Of
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
MAY I 9 1986
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
SUBJECT: FY 8Z RCKA Implementation Plan
FROM: J. Winston Porter
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Attached for your use is the FY b7 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP).
The RIP provides guidance to the Regions and States for implementing the
RCRA Subtitle C program in the coming fiscal year. In this RIP we have
clearly identified the five highest priority RCRA activities. A major
emphasis is on permitting of land disposal facilities by the statutory
deadline (November 1988), and on ensuring proper closure of environ-
mentally significant closing facilities. Other priorities are enforcement
against ground water monitoring violators, permitting of new treatment and
RD&D units, and conducting required inspections.
This RIP should be read in conjunction with the FY 87 Agency Operating
Guidance (February 1986), the forthcoming revisions to the Interim Quality
Criteria, and other guidance documents that are referenced. You will need
to make difficult management and technical decisions to move the RCRA program
forward. I encourage you and the States to make these decisions.
Regional and State assistance in developing this RIP was very helpful,
and I will appreciate your continued assistance with the RCRA program.
Attachment
cc: Jack McGraw
Marcia Williams
Gene Lucero
Waste Management Division Directors, Regions I-X
Hazardous Waste Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
Thad Juszczak
Pat Garvey
-------
FY 87 RCRA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE
AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE,
U.S. EPA
MAY 16, 1986
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Section 1 NATIONAL PRIORITIES 1
Program Direction
RIP Framework
Table 1
Section 2 PERMITTING 4
Permit Deadlines
Non-Land Disposal Permitting
Public Involvement
Regulatory Exceptions
Section 3 CLOSURES 7
Envi ronmental" Objectives at Closing Facilities
Ground Water/Corrective Action Concerns
Ensuring Quality of Interim Status Closures
Section 4 COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT 11
Inspections
Enforcement
Section 5 CORRECTIVE ACTION 17
RCRA Facility Assessment
Interim Measures
Remedial Investigation
Selection and Implementation
of Corrective Measures
Corrective Action at Federal Facilities
Section 6 STATE AUTHORIZATION 21
Section 7 GRANTS ADMINISTRATION 22
Grant Al1otments
State Grant Work Programs
State Program Oversight
Trai ning
Section 8 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT 26
RCRA Reporting
Strategic Planning and Management System
Justification of Permit Schedule
Justification of RFA Schedule
Conclusion
ATTACHMENTS
A: Categorization Scheme
B: FY 1987 Grant Allotments
C: FY 1987 RCRA Reporting Requirements
D: FY 1987 RCRA SPMS Measures
-------
Section 1
NATIONAL PRIORITIES
Program Direction
The goal of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) program is the protection of human health and the
environment. The annual RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP)
provides direction, priorities, and guidance for implementing
the RCRA Subtitle C program. The direction and priorities of
this RIP should be reflected in the State programs and
Regional work plans.
In FY 87, the RCRA program should be results oriented.
The Regions and States should be issuing permits, enforcing
to return handlers to compliance, taking appropriate steps
to move facilities into corrective actions, ensuring adequate
closures, and performing other actions to ensure protection
of human health and the environment.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) provide
the Regions and States with an ambitious agenda, such as
Issuing permits by mandated deadlines and addressing releases.
The RCRA program treats as a hi o,hest priority the statutory
deadlines for permitting land disposal (11/88), Incineration
(11/89), and treatment/storage facilities (11/92). Regions
and States should address facilities that close on a priority
basis, proceeding first with the most environmentally significant.
Corrective action measures are an important aspect of the
permit and closures work; compliance schedules and enforcement
actions should be considered vital tools in moving the process.
The RCRA program 1s one of the most complex environmental
programs. It requires technically difficult decisions and
sustained management support to achieve statutory deadlines
and environmental benefits. Management decisions must be
made by balancing various site specific factors, keeping the
focus on permits, closures, and enforcement actions.
Integrated use of all the management, technical, and
enforcement resources at the Regions' and States' disposal
will be necessary to achieve program progress. This RIP
provides the framework for managing the regulated community
while meeting statutory deadlines as well as achieving the
greatest environmental results.
-------
RIP Framework
The FY 87 RIP establishes a framework for determining
priorities at the national and State levels for management of
the regulated community. The framework consists of two components:
1) A set of high priority activities for which maximum progress
must be made toward achievement; 2) a scheme for categorizing
other handlers into relative priority groups. Both components
are in Table 1.
The framework builds on the facility management planning
(FMP) process. The FMP is the project management tool to
integrate and schedule permitting and enforcement activities
to fulfill all requirements for the environmentally significant
facility or handler.
1) High Priority Activities
The list of high priority activities transcends the
categorization of handlers. These activities must be carried
out for all applicable handlers. Should a Region find that
its resources, in total, are insufficient to address fully the
high priority activities, the Region should notify Headquarters
and provide an explanation before August 15, 1986. This explanation
is to provide Headquarters with a better picture of the
constraints facing the Region and States and to see whether
accommodations can be made.
2) Categorizing Handlers for Relative Priority Groups
The purpose of categorizing handlers is to determine the
relative priority of individual handlers for activities that
go beyond the high priority activities. The Regions and States
have considerable flexibility in categorizing handlers. The
definitions of each category are not intended to be rigid.
However, the Regions and States should document the basis for
their categorization. We emphasize that the categorization
process or activity should not be a large, resource-intensive
effort.
Two major points are made about the effort to categorize
handlers:
0 Categorization 1s to be based on currently-known available
Information.
No new data effort should be Initiated to complete the
categorization.
0 The process of categorizing handlers should lead to
mutually agreeable priorities reflected In State grant
and Regional work plans.
- 2 -
-------
-t
The categorization may encompass all handlers. However,
generators and transporters need not be specifically categorized
( See Attachment A for detailed explanation.)
State authorization and oversight activities are not
included in the framework and are discussed in separate sections,
Table 1
Framework for RCRA Activities
High Priority Activities
1. Process and issue operating land disposal facility
permits to meet the November 1988 permit deadline.
2. Identify and enforce against violations of Part 270
ground water monitoring requirements for land disposal
facilities seeking an operating permit.
3. Especially at environmentally significant closures,
ensure that closing land disposal facilities have an
adequate .ground water monitoring system; ensure that
owners/operators implement closure plans and provide
financial assurances.
4. Expedite the permit process for new and expanding
treatment and incineration capacity, RD&D applications,
and off-site commercial treatment facilities.
5. Conduct inspections mandated by HSWA and Agency policy.
Categories of Handlers for Priority Grouping
1. Handlers with known releases of concern and known
human or sensitive environmental receptors.
2. Handlers with known human or sensitive environmental
receptors and significant potential for a release.
3. Handlers with known releases and no receptors 0£
handlers with no releases and no receptors.
- 3 -
-------
Section 2
PERMITTING
Permitting efforts will focus on processing Part B's and
Issuing operating permits for land disposal facilities so as
to meet the November 1988 permit deadline, and on facilities
providing alternative treatment and disposal capacity to'land
di sposal .
Joint permitting will continue, as outlined in RCRA Reauth-
orization Statutory Interpretation #5 (July, 1985). State
grant work programs should detail State participation in implementing
HSWA permitting requirements for which authorization has not
been received. The State grant should establish state permit
processing priorities. Such priorities should reflect both
State and Regional ability to adhere to joint-issuance schedules.
Permit Dead!i nes
HSWA establishes a deadline of November 1988 for issuance
of all operating permits to land disposal facilities. We expect
the Regions and authorized States to take this deadline very
seriously. EPA expects authorized States to use enforcement
actions aggressively to support the permit process, particularly
with respect to obtaining compliance with the ground water
monitoring requirements in 40 CFR 270.14(c) (or the States'
analogs). EPA's Compliance Order Guidance (August 1985) outlines
a technical and legal approach to compliance which provides for
an accelerated monitoring schedule to identify and characterize
releases from regulated units, as required by §270.14. Permit
deni als are also an appropriate and recommended response when
the applicant fails to furnish in full the Information required
by the Part B application (40 CFR 270.10(e)(5)).
