strategies, commercial land
 disposal facilities remain the highest priority. First Third wastes (i.e.
 "soft hammer" or wastes subject to a nationwide  capacity variance or case-
 by-case extension)  received by a landfill or surface  impoundment must be
 managed in a unit in compliance with -minimum technology requirements (MTRs)
 or that have received an applicable waiver from  MERs.  The facility must
 maintain copies of  all generator and treatment facility certifications
 including soft hammer certifications.  Inspectors should assp
-------
          ENFORCEMENT  CONFIDENTIAL
                    **Table 1.  AFFECTED INDUSTRIES  BY
                              WASTE CODE
                                       9938.5
 INDUSTRY
LISTING OF
WASTE CODES
NO.  OODES
 Electroplaters
 Explosives
 Ink Fonnolators
 Inorganic Chemicals
 Iron & Steel
 Organic Chemicals

 Paint Manufacturing
 Pesticides
 Petroleum Refining

 Pharmaceuticals
 Secondary T^arf
Wood Preservers
F006                          1
K044,  K045, K046, K047          4
K086                          1
*K071, K073, K106               3
K061,  K062, K087               3
K015,  K016, K018, K019          13
K020,  K021, K022, K024
K025,  K030, KD83, K103, KL04
K004,  K008                     2
K036,  K037, K099               3
K022,  *K048, *K049, *K050,       7
*K051, *K052, K087
K101,  K102                     2
K069,  KLOO                     2
K001                          1
*  Indicates listed wastes which have'"received an extension from the
effective date
** Table does not include "soft hamner" waste

-------
             ENFORCEMENT  SUNHULNIIAL
9938.5
 demonstrations are in fact conducting treatment as specified in the
 demonstration.  The inspector should also review records, and conduct tests
 as necessary to ensure that the appropriate treatment standards are being
 applied (wastewater vs. nonwastewater).

 (d)   Generators

      The vast majority of handlers affected by this rule are generators.
 Regions should compile lists of generators of First Third wastes and cross
 reference this listing with those known  to generate F-solvent and
 California list wastes.  In some cases wastes subject to soft hammers may
 also be subject to California List Halogenated Organic Compounds (HOC)
 standards.   In these cases, the California List prohibition levels rather
 than the soft hammer provisions would apply to the waste.  Table 2
 presents a list of soft hammer wastes potentially subject to the California
 list HOC treatment standards.  Other areas of concern include the
 appropriate identification of the wastes (e.g., F-solvent or K086 solvent
 wash sludge), appropriate identification of treatability group, and
 completion/maintenance of certification  materials.  Certain types of
 materials may pose special problems due  to continuing controversy over
 waste code definitions, e.g.,  K051 API  separator sludge from the
 petroleum industry, and K001 wood preserving sludges.

      There are incentives for deliberately classifying wastes under the
 wrong waste code or treatability group.   Two such incentives include
 differences between the wastewater and nonwastewater treatment standards,
 and  the availability of management practices to provide the necessary
 treatment.
 (e)  Commercial Transfer Stations and Major

     These facilities are responsible for maintaining the hazardous, waste
manifests and continuing the paper trail.  In addition, if these facilities
perform management of wastes by transferring the contents of hazardous
waste containers and trucks into either bulk containers or other
containers, the transporter or transfer station is responsible for
generating a new manifest and establishing the treatment standards for the
waste based on the generator's initial information. Information gathered
from the inspection of these facilities may serve to set priorities for
inspections of generators, treaters and disposers.
   3.

     It is intended that the land ban  inspections be conducted in
conjunction with Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs) performed in
accordance with the RIP.  This will ensure a strong compliance monitoring
presence while minimizing costs.

     Sampling and analysis resources are limited, however Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP) support is available should analyses be needed to
support an enforcement action.