This RIP provides sufficient flexibility for the Regions
and States to address non-land disposal facilities with significant
releases or significant closures. Regions will submit two-year,
quarterly plans for land disposal permit issuance/denial and closure
plan approval by August 15, 1986 to the AA/OSWER-National Program
Manager. The two year plans are requested to ensure that they
are consistent with national priorities and to see if there
are opportunities for Headquarters to provide assistance that
might accelerate the permit process for particular facilities.
Where these plans anticipate that not all of the land disposal
permits will be Issued by the deadline, Headquarters will
Initiate discussions with the Region.
HSWA also Imposes a deadline of November 1989 for issuance
of all Incineration facility permits. Each Region will submit a
schedule by January 15, 1987, with quarterly projections for
Incineration facility permit Issuance/denial between January 1987
and November 1989. Schedules should be submitted to the Director,
Permits and State Programs Division, OSW.
- 4 -
-------
-I
The same criterion applies for these schedules as for the
land disposal schedules. When a Region's schedule indicates
that not all of their incineration facilities will be permitted
by November 1989, Headquarters will initiate discussions with
the Region.
Non-Land Disposal Permitting
Disposal capacity shortage due to the large number of
closures, more stringent land disposal facility requirements,
and the land disposal bans will have a dramatic impact on the
methods used to handle hazardous wastes. This disposal capacity
shortage will require increased emphasis on the processing of
new alternative treatment and disposal permit applications. The
processing of such applications are a high priority. Examples
include new commercial incineration facilities, and existing
facilities seeking to expand treatment and incineration capacity.
Priority attention attention should be given to issuance of
permits for the Armys' demilitarization of nerve agent munitions.
Regions and States should issue Incineration permits for the
selected demilitarization facilities before January, 1988.
EPA will issue research, development, and demonstration
(RD&D) permits to qualifying facilities in nonauthorized States
and in authorized States where the State 1s not issuing a full
RCRA permit. Expedited processing of RD&D applications will
also aid in the development of safe alternatives to land disposal
of hazardous wastes. The purpose of such a permit, however,
must be to gather new information about the technical or economic
feasibility of experimental activities. Permits must be tailored
to the scope of the research proposal, and include those conditions
necessary to protect human health and the environment.
Further opportunities for Regions and authorized States to
permit alternative treatment f acil i ties wi 1 1 occur with the
issuance of the Subpart X regulations for miscellaneous units.
The intent of the regulations will be to provide applicants
with a set of standards specifically designed to permit hazardous
waste management technologies which are not currently regulated
under Part 264.
Regions and States should continue to process storage
facility applications. Permit applications from the Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA) should receive priority among storage
facilities. To aid in permitting these facilities, DLA is
developing a standard design and a model Part B application.
Public Involvement
Continued progress in implementing the expanded public
Involvement program should be demonstrated in FY 87. The goals
of this program are to develop public understanding of and
Informed consent for actions taken by EPA and the States.
Communities should be Involved early in the permitting process.
Public Involvement activities should be Implemented for
- 5 -
-------
-/
facilities targeted in FY 86 and FY 87 from the FMP process.
( See Guidance on Public Involvement in the RCRA Permitting
Program, January 1986.)
Regulatory Exceptions
There are a series of regulatory "exceptions" which EPA
and the States will be processing. These include:
0 Delisting petitions (§260.22)
0 Requests for alternate concentration limits (ACLs) for
hazardous waste constituents in ground water (§264.94(b))
0 Surface impoundment retrofitting waivers (RCRA §3005(j)
(2), (3), (4) and (13))
0 Double liner variances (RCRA §3004(o)(2))
0 Petitions for exemption from land disposal bans (RCRA
§3004(d), (e) and (g))
The review process for these exceptions entails a multi-
disciplinary assessment of the risks that would be posed by
granting the exception.
1. Delisting Petitions
Delisting petitions will be reviewed by Headquarters.
2. ACLs, Surface Impoundment Retrofitting Waivers.
and Double Liner Waivers
ACLs are determined as part of the RCRA permit process.
Because of the technical complexity of the ACL determinations,
attention to ACL decisions should be part of the Regions'
permit oversight activities. Headquarters technical
assistance will be available. The Regions and HSWA authorized
States will have the lead for the granting of surface impoundment
and double liner waivers in FY 87, with Headquarters technical
assistance available as needed from the Permit Assistance Team.
3. Land Disposal Ban Petitions
Headquarters will process land disposal ban petitions.
Regional and State assistance may be required to verify
site-specific Information contained in the petitions.
- 6 -
-------
.crt ~f
Section 3
CLOSURES
The Agency's objective at closing facilities is to minimize
the post-closure escape of hazardous constituents into the
environment and to take corrective action to remedy already
existing environmental problems. Sections 3008(h) and 3004(u)
of HSWA provide new and flexible tools for ensuring the
environmental integrity of closing facilities. The FY 87
RIP focuses on achieving specific environmental results at
closing facilities rather than on the means used to achieve
the result.
Environmental Objectives at Closing Facilities
It is the Agency's goal at all closing facilities to:
0 Ensure that closing land disposal facilities have
adequate ground water monitoring and that any releases
from units undergoing closure are detected
0 Ensure that any releases to ground water from the units
undergoing closure are characterized. Compel corrective
action as necessary through a post closure permit, a
§3008(h) order, or appropriate State authority
0 Ensure that releases from solid waste management units
(SWMUs) are identified and characterized; compel
corrective action as necessary
0 Ensure that all facilities required to submit a Part 265
closure plan do so in a timely manner
o
Ensure through inspections and review of closure certi-
fications that the approved plans are implemented properly
and that the facility's financial mechanisms are not
released prematurely
The decision as to how to achieve these objectives, and the
priority that should be assigned to the action, should be
decided through the Facility Management Planning process.
The Agency and this RIP recognizes that not all facilities
can receive equal attention in FY 87. Given the November, 1988
deadline for operating permits and the large number of closing
facilities, the Agency has chosen to focus on envi ronmentally
significant closing facilities to receive high priority
actions. 0~ne goal at closed or closing land disposal facilities
1s to conduct RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs) for at least
30% of these facilities by the end of FY 87. Regions and
States should select this 30 percent based on the focus stated
in the Corrective Action Section. As far as possible, a
facility with a precarious financial status should receive
- 7 -
-------
prompt attention In order to secure appropriate actions before
bankruptcy or depletion of resources occurs. If a facility
1s not able to pay the costs of corrective action or closure,
CERCLA should be considered.
To assist Regions and States in managing closures, (the
following principles should be considered:
Ground Water/Corrective Action Concerns At Closing Facilities
1. Determine Whether There Is A Release
The first task at closing facilities is to determine whether
or not the units undergoing closure are releasing to ground water.
Ways to accomplish this task including:
0 Enforcing the interim status ground water monitoring
regulations or compelling an accelerated determination
of leakage based on sampling for site specific constituents
(See approach in the Compliance Order Guidance (COG))
0 Requiring the submission of improved ground water data
as a condition of interim status closure (i.e., writing
ground water monitoring into the closure plan)
0 EPA/State/contractor sampling at existing wells to establish
whether there is a release (assuming well location
and construction is adequate to yield useful information)
0 Compelling Investigation of possible ground water contam-
ination through RCRA §3008(a), §3013, or §3008(h) orders,
or similar State authority.
Particularly useful at facilities closing because they
cannot certify compliance with Part 265 ground water monitoring
will be the enforcement strategy recommended 1n the COG. The
COG outlines a technical and legal approach for compel 1 ing
owners/operators to establish whether or not their units are
leaking in a faster, more definitive manner than the program
laid out in Part 265 (using accelerated sampling for actual
constituents rather than generic indicator parameters).
The Compliance Order Guidance approach 1s only available at
facilities legally subject to the Part 270 regulations (or State
equivalent). Therefore, a facility's post-closure permit does
not have to be a high processing priority in FY 87 to make
the call-in a useful activity. Once the post-closure Part B
submission due date has passed, enforcement officials can
begin Incorporating Part 270 citations and requirements Into
their ground water orders, consistent with the COG's accelerated
approach for developing ground water data. In this way, the
enforcement actions taken at closing facilities can help
develop the basic ground water data and plans that the permit
writer may need later for processing the post-closure application.
- 8 -
-------
2. Characterize releases from units undergoing closure;
take corrective action If necessary
Once leakage has been confirmed, Regions and States must
ensure that any ground water problem discovered is fully
characterized and action is taken if necessary. As noted in
the August 27, 1985 memo from J. Winston Porter, "Ground water
Quality and Closure", the Agency has a variety of tools
available to ensure that potential ground water problems are
characterized and remedied prior to the facility "exiting"
RCRA. It may be desirable to use a mix of authorities to
address particular problems at a facility.
The following factors should figure into decisions
regarding whether ground water problems should be characterized
and remedied at the time of interim status closure or afterwards:
0 Closure by removal is an option for surface impoundments
and waste piles. Since the quality of a unit's ground
water is integral to its ability to satisfy the closure
by removal standard, it is extremely important that any
potential ground water problems are discovered prior
to making crucial closure decisions. Facilities should
not be considered "clean closed" until data from an
adequate well system demonstrates that ground water
is not contaminated. If ground water data collected
prior to closure or during the closure process indicates
leakage from a unit, the Agency considers a "clean
closure" nearly impossible unless the migration is very
limited and- can be completely excavated and collected.
0 Any unit that cannot remove all contaminated soil and
ground water at the time of Interim status closure is
considered a "disposal" unit and is subject to post-closure
monitoring and/or corrective action. The goal, at such
units, is to compel monitoring for hazardous constituents
to characterize the problem and to implement corrective
action if necessary through a post-closure permit, or a
RCRA §3008(h) order. Since "disposal" units are subject
to post-closure monitoring, it is less essential that
ground water problems are fully chacterized before
closing certification. Nonetheless, where resources
are available, Regions and States should compel facilities
to characterize releases from disposal units through
the use of a §3008(h) order and/or by enforcing the
Part 270 ground water requirements in preparation for
issuing a post-closure permit.
0 In addition to the type of closure sought, Regions and
States should take into account the environmental
significance of any release discovered and the facility's
financial viability. If the release 1s significant or a
firm's financial status 1s deteriorating, Regions and
States should place greater emphasis on characterizing
the release and requiring corrective action (or interim
measures).
- 9 -
-------
Ensuring Quality of Interim Status Closures
Even though the Agency's corrective action objectives
at closing facilities go far beyond the Part 265 closure'
process, as a short term goal Regions and States must ensure
the quality of interim status closures. Regions and States
should follow the principles outlined below:
0 For closures involving removal of contaminated soil,
extent of removal decisions should be based on sampling
for actual constituents in soil. The constituents to
be monitored should be some subset of Appendix VIII
based on the composition of the waste.
o
Facilities should be advised whenever a closure plan is
approved or modified that the approval or modification
does not absolve the facility of its corrective action
responsibi1i ti es.
Facilities with approved plans should be inspected and
closure certifications reviewed before the Region or
State releases the facility's financial mechanism.
Where possible, inspections should be timed to coincide
with critical closure activities such as installation
of a cap. Compliance with approved closure plans and
financial assurance requirements should be required.
- 10 -
-------
-/
Section 4
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Compliance monitoring and enforcement actions should be
directed toward those handlers and those violations likely to
present the greatest threat to human health or the environment.
In FY 87, RCRA enforcement should focus on the following
activities consistent with the priority framework:
0 Abating any release of a hazardous waste or constituents
posing an immediate threat to human health or the environ-
ment (that is not addressed by CERCLA).
0 Supporting issuance or denial of all land disposal facility
operating permits.
e
Pursuing a formal enforcement action against RCRA
land disposal facilities with inadequate ground water
monitoring systems.
0 Under the corrective action program, conducting facility
wide assessments to determine whether there are releases
and the need for further investigation and/or corrective
action. Initiating enforcement actions against
facilities with high priority releases.
0 Enforcing against closing land disposal facilities to
require compliance with approved closure plans.
0 Enforcing compliance with final orders, decrees, and permit
conditions.
0 Enforcing major HSWA requirements, including land disposal
bans.
0 Ensuring Federal facility compliance.
0 Supporting criminal enforcement.
Inspections
Inspection priorities are governed by statutory requirements;
the Agency's strong emphasis on ground water protection; support
of the permitting process; and the importance of implementing
corrective action. There are several different types of
inspections. These include Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring
Evaluation (CME), Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI),
and Case Development Inspection/Evaluation. (The July 19,
1985, memo, "RCRA Inspection Definitions", provides the
elements and purposes of each inspection.)
Inspections in FY 87 are discussed in two categories:
(1) Mandatory inspections which fulfill statutory requirements
- 11 -
-------
and Agency policy and (2) non-mandatory inspections recommended
to meet RCRA requirements. Inspections should be used, when
necessary, to oversee and ensure compliance with an enforcement
order or permit conditions. Regions and States may expand the
scope of an inspection at a handler to address comprehensively
all compliance concerns at the handler.
A. Mandatory Inspections
1. Handlers presenting immediate threat to health or
the environment
Inspections should be conducted to provide necessary documen-
tation for enforcement actions where handlers may present an
immediate threat to human health or the environment.
2. Government facilities
Under RCRA S3007(c) and (d), EPA is required to conduct
annual inspections of all facilities owned or operated by Federal,
State or local governments. Inspections of Federal, State, and
local facilities must be initiated by EPA, but may be conducted
by EPA contractors. Although States may conduct inspections
of Federal, State, and local facilities, such inspections
cannot substitute for EPA's inspections.
3. Commercial' facilities
In accordance with the CERCLA off-site policy (see May 6,
1985, memorandum from Jack McGraw, "Procedures for Planning
and Implementing Off-Site Response Actions"), and any
amendments, facilities receiving CERCLA wastes must be inspected
within six months prior to receiving CERCLA wastes. In FY 87,
such commercial land disposal and treatment facilities will
receive two inspections each; at land disposal facilities at
least one inspection must be as comprehensive as a CME. If
the facility has not had a CME during the last six months of
FY 86, the first inspection in FY 87 must be a CME, in order
that CERCLA disposal decisions may be made using reasonably
current ground water monitoring data. Commercial treatment
and storage facilities receiving CERCLA wastes shall be
subject to two inspections encompassing elements of a CEI
and addressing facility environmental concerns.
The Agency's Hazardous Waste Ground Water Task Force
inspections will count toward fulfilling the FY 87 inspection
commitments.
4. Land disposal facilities
Agency policy is that each land disposal facility subject
to ground water monitoring requirements will receive an annual
inspection conducted by the Region or the State. Quality ground
- 12 -
-------
water monitoring inspections are important. One-third of all
land disposal facilities subject to ground water monitoring
requirements will receive a CME in FY 87. The priorities for
conducting CMEs in FY 87 are as follows: Facilities that
have not yet received a CME; facilities where there is doubt
as to the adequacy of the ground water monitoring system'.
The RCRA Ground Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement
Guidance Document (TEGD, 1986) provides detailed guidance on how
to develop and assess the adequacy of ground water monitoring
systems. Application of the TEGD will ensure that hazardous
waste disposal facilities have effective ground water monitoring
systems to identify and characterize releases. Emphasis should
be placed on determining whether the facility triggered and
should be undertaking assessment monitoring, as well as determining
whether the facility has properly characterized any plume of
contamination.
a. Permitted land disposal facilities
Permitted land disposal facilities must be inspected
thoroughly for compliance with permit conditions including
ground water monitoring/ corrective action at regulated and
solid waste management units, and HSWA requirements including land
disposal bans, and minimum technology requirements.
b. Operating interim status facilities
Ground water monitoring systems at all land disposal facilities
seeking an operating permit are to be brought into compliance
with Part 270. Inspections must evaluate compliance with these
requirements, outstanding enforcement actions including corrective
action orders, and other applicable requirements.
c. Facilities where land disposal units are closed or closing
Inspections at these facilities must emphasize adequacy
of ground water monitoring systems to detect and assess releases,
compliance with enforcement orders including corrective action
orders and must evaluate compliance with approved closure plans.