-------
          ENFORCEMENT  CONFIDENTIAL
^  ,                         9939- 5
Table 2
                     •" Wastes Potentially Subject
                      La List HOC Treatment Standard
K017                       U029                   U078
K021                       U036                   U129
K073                       U037                   U130
K085                       U041                   U158
P004                       U043                   U185
P016                       U044                   U192
P036                       U046                   U209
P037                       U061                   U210
P050                       U066                   U211
P058                       U067                   U227
P059                       U074                   U228
P123                       U077                   U237

-------
              ENFOfiCEMEHT  CONFIDFNTIAI
 HI.  "Soft Bdimei* tiaste Provision
      As fH'g-ii'MM'H  earlier, Regions should expect to receive "soft hammer"
 certifications from facilities generating "soft hammer" wastes destined for
          in landfills or surface impoundments.   Each region should consider
 resources and tip** available in prioritizing certification/demonstration
 reviews while also considering that only approximately 6% of the land
 disposed First Third wastes are actually "soft hammer" wastes.  A further
 consideration in  review selection should also be given to a handler who
 may be shipping a significant volume of "soft hammer" waste to another
 Region.   In this  situation, both Regions should coordinate in verifying the
 validity of the certification/demonstration submitted.  A recommended
 approach would be to selectively review specific facilities of concern.
 For instance,  facilities with a historically bad compliance record should
 be a high priority for certification review.  Some other facilities which
 should be considered for review are generators which are also on-site
          facilities and large commercial treatment facilities which
generate  "soft hammer" residuals.

     There are varying conditions in a certification/ demonstration review
to consider which could potentially invalidate a  facility's "soft hammer"
certification.  It should be emphasized that section 268.8 clearly
specifies that the generator must make "a good faith effort to locate and
contract  with treatment and recovery facilities practically available which
provide the greatest environmental benefit."  The treatment hierarchy in
the August 17, 1988 rule states that recycling/recovery is the method
achieving the greatest environmental benefit followed by destruction and
stabilization technologies.  Therefore, the objective in the generators
search for adequate treatment should be to look for treatment which indeed
provides  the "greatest environmental benefit" and not just any treatment at
randan.   The information that the Regions should  utilize in evaluating the
soft hammer certification/demonstration are the following:

1.   The  generator has made no effort to contact  and locate alternative
     treatment.  This certification should clearly  be invalidated.
            [
2.   A certification/demonstration which claims no  treatment available, but
     the  information submitted on facilities contacted does not show any
     attempt to contact treatment facilities recommended or listed in the
     preferred treatment hierarchy ("which provide  the greatest
     environmental benefit")  in the preamble.  The  Region could invalidate
     this facility's certification on grounds that  at a miniirmn the
     certifiar should have contacted these facilities potentially available
     to hia with treatment as listed in the hierarchy and documented
     whether or not treatment was available to him. Again, the Region may
     either invalidate the certification or require further information
     from the certifier prior to making any determination.

3.   The third situation that may occur would be  when the facility
     certifies to the use of treatment technology not listed in the
     "Appropriate Treatment Technology" Hierarchy.  For example, a
     facility generating a K035 sludge (nonwastewater) certifies that

                                     8

-------
                                                     - * -- -—             9938
      steam stripping is the best technology available.  The hierarchy does
      not list steam stripping as an appropriate treatment technology to use
      for this waste.  Assuming no economic  burden or other impractical ity
      is claimed, the Region should first (either directly or through the
      generator certification)  ascertain whether other  treatment
      technologies (i.e., incineration,  wet  air oxidation, biodegradation,
      ash stabilization)  are actually available.  If  other treatment is
      available which provides a greater environmental  benefit, a
      determination must then be made as to  whether this treatment should be
      required.  These situations must be evaluated on  a case-specific basis
      considering the type and volume of waste  and the  environmental benefit
      of requiring an alternative treatment  technology.
      If a certification is invalidated, the generator must r»««« disposal
 of the waste and immediately notify the receiving  facility  (if the waste
 has been sent off site)  of his status.  The Region  should confirm this with
 the receiving facility.

      The regulation allows for a generator to demonstrate that treatment of
 "soft hammer" waste is not a "practical" alternative to land disposal or
 that it poses an economic burden, which takps into consideration the
 increase in cost of transport,  treatment,  and disposal in an MTR unit.  A
 cost ratio is given in the preamble which  can be applied to the generator's
 specific conditions in order to determine  whether  treatment is or is not
 "practi^dl".   The cost ratio is determined by dividing the costs of
 treatment,  shipment and disposal by costs  of shipment and Higpncai only.
 In general,  if the ratio is greater than 2.0, treatment would not be
 practical.   Likewise,  if the ratio  is  less than 1.5, treatment generally
 would be considered practical.   If  the ratio is between 1.5 and 2.0, EPA
 will generally consider treatment to be "practical" unless the certifier
•can demonstrated why his cost should be considered not "practical".  The
 cost ratio and consideration of "practical" is only a basic reference tool,
 and not a hard and fast rule.