In addition/ inspections must evaluate whether the facility is
operating closing land disposal units illegally or, if it has
converted to generator status, whether it is storing hazardous
wastes beyond 90 days.
5. Other TSD facilities (other than land disposal facilities)
a. Regardless of whether inspected in FY 86, the
following must be inspected in FY 87: all permitted facilities
within twelve months of receiving a permit and all TSD facilities
that are not continuing to operate as a hazardous waste facility.
- 13 -
-------
b. Inspections
percent of all non-land
in FY 86 to ensure that
by the end of the FY 87
§3007(e).
must be conducted at the remaining fifty
disposal TSD facilities not inspected
all facilities receive inspections
biennial cycle, as required by RCRA
6. Generators and Transporters
Inspections of at least four percent of generators and
transporters are expected. (Small quantity generators are
not included here.) State inspection and compliance activities
for small quantity generators should reflect the EPA "Implemen-
tation Strategy for Generators of 100-1,OOOK6/Month."(Apri1 1986)
B. Non-mandatory inspections
The Regions and States have discretion in determining
what non-mandatory inspections to conduct, consistent with
environmental and programmatic priorities. The following are
among those that are encouraged:
0 Inspections to support the criminal program
0 Inspections of non-notifiers (not including late
notifiers operating under interim status compliance
orders)
0 Case development inspections when necessary to file
high priority enforcement actions and to support
existing actions
0 Inspections of waste oil TSDFs, particularly processors,
for compliance with 40 CFR Part 266 (promulgated in November
1985) and regulations to be published
0 Additional generator and transporters Inspections,
particularly related to land bans
Enforcement
A series of policies were Issued 1n FY 84 and FY 85
establishing the framework for a consistent, equitable, and
responsive enforcement program. Sections 3008(h) and 3004(u)
of HSWA have provided new and flexible tools to secure appropriate
corrective measures 1n response to environmental problems.
Accordingly, these tools can be used to abate threats posed
by violations of regulatory requirements when appropriate.
Priorities for enforcement actions are:
1. Handlers which may present an Immediate threat to health
or environment
These handlers include those that have releases that may
- 14 -
-------
present serious threats to human health or the environment. A
number of enforcement tools are available to the Regions and States
(e.g., RCRA SS3013, 3008(a)f 3008(h), 7003, or State equivalent),
depending on the circumstances. Consideration should be4
given to the use of CERCLA §104 or §106 response authorities
or TSCA §7 authority, where appropriate.
2. Ground water monitoring facilities
Actions are to be brought against permitted facilities
that are not in compliance with their permits. In addition,
operating interim status land disposal facilities must be
brought into compliance with Part 270 permit application
requirements. Ground water monitoring at closing facilities
must be adequate to detect releases at units undergoing
closures, as discussed in the Closure section.
New violations will be discovered in FY 87. Penalties
must-be assessed against these violators in accordance with
the RCRA Penalty Policy or appropriate State policies.
Penalties should be large enough to be a deterrent and exceed
savings accrued by a facility for noncompliance. States
that do not have administrative penalty authority will need
to address High Priority Violators by taking prompt judicial
action or requesting EPA to take enforcement action. Where
a State enforcement.action is not timely and appropriate,
EPA is to take enforcement action, especially for High Priority
violations.
By the end of FY 87, most facilities with inadequate
ground water monitoring systems subject to formal enforcement
action in FY 86 should be under a final, formal action.
Non-complying facilities are presumed to be candidates for judicial
action or permit denial.
3. Corrective action
Regions, with appropriate assistance from States, must act
aggressively to obtain corrective action at facilities. In
FY 87 the emphasis is on the following activities.
0 Formal enforcement shall be brought against violators
of a permit condition or order requiring corrective
action. Toward this end, oversight of corrective
action is intensive.
0 Regions and States should use enforcement authorities
where necessary to obtain data needed to make corrective
action decisions.
0 Regions and States should compel interim measures
when warranted.
- 15 -
-------
-------
Section 5
CORRECTIVE ACTION
The goal of corrective action is to ensure remediation
of hazardous releases associated with storage, treatment,
and disposal facilities. The process for implementing corrective
action at RCRA facilities includes various activities: The
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA), interim measures (where i
necessary), remedial investigation (RI), and corrective
measures. Since most States will not be authorized for
corrective action requirements under HSWA, EPA will have
responsibility for administering and enforcing the corrective
action requirements. However, the Regions should encourage
State involvement, whenever possible, in order to prepare them
for HSWA authorization.
The primary Federal authorities are RCRA §§3004(u) and
(v) and §3008(h). In addition, authorities under §3008(a),
§3013 and §7003 may be used to secure appropriate action.
CERCLA and TSCA (§7) authorities may also be employed, con-
sistent with Agency guidance. Use of equivalent State authorities
is encouraged where appropriate. Corrective action activities
may be conducted during interim status, permitting, and closure
stages. All hazardous release problems associated with the
facility should be investigated at one time, whenever possible.
It is important to understand that corrective action can
occur through environmental prioritlzation and compliance
schedules. In FY 87, the corrective action program should
focus on land disposal facilities, consistent with the priority
framework. Among closing facilities, those that lost interim
status pursuant to RCRA §3005(e)(2) and (3) should receive
particular attention. In addition, Category I storage and
treatment facilities should receive a priority for corrective
action. As facilities move into the corrective action process,
they will require significant Regional and State (where
appropriate) oversight to ensure the substantive adequacy of
the actions they undertake.
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA)
The RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) was Identified previously
as a preliminary assessment/site Investigation (PA/SI). The RCRA
PA/SI guidance 1s currently being revised based on the field
tests, Regional comments, and policy decisions, and it will
be reissued as the "RCRA Facility Assessment Guidance".
An RFA should determine the existence of a release and
set priorities for further corrective action. General guidelines
for who should conduct RFA's and how they can be accomplished
by coordinating with other enforcement or permitting activities
are provided in the October 16, 1985, memorandum from Marcia
Williams and Gene Lucero, "FY 86 PA/SI Strategy: Addendum
to the FY 86 RIP". In general, RFAs should be conducted
prior to permit Issuance or denial. By the end of FY 87,
- 17 -
-------
RFAs should be completed at operating land disposal facilities
scheduled for permitting by November 1988 and at 30 percent
of closing land disposal facilities. If this goal cannot be
accomplished, Regions must provide a rationale to Headquarters
by August 15, 1986.
RFAs may be conducted by the State, EPA or a contractor
and can be supplemented with data (especially sampling results)
supplied by the owner/operator when possible. Where RCRA
Inspections are scheduled at facilities, especially at closing
facilities, they may be expanded to assist in making a deter-
mination of whether there are releases or potential releases
associated with the facility. Based on these Inspections, the
Region may compel the owner/operator to provide additional data
using RCRA §3008(a) or §3013, or may proceed directly to compel
an RI using RCRA §3004(u) or §3008(h).
Where there is no unit subject to permitting at a closing
facility, the Agency cannot invoke RCRA §3004(u) to compel
corrective action at swmu's. Facilities that fall into this
category include: 1) Those where all units stopped receiving
waste on or before July 26, 1982 and certified closure by
January 26, 1983 (if later, facilities are subject to post-closure
permits); 2) those where all units have successfully demonstrated
closure by removal with no contamination and, thus, are not
subject to post-closure permit requirements; and 3) storage
facilities converting to generator status. Regions and
States should perform an RFA at these facilities prior to
releasing the firm's financial mechanism to see whether
additional enforcement is warranted.
Interim Measures
Interim measures include a wide range of actions which may
be taken to prevent releases or additional contamination and
to reduce, abate, or remove the exposure threat presented by
a release. Interim measures should be taken to accomplish
these objectives while the more complex process of remedial
Investigation, remedy selection, and design and Implementation
of corrective measures are underway. Draft guidance on
Interim measures for corrective action was distributed to
the Regional Offices. (See "RCRA §3008(h) Corrective Action
Interim Measures Guidance", December 18, 1985.) At closing
facilities with existing or potential hazards, where owners
and operators have financial problems or are likely to have
such problems in the future, interim measures can be used to
obtain some measure of response action before the owner/operator
becomes Insolvent.
- 18 -
-------
Remedial Investigation
The remedial investigation encompasses the characterization
of releases and provides information necessary to determine
remedies. Information gathered during the RFA and from Aground-
water monitoring at facilities triggering assessment monitoring
will be helpful in determining priorities for compelling the
remedial investigations. The Region should compel the owner/
operator to proceed with an RI where releases have been iden-
tified, in order to determine the rate and extent of the release
and the need for corrective action. It is expected that a
number of RI's should be initiated in FY 87, either through
orders or through schedules of compliance in permits.
Until RCRA guidance on RIs is developed, there are
several existing sources of guidance which can be used to
help determine the nature and scope of required owner/operator
investigations. This guidance includes CERCLA RI guidance
and the model phased order found in the RCRA Ground-Water
Compliance Order Guidance. Some RCRA facilities, especially
closing facilities, may in the future become CERCLA sites.
For such facilities, RCRA corrective action investigations
should be structured to be consistent with CERCLA requirements,
so that transition from one program to the other will be
expedited.
Where possible, the scope of corrective action activities
should be as broad as necessary to address a facility
comprehensively. In some cases, however, there may be limits
in RCRA authorities that could preclude full facility assessments
In such cases, Regions and States should consider use of other
authorities in conjunction with RCRA authorities to secure appro-
priate action (e.g., CERCLA, TSCA, or other State authority).
Selection and Implementation of Corrective Measures
The next phases of the corrective action process are
analysis and evaluation of the data gathered during the RI
and selection of a cleanup approach. The Agency reserves
the discretion to require consideration of alternatives if
the specific circumstances of the facility warrant 1t. The
remedy must clearly demonstrate appropriate protection of
human health and the environment. Once the appropriate
measures are selected, they are designed, constructed, and
maintained.
Corrective Action at Federal Facilities
The July 15, 1985 Codification Rule raised some Issues
regarding the definition of "facility" for corrective action
at Federal facilities. A Federal Register notice was published
on March 5, 1986, (51 FR 7722) which resolves three Issues:
- 19 -
-------
. 60 -J
0 Establishes that RCRA §3004(u) 1s applicable to Federal
agencies
i
0 Reconfirms the definition of "facility" as the entire
site under control of the owner/operator
0 Establishes that the owner of Federal lands is the
individual Federal department or agency, rather than
the U.S. government.
An additional notice (51 FR 7723-7724) announced our intent
to develop regulations to address additional issues raised
by Federal agencies:
0 Ownership by sub-agency units (e.g., the four Branches
within the Department of Defense)
0 Principal ownership of hazardous waste facilities on
Federal lands operated by private parties with partial
property interests (such as mineral leases)
0 National priorities for corrective action
Until these rules are promulgated, Regions and States
should continue to process and issue permits to Federal facilities
Permit schedules of compliance for corrective action will be
negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
EPA will issue enforcement orders under RCRA §3008(h), as
appropriate, to initiate corrective action prior to issuance
of the permit, following program guidance and the revised
Federal Facility Compliance Strategy. Corrective action
through enforcement must be under formal order. A compliance
agreement is not appropriate. The Regions should also aggres-
sively use the A-106 process to ensure that funding is available
when required by the schedules of compliance.
Where agreement cannot be reached on the extent of or
schedule for cleanup activities or where there are ownership
questions that cannot be resolved, those questions should be
referred to the Director, Permits and State Programs Division
OSW, or to the Director, RCRA Enforcement Division, OWPE , as
appropriate, for resolution.
- 20 -
-------
Section 6
STATE AUTHORIZATION
The authorization goals in FY 87 are twofold:
1) Develop State authorities.
States should develop legal authorities necessary to
revise their programs consistent with the deadlines
in the final State authorization Codification Rule
(to be promulgated summer 1986).
2) Implement a quality RCRA program.
By administering a quality pre-HSWA program, States
can demonstrate that they should be authorized for
additional elements of the RCRA program (particularly
major HSWA elements).
Where authorized States must revise their programs in
response to a change in the Federal program, current regulations
require that they do so within one year (or two years if a sta-
tutory change 1s needed). Under the proposed clustering
rule (51 FR 496, January 6, 1986), scheduled to be final 1n
August 1986, States would have additional time to amend their
programs.
States are not. precluded from applying for authorization
before the applicable deadlines. States which have been
capably Implementing the base RCRA program should be encouraged
to seek authorization for the HSWA Amendments. (Note:
Authorization is only available for those amendments for
which Implementing regulations have been promulgated and
certain self-implementing provisions of HSWA already 1n
effect.)
Regions should process official applications in a timely
manner. Regions should continue to Identify areas of the
State programs that need strengthening. Progress in these
areas will be expected prior to making decisions to authorize
a State for the RCRA program. In addition to considering
past performance, performance expectations for the HSWA
provisions will be established through revisions to the
Quality Criteria and through EPA's experience in Implementing
the new requirements.
- 21 -
-------
Section 7
GRANTS ADMINISTRATION
Grant Allotments
For FY 87, several changes have been made in the allot-
ments. The population data was updated and the number of
treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDF's) was updated,
using HWDMS data of April 8, 1986. (The same codes used to
retrieve SPMS data were used to retrieve data for the grant
formula.) The amount of hazardous waste generated was not
updated since it is still the most recent data available.
Three other changes in the grant allotments were made.
First, we revised the last element of the formula:
0.2(Regional pop.) + 0.3(Regional haz. waste gen.) +
(US pop.) (US haz. waste gen.)
0.3(Regional LD + Incin. Facil.) + 0.2(Regional S/T Facil.)
(US LD + Incin. Facil.)(US S/T Facil.)
We revised that element to reflect more appropriately the
program emphasis on land disposal and incineration facilities,
by providing a weight of 30 percent for those facilities and a
weight of 20 percent for storage and treatment facilities instead
of 50 percent for all TSDFs, as in the past.
Second, allotments were prepared on a Regional, rather
than a State-by-State basis. The previous formula provided
an adjustment to ensure that no State received less than
one-half of one percent of the total grant funds available.
This adjustment is not required by statute or regulations;
it is one instituted as a matter of policy to provide a
minimum allotment for small States. This concept was retained
in the Regional allotments by providing that no Region can
receive less than 3 percent of the total amount available
(excluding authorization bonuses).
The reason for the change to Regional allotments is to
provide maximum flexibility to the Regional Administrators
to provide funding 1) to activities which reflect national
goals and priorities; 2) that is commensurate with individual
State workloads; and 3) where it is desirable to accommodate
special State initiatives. States will derive their individual
allotments through negotiation with the Region. It is
suggested that a State qrant not be decreased by more than 12%
from the FY 86 State grant amount. Regional Administrators do
have the discretion, however, to set a State grant amount at
a level that is deemed aopropriate.
The third change is in the authorization bonuses. As
before, funds will be reserved for bonuses. However, the
amount of the individual bonuses changed as well as the rule
for when a State becomes eligible for a bonus. In FY 87,
- 22 -
-------
$750,000 will be held 1n reserve. Because of the "clustering"
proposal (51 FR 496, January 6, 1986) which would allow States
more time to make changes and the need to focus on the 1988
permit deadline, the amount being held in reserve
is less than in prior years. Bonuses equal to 5 percenj: of the
base FY 86 State allotment or $50,000, whichever is less,
will be provided to States when they submit a complete,
official application for al1 of the following HSWA provisions
that appeared in the July 15, 1985, final Codification Rule:
0 corrective action for prior releases, including
financial responsibility (§3004(u) and (§3005(1))
0 "omnibus" provision (§3005(c))
0 exposure information (§3019)
0 waste minimization (§3005(h))
0 minimum technology requirements (§3004(o))
These provisions were selected as they are the major
reasons for joint permitting. As provided by HSWA, the
States need not apply for all the provisions in one application.
However, the bonuses will not be released until all of these
provisions have been included in a complete, official application,
as determined by the Headquarters Review Team. Bonuses will
be provided as follows until the reserve is depleted:
Authorization Oct. 1, 1986, to June 30, 1987 100% of bonus
Authorization July 1, 1987, to Sept. 30, 1987 75% of bonus
State grants will continue to require a 25 percent match,
including the authorization bonus. Regional grant allotments
and potential authorization bonuses are provided in Attachment B.