      In any case,  a demonstration by either EPA or the certifier can be
 made showing that a specific practice  is or is not "practical", regardless
 of the cost ratio.   For instance, the  example given in the preamble where
 Generator A has an on-site MIR unit, while Generator B (across the street
 front Generator A)  must  ship his "soft  hammer" waste cut of state to a
 commercial disposal facility, would illustrate consideration other than the
 cost ratio.   The costs  of shipment  and disposal for Generator A would be
 negligible, and thus, almost any cost  of treatment would be considered to
 be not practical,  given the ratio.   In such cases  the Region should
 evaluate Generator A's  certification and demonstration of practically
 available treatment technologies by methods other  than the given cost
 ratio.   These situations must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
considering the Region's knowledge  of  available technologies and relative
 financial status or size of the facility.  Furthermore, the cost ratio may
 not be used to discontinue current  treatment practices (although certain
practices may no longer be allowed) .

-------
ENFORCEMENT  CONFIDhNliA
                                                                         9938.
 IV.  Enforcement

      In conplying with the First Third Regulation and other LCR
 regulations,  it is essential for a waste to be properly characterized, in
 particular, whether or not it is in the proper waste treatability group
 (wastewater or nonwastewater).  Wastewater treatment residuals, leachate,
 and contaminated ground water derived from "soft hammer" wastes currently
 are not prohibited from land disposal.  Therefore, the incentive exists for
 a "soft hammer" liquid waste to be classified as a "soft hairmer"
 wastewater.   Furthermore, a unit which receives "soft haimer"  liquid wastes
 would have to meet the minimum technological requirements  (MTR) or have a
 3005(j)(2),  (j)(4), or 3004(o)(2) waiver.  A unit with a 3005(j)(3) or
 (j) (13)  waiver from the MIR is not eligible to receive restricted wastes,
 unless a demonstration has been made under 3004 (o) (2).   This demonstration
 states that two liners and a leachate collection system are not required if
 "the Administrator finds for a landfill or surface inpoundment, that
 alternative design and operating practices, together with  location
 characteristics,  will prevent the migration of any hazardous constituent
 into the ground water or surface water at least as effectively as such
 liners and leachate collection systems".  One treatability group may be
 less stringent than the other for a specific waste (i.e. wastewater vs.
 nonwastewater),  possibly requiring less or no treatment for that waste.

      Wastewater residues from treatment of soft hanner wastes  can be
 disposed of in a landfill or surface impoundment based on  the  rescheduling
 of these wastes to the Third Third [(Section 268.12(b)].  However, these
 residues must clearly meet the criteria of less than 1% Total  Organic
 Carbon (TOC)  and less than 1% Total Suspended Solids (TSS).  In addition,
 these residues must result from the following list of  well designed and
 well  operated treatment technologies that are listed in Section 268.12(b):
 metals recovery,  metals precipitation, cyanide destruction, carbon
 adsorption, chemical oxidation,  steam stripping,  biodegradation, and
 incineration  or other direct thermal destruction.   The wastewater residues
 from  soft hairmer wastes are to be included in the Third Third  of scheduled
 wastes for which EPA is to develop treatment standards.  The enforcement
 official should  request analytical data from a facility in order to
 substantiate  a wastewater determination.  Where such data  is unavailable
 and the  wastewater determination is highly questionable, the enforcement
 official should  request additional sanpling and analysis to be performed
by the facility or EPA should perform its-own sanpling to  ascertain the
waste treatability group.  In any case,  the burden-of-proof should be
placed on the facility making the claim.
                                      •*
     States are expected to do inspections based on their  agreement
ccrnoitments.  The success of this enforcement strategy will depend greatly
on coordination between State and EPA to insure that violations
appropriately identified by the States are adequately referred to EPA  for
enforcement.  Enforcement should reflect what is outlined  in the
Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) [OSWER Policy Directive  9900.0-1A] which
stresses the  importance of concentrating enforcement efforts on the most
serious violators and taking timely and aggressive enforcement action
against these violators.   There are a number of violations cited in the ERP