State Grant Work Programs
The FY 87 grants must be performance-based. This approach
employs financial assistance as a management tool to promote
effective State environmental programs and to ensure account-
ability. All work programs must include the following:
o
Description of all activities the State will undertake, with
associated resources explicitly identified; where repro-
grammed grant funds directly contribute to the outputs,
these funds should also be identified
Measurable quarterly commitments
Specific .actions agreed to by EPA and the State in
Letters of Intent to enhance the State's capabilities
A commitment to provide accurate routine reporting
Information by the required deadline and to respond to
unscheduled Information requests in a timely manner
Adjustment In activities, commitments and funding
(a "reopener" clause) when situations arise requiring
a reexamination of the grant work program (e.g., major
new statutory or regulatory requirements or changes
in a State's authorization status, or Gramm-Rudman-
HolHngs reductions)
- 23 -
-------
RCRA §3011 grant funds cannot be used to implement the CERCLA
program or to implement the UST program under Subtitle I of RCRA.
States wanting funds for small quantity generator programs
must include in their grant work program the following: »
0 a description of how the State will utilize the education
and outreach products developed by EPA or otherwise conduct
outreach activities of their own
0 a description of an inspection program tailored to identify
generators most likely to present a hazard
0 a description of an enforcement program designed to take
high visibility enforcement actions to serve as an incentive
to voluntary compliance
The Region should address in the FY 87 work programs
instances where a State did not meet its FY 86 commitments
or was administering its program in a deficient manner. States
are responsible for notifying EPA in a timely manner of problems
they experience or anticipate in trying to accomplish their
outputs, so that EPA and the State can jointly identify actions
to resolve those problems.
If a State relies heavily on the State Attorney General ( A.G.)
or other law officers in order to take timely and appropriate
enforcement actions/ funding should be provided. The grant
work program must indicate estimated workload, resource needs,
and how the other law officers will be used to take timely
and appropriate enforcement actions. The A.G. should participate
in the grant process through the lead Agency, but would not be
made a party to the grant. However, in order to receive funding,
both parties should be signatory to a Memorandum of Understanding
or other subsidiary agreement to the grant. As a signatory to
this agreement, the A.G. is expected to meet the "timely and
appropriate" criteria for filing referred RCRA cases within the
60-day period. EPA will take into consideration unusual circum-
stances that may affect the A.G.'s ability to file within 60 days.
As required by EPA grant regulations, the lead State agency will
be held accountable through the grant oversight process, even
though funds were passed through to the A.G.'s office.
Funds not awarded to any State may be reprogrammed into
the RCRA Implementation Contract, the Technical Enforcement
Support (TES) contract, or other programs which support activities
consistent with national priorities (e.g., public participation
and the Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) program). However,
Regions should make every effort to award all grant funding to
States for appropriate activities.
Copies of each State's grant work program must be sent
to the Chief, State Programs Branch, OSW, immediately upon
execution of the grant award document by the Regions.
- 24 -
-------
State Program Oversight
It 1s Important in FY 87 to periodically assess the States'
progress against all grant work program and Memorandum of Agreement
commitments. The frequency and method of review should be based
on past performance of the State as well as problems identified
by the Region. The Regions should look at the qua!ity of the
work States have done in the areas of permitting, closure and
enforcement. EPA is developing several documents which should
be available prior to FY 87:
0 Revisions to the Interim Quality Criteria to reflect
current policies and requirements more clearly
0 Permit and Closure Quality Protocol
All States should receive at least one comprehensive on-site
review. Regions have conducted reviews as frequently as monthly
in States having performance problems. Protocols in the RCRA
Evaluation Guide should be used in the mid- and end-of-year
reviews. A copy of each final quarterly, mid-year, and/or
end-of-year review report should be provided to the Chief, State
Programs Branch, OSW, at the same time as it is transmitted to
the State.
The Regions must have a mechanism to oversee State inspec-
tion activities and should target around ten percent of the State
inspections for oversight. This can include joint inspections
and/or independent EPA Inspections. Regions should audit State
inspection records more frequently than on an annual basis. On
completion of oversight reviews, Regions and States must respond
to the findings. Appropriate responses are discussed in Part
III of the Quality Criteria.
Trai ning
Training activities are eligible for funding under the RCRA
§3011 grants. In FY 87, States are strongly encouraged to use
their grant funds to provide necessary management and staff
training. It is recommended that up to 5 percent of each grant
be earmarked for training activities. The RCRA Implementation
Contract may also be used to provide training, either with Regional
contract resources or with reprogrammed State grant funds. If
States plan to use grant funds for training, the grant work
program must provide a training plan specifying the subject
area, source, recipients (a general number, not name-specific),
and cost of the training.
EPA 1s Interested 1n establishing Hazardous Waste Management
Training Institutes in each Region. These Institutes would
provide training on a cost-sharing basis. The Institutes would
be funded by the RCRA §3011 grant funds provided by Interested
States. Currently, the Institute at the University of Wisconsin
is entering its third year. Johns Hopkins University was recently
selected as the Region III Hazardous Waste Management Training
Institute. For more Information on the Institutes, contact the
Office of Solid Waste.
- 25 -
-------
Section 8
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
EPA is expected to be able to provide information that
demonstrates the viability of the Federal and State programs
on which the public depends for protection from mismanagement
of hazardous waste. Essential to fulfilling our responsibilities
as the national RCRA program manager is our ability to obtain
timely and accurate information from the Regions and States.
Information provided to EPA is used to:
0 identify handlers subject to RCRA requirements
0 assist in setting national priorities
0 measure Regional and State progress
0 identify patterns and extent of noncompliance
0 identify status of State permitting and enforcement
programs
0 identify status of facilities with permitting, enforcement,
closure, and corrective action
0 identify potential problems with our regulations
0 provide data to support budget request (including
State grant)
0 enable EPA to respond to information requests
RCRA Reporting
The information items in the three reports -Status of
Permit Application Report, Facility Status Sheet, and Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement Log -- are designed to fulfill the
majority of Headquarters information needs. Identification
of new reporting items is included in Attachment C. These
new items should be included in the State grant work programs.
Final forms with instructions and definitions will follow. It is
not our intent to impose new reporting requirements based on the
categorization scheme.
Information from the reports is submitted monthly and
must be submitted by the States to EPA by the 20th calendar
day of the month for the previous month's data. The Regions
have an additional five working days to enter State data in
HWDMS. Data for Regional activities must be entered in
HWDMS by the 10th working day of the month for the previous
month's data.
Where a Region decides that the required data does not
provide timely or sufficient information, the Region may
Institute an expanded reporting program. As appropriate,
the grant work program may increase the frequency of reporting
as well as the information to be reported.
All authorized States must continue to provide the Regions
with information on new hazardous waste handlers or existing
handlers who are amending prior notifications or Part As. This
information should be sent to EPA within 10 days of the State's
decision to approve or accept the information.
- 26 -
-------
States must submit to the Regions copies of significant
land disposal inspection reports (CMEs, CEIs showing significant
non-compliance, and other reports deemed necessary by the Region)
and enforcement complaints, orders, and judgments regarding Class
One violations of ground water monitoring, closure/post-closure,
and financial responsibility at land disposal facilities, such
that Regional files are sufficient to determine a facility's
enforcement status. Regions must submit copies of these State
enforcement actions and Regional enforcement actions to the
Director, RCRA Enforcement Division, OWPE. For Federal
facility violations, OWPE will inform the parent agency of
the violations and remedies, where remedies are included in
the enforcement action.
To help identify problem areas in HWDMS, we began a series
of data audits in FY 86. These data audits will continue
to ensure the availability and quality of data entered in
HWDMS. (See memorandum from J. Winston Porter, "Schedule
for HWDMS Data Entry", February 28, 1986.)
Strategic Planning and Management System
The Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS)
provides a mechanism for planning and reporting major program
accomplishments. FY 87 measures and definitions are found
in Attachment D. Only data which appears in HWDMS will be
counted in R/C SPMS measures.