                                     10

-------
             ENFORCEMENT  CONFIDENTS
 which must be given high enforcement priority by the Regions and States.
 These include:
9938.5
           Improper disposal of waste in violation of the LCR restrictions.
           In the RCRA Enforcement Response Policy, effective 10/1/88, land
                   facilities that improperly dispose of wastes in
          violation of the land disposal restrictions are characterized as
          a high priority violator (HPV), depending upon the potential
          environmental impact.

      o    Mixing, solidifying,  or otherwise diluting waste to circumvent
          the LCR regulations.   Dilution of wastes to meet the treatment
          standards is specifically prohibited by Section 263.3 and any
          handler identified as performing dilution to circumvent the land
          disposal restrictions should be classified as a high priority
          violator.

      o    Incorrectly certifying a waste for disposal/treatment in
          violation of the LCR regulations.  Facilities that incorrectly
          certify a restricted waste for disposal should be classified a
          high priority violator,  depending upon the potential
          environmental iirpact.

      o    Failure to submit notifications/certifications as required by the
          LCR regulations.  Facilities that fail to submit the required
          notification or certification for the restricted waste with each
          manifest are classified as high priority violators,  depending
          upon the potential environmental iirpact.

      o    Deficient waste determination by the generator, treatment
          facility or land disposal facility.  This violation constitutes a
          Class I violation, and could constitute a high priority
          violation, depending upon the potential environmental impact.

      Due to the LDR schedule listed in Section 268 of 40 CFR Parts 190-399,
additional requirements for facilities may be promulgated as part of the
LCR framework.   Future LCR enforcement strategies will describe and
classify violations of these requirements for the Regions and States.

     The National Enforcement Investigation Center (NEXC) is a useful
resource which is available to all Regions.  NEIC assistance may be used to
develop judicial cases or determine LCR compliance status of large complex
facilities of g^^i  concern to a Region.  EPA Headquarters Enforcement
staff are al*o available to render assistance for case development or any
LCR related inspections.
                                    11

-------
                                                                         9938.
       EPA Headquarters is presently developing and updating several
 documents to assist EPA and State personnel  in implementing and enforcing
 this regulation.   A revised inspection manual for First Third wastes is
 being developed.   This manual will include a regulatory overview, list
 handler requirements,  examine the "soft hammer" provision and its
 implications,  and discuss the major enforcement concerns with the
 regulation.   Along with the First Third inspection manual, a single
 inspection checklist compiling all LCR requirements through the First Third
 rule will be developed.  Also,  an up  to date version of the 40 CFR
 regulations  containing all requirements since November 7, 1986 and
 including all amendments through the  First Thirds rule will be developed
 and distributed.   Finally,  to assist  the regulated community in better
 understanding and complying with all  the LCR Regulations, an information
 booklet containing a summary of all LCR requirements will be distributed to
 them through a mass mailing.

      LCR conference calls will also be held  on a quarterly basis.  The
 calls will involve Headquarters and Regional LCR contacts and will serve as
 an  opportunity to Hi««-»!«« any problems encountered, share ideas or
 recommendations,  and update on the latest LCR developments.


 VI.  Data Itenaganent

     On May  1988,  OWPE conducted a preliminary analysis of Regional LCR
 Enforcement  Activity.   That analysis  showed  a substantial variation among
 Regions in the detection and classification  of LCR violations.  A guidance
 document for LCR  violations classification will be developed by a Regional
 workgroup to assist the Regions in proper classification and enforcement
 response and ultimately result in more uniformity nationwide.  In order to
 fully  assess Regional  implementation  of LCR  and to determine the need for
 further guidance  development and/or training, a Regional LCR Enforcement
Activity update will be implemented on a quarterly basis beginning November
 6,  1988.   This information will be logged, tracked and evaluated by EPA
 Headquarters.        •
                                     12

-------