SPMS reporting will be in quarters (i.e., October-December,
January-March, etc.). However, for each quarter there will
be a one-month lag for State data. For example, the first
quarter will include all data entered in HWDMS by January
15. Since most data for State activities occurring in December
is not entered in HWDMS before January 25, first quarter
data will not include State actions taken in December. Data
is reported cumulatively, so December actions will be included
in the next quarter's report, while State data from the last
month of that quarter (i.e., March) will not be available.
At the end of FY 87, Office of Management System and Evaluation
will delay the issuance of the end-of-year SPMS report so
that data from the full fiscal year from the Regions and
States will be Included. The one-month lag must be kept in
mind when making SPMS commitments.
Schedule for SPMS Commitments In order to provide a
period for review and negotiation between OSW, OWPE, and the
Regions, draft commitments must be submitted by August 15, 1986.
from each Regional RCRA Division Director to the Director,
Permits and State Programs Division, OSW, and the Director,
RCRA Enforcement Division, OWPE. The exception to these
dates 1s for commitments related to beginning-of-year SNCs.
Instructions for these commitments will be sent under separate
cover.
- 27 -
-------
Justification of Permit Schedule
All Regions must submit by August 15, 1986, a two-year
and one quarter (i.e., from October 1986 to November 1988),
quarterly plan for land disposal permits issued/denied a*nd
closure plans expected to be approved during this time period.
These actions (i.e., permits issued/ denied and closure
plans approved) indicated to occur during FY 87 will become
the FY 87 SPMS commitments.
For those Regions who determine that there are in-
sufficient resources to adequately address the high priority
activities, Regions must submit an explanation with the land
disposal plan. This explanation -must include:
0 an estimate of resources identified for each high priority
activity
0 an identification of which high priority activities are
not being adequately addressed or addressed at all
and an estimate of the percentage of facilities not
being addressed
0 an estimate of additional resources required to conduct
these activities
Justification of RFA Schedule
For those Regions who anticipate being unable to perform
RFAs by the end of FY 87 at the land disposal facilities
expected to be permitted by November 1988 and 30 percent of
their closing facilities, the Region must provide a chart
indicating the number of RFAs planned to be conducted during
FY 87 and the distribution of the RFAs among the following:
0 land disposal facilities seeking a permit
0 closing land disposal facilities
0 incineration facilities seeking a permit
0 closing incineration facilities
0 storage/treatment facilities seeking a permit
0 closing storage/treatment facilities
Conclusion
The goals set by RCRA are:
0 To protect human health and the environment
0 To reduce waste and conserve energy and natural resources
0 To reduce or eliminate the generation of hazardous waste
as expedltiously as possible.
Let us remember these goals in our actions as we move this program
forward in FY 87.
- 28 -
-------
ATTACHMENT A: CATEGORIZATION SCHEME
-------
ATTACHMENT A
Handler Categories.
The purpose of categorizing handlers is to determine* the
relative priority for addressing individual handlers for activities
that go beyond the high priority activities. "Environmental
significance" has been used in the past as a criterion for deter-
mining priorities. However, this term was very broadly defined
and, therefore, included most all land disposal facilities as
well as a significant number of incineration facilities. The
priority framework recognizes that EPA and the States must set
priorities even among facilities classified as environmentally
significant. The categories provide a way of making choices.
Categories are defined as follows:
0 Category 1: Includes handlers with known
releases of concern and known human or sensitive
environmental receptors
0 Category 2: Includes handlers with known human or
sensitive environmental receptors and significant potential
for a release
0 Category 3: Includes handlers with known releases and no
receptors or handlers with no releases and no receptors
The categories may encompass all handlers. However,
generators and transporters need not be specifically categorized
except when they merit particular attention. The categories
apply to facilities seeking permits and to closing facilities.
They apply to treatment and storage, as well as some land disposal.
Although most land disposal facilities will fall in the high
priority activities, there will be some that can be placed in
the categorization scheme. This categorization scheme is consis-
tent with the Agency's initiative for managing for environmental
results (MER).
The definitions of each category are not intended to be rigid.
The Regions and States have considerable flexibility in categorizing
handlers. The purpose of the categories is to provide a mechanism
for the Regions and States to make choices about priorities, based
on environmental significance and available resources. However,
the Regions and States may want to consider additional factors in
categorizing handlers. Such other factors may include: size of
the handler, type of waste handled, compliance history, public
concern, etc. Where factors such as these are used to support
categorizion, the Region and State should document the basis for
their categorization.
We want to emphasize that we do not envision a large, resource
intensive effort to categorize handlers. For the few land disposal
facilities, the Regions and States should build on the FMPs. In
general, storage facilities should automatically go in Category 3,
unless there is a known reason to categorize them otherwise.
There are two additional points to be made about the categorization:
-------
ATTACHMENT A (cont.)
0 Categorization is to be based on known information, such
as responses to "swmu letters" that have already been
evaluated, inspection reports, and initial screens for
facility management plans. As more information becomes
known about a handler, it may move up or down in t?he
categorization and, thus, priorities will be adjusted.
However, no new data collection effort should be initiated
in order to complete the categorization. However, where
there are critical data gaps for determining the regulatory
obligation of the facility (e.g., corrective action),
collection of this information must be scheduled. As
this data is collected, it may affect the category assigned
to the facility.
0 In order to have mutually agreeable priorities reflected
both in State grant work plans and in Regional work plans,
Regions and States must agree on categorization.
In order for the priority framework to be used in developing
FY 87 State grant work plans and Regional operating plans, the
categorization should be completed and agreed to by the Regions
and States in an appropriate time frame to accommodate the Grant
process.
-------
ATTACHMENT B: FY 87 RCRA GRANT ALLOTMENTS
-------
Attachment B
FY 1987 Grant Allotments*
Region
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
Total
($ in thousands)
Regi onal
Ratio
0.06112
0.11932
0.12234
0.14688
0.22599
0.13133
0.04170
0.03000
0.09132
0.03000
FY 1987
Base
Al lotment
3804.7
7427.7
7615.7
9143.3
14067.8
8175.3
2595.8
1867.5
5684.7
1867.5
1.00000
$62,250.0**
* The allotments reflect the President's FY 1987 budget request
to Congress. The allotments could change based on the actual
appropriation or subsequent budget adjustments (e.g., Gramm-
Rudman-Hol11ngs cuts).
**Total grant amount is $63 million; $750,000 is being held in
reserve for authorization bonuses.
-------
Attachment B, page 2
FY 1987 Potential Authorization Bonuses
( $ In thousandsJ
State
Potential
Authorization
Bonus*
REGION I
Connecti cut
Mai ne
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
50.0
13.6
50.0
13.6
13.6
13.6
REGION II
New Jersey
New York
Puerto R ico
Virgin Islands
50.0
50.0
30.9
13.6
REGION III
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsyl vani a
^Virginia
jUest Virginia
Dist. of Columbia
13.6
38.0
50.0
50.0
29.7
- 13.6
REGION IV
Alabama
Fl orida
Georgi a
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
46.5
50.0
50.0
35.8
24.6
50.0
49.8
50.0
REGION V
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wi sconsin
50.0
50.0
50.0
33.9
50.0
50.0
State
Potential
Authori zati on
Bonus*
REGION VI
Arkansas
Loui siana
New Mexico
Okl ahoma
Texas
21.7
50.0
13.6
22.1
50.0
REGION VII
Iowa
Kansas
Mi ssouri
Nebraska
24.7
21.6
48.8
13.6
REGION VIII
Colorado
Montana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyomi ng
20.3
13.6
13.6
13.6 -
13.6
13.6
REGION IX
Arizona
Cal'i forni a
Hawai i
Nevada
American Samoa
North Mariana Is.
Guam
19.2
50.0
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
13.6
REGION X
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washi ngton
13.6
13.6
19.5
25.6
*A pool of $750,000 has been reserved for authorization bonuses. Bonus
funds will be transferred to the Regions as States submit complete,
official applications for final authorization for the five identified
HSWA requirements, until the pool 1s depleted.
-------
ATTACHMENT C: FY 87 RCRA REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
-------
Attachment C
NEW FY 1987 REPORTING ELEMENTS
Closure
0 Full vs. partial facility closure
0 Closure by removal vs. closure with waste in place
Corrective Action
0 Remedial Investigation imposed
0 Interim measures required
0 Interim measures completed
Permitting
0 Surface impoundment retrofitting waiver requested
0 Surface impoundment retrofitting waiver approved/denied
0 Land disposal ban petition submitted
0 Land disposal ban petition approved/denied
0 ACL requested
0 ACL approved/denied
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Inspections
0 Case development inspections
Viola tions/Problem-area
0 Corrective Action
Enforcement Actions
0 §3008(a) Administrative Complaint
0 Civil Referral
0 Final Judicial Order
0 S3008(h) Corrective Action Administrative Complaint
Financial Responsibility
0 Bankruptcy status of a facility
-------
ATTACHMENT D: RCRA SPMS MEASURES
-------
X
§
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Program Area; RCRA Permitting and State Authorization
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
SPMS CODE
FREQUENCY
Work with States to seek HSWA
Authorization
Make final RCRA permit
determinations by the statutory
deadlines.
State Authorization Measures
State submits official application for HSWA cluster.
EPA makes final authorization decision for HSWA cluster.
Permitting Measures (Report on the following information
for land disposal, incineration, and storage and treatment.)
Public notice of draft RCRA permit issued.
Notice of intent to deny RCRA permit issued.
Notice of availability of closure plan issued.
RCRA permit issued. *t
RCRA permit denied. *t
Closure plan approved. *
* This measure requires Regional targets for land disposal
facilities only.
t Permits issued and permits denied are combined for one
target. They will, however, be reported separately
toward the combined target.
R/C-l(a)
R/C-l(b)
R/C-2(a)
R/C-2(b)
R/C-2(c)
R/C-2(d)
R/C-2(e)
R/C-2(f)
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
-------
V
I
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
s
Program Area; RCRA Permitting and State Authorization
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
SPMS CODE
FREQUENCY
Corrective Action Measures (applies to facilities seeking
operating permits and closing facilities)
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) completed for entire facility
remedial investigation decision made.
Remedial investigation imposed. (Separate by entire facility
or partial facility.)
RCRA corrective measures plan approved. (Separate entire
facility and partial facility.)
HWDMS Quality Measure and Review °
R/C-3(a)
R/C-3(b)
R/C-3(c)
R/C-4
See definition section for explanation.
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
-------
vDefinitions
|R/C-l(a) State submits official application for HSWA cluster; The date the Region receives the complete official applica-
> tion. Where more than one application is submitted for different provisions in the HSWA cluster, the date
»- reported is the date of the last application necessary to cover all provisions in the HSWA cluster.
R/C-l(b) EPA makes final authorization decision for HSWA cluster; The date notice appears in the Federal
Register that final authorization for HSWA cluster is granted or denied. Where final authorization is granted
at different times for different provisions in the HSWA cluster, final authorization is the date of the last
authorization decision covering all provisions in the HSWA cluster.
R/C-2(a) Public notice of draft permit issued; The date the public notice of draft permit is issued.
R/C-2(b) Notice of intent to deny RCRA permit issued; The date the public notice of intent to deny RCRA permit is issued.
R/C-2(c) Notice of availability of closure plan issued; The date the public notice is issued.
R/C-2(d) RCRA permit issued; The date the RCRA permit is issued.
R/C-2(e) RCRA permit denied; The date the RCRA permit is denied.
R/C-2(f) Closure plan approved; The date State or EPA approves the closure plan following an inspection of the facility,
a public notice of the plan and response to Garments.
R/C-3(a) RCRA facilty assessment (RFA) completed for entire facility; When a decision is made to initiate a remedial
investigation or that a remedial investigation is not necessary.
R/C-3(b) Remedial investigation imposed; When a permit or permit modification is issued which incorporates a requirement
for a remedial investigation; or EPA or authorized State takes formal enforcement action to require a remed-
ial investigation. Where a complete remedial investigation is required for an entire facility, report as an
entire facility. Where the remedial investigation is phased to address different parts of the facility or
different environmental media, "imposed" means to legally obligate the owner/operator to initiate the first
phase of the remedial investigation; report as partial facility.
R/C-3(c) RCRA corrective measures decision made; Following completion of a remedial investigation, when a decision
has been made either to initiate corrective measures (i.e. remedy selected) or that corrective measures are not
necessary. Where corrective measures are determined to be necessary, corrective measures decision is considered
made when the owner/operator has characterized the nature and extent of all releases at the facility and EPA
or the authorized State has approved appropirate corrective measures (i.e. remedies) for all identified releases,
Where corrective measures have been determined to be necessary; permit or permit modification is issued incorp-
orating corrective measures program, or owner/operator is notified in writing by EPA or authorized States that
the corrective measures plan prepared pursuant to an existing permit condition has been approved, or owner/
^operator receives EPA or authorized State approfl^to initiate corrective measures program, pursuanj^ to an
'enforcement order. Report entire facility if tl^^prmit/order addresses the entire facility; i
facility if the permit/order addresses less tha^^ie entire facility.
-------
Definitions (cont'd.)
R/C-4 HWDMS quality measure: Precise wording is not available, however, specific data elements will be selected for
review each quarter by the Regions and Headquarters. Records will be checked to ensure that all required fields
all required fields are properly completed, that any prerequisite records exist, and that no duplicate records
are present. Data fields will be examined for validity. Sequence of records will be reviewed to ensure that the
chronological order of recorded events is logical. Other required fields will be reviewed to ensure that each
field contains a valid code. Performance measures will be established (e.g., 95 percent of all facilities must
meet criteria for permit data consistency).
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Program Area; RCRA Enforcement
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
SPMS CODE
FREQUENCY
Improved compliance of
hazardous waste handlers with
appropriate requirements under
RCRA.
Universe of facilities
Specify the total number of land disposal facilities that are
regulated.(1)
Specify total number of TSDFs, other than land disposal, that
are regulated. (Do not include underground storage tanks,
generators, transporters, notifiers carrying non-regulated
status codes or state-only regulated handlers unless they are
also TSDF.) (2)
Inspections
Target and report, year-to-date, the number of land disposal
facilities that have received an inspection in FY 87.
(Combined EPA/State target.)* (3)
Target and report, year-to-date, the number of TSDFs, other than
land disposal, that have received an inspection in FY 87.
(Combined EPA/State target.)*(4)
Target and report, year-to-date, EPA inspections of Federal,
State, and local government TSDFs (including land disposal) that
received an inspection in FY 87. (EPA target.)*(5)
Class I Violations
Report the number of land disposal facilities identified, year-
to-date, as having one or more Class I violations.(6)
Report the number of TSDFs, other than land disposal, identified
year-to-date, as having one or more Class I violations.(6)
*This measure requin
ional targets.
P/E-l(a)
R/E-l(b)
R/E-2(a)
R/E-2(b)
R/E-2(c)
R/E-3(a)
R/E-3(b)
01
By Region
01
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
Qlr2,3,4
By Region
Qlr2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Regi
-------
\.
X
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Program Area: RCRA Enforcement
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
SPMS CODE
FREQUENCY
Return significant nonconpliers
to compliance.
Significant Noncompliance - Fixed Universe
Specify the number of land disposal facilities in significant
nonconpliance (SNC) at the beginning of the year (fixed
universe).(7)
Specify the number of these facilities that received formal
enforcement action, prior to FY 87, addressing all SNC
violations.(8)
Report the number of these facilities that have received an
initial formal enforcement action addressing all SNC violat-
ions. (Report EPA and State separately.)(9)
Report the number of these facilities that are under a final
formal enforcement action that addresses all outstanding SNC
violations. (Report EPA and State separately.)
Report the number of these facilities in physical compliance
for all SNC violations regardless of how accomplished. (EPA
and State combined report.)
Target and report, the number of these facilities that have
not returned to compliance with all SNC violations and have
not had a formal enforcement action initiated against them to
resolve all SNC violations.(Separate EPA and State targets.)*
* This measure requires declining targets from the first
quarter through the fourth quarter. All facilities must
be addressed prior to the end of the fiscal year through
enforcement and/or have returned to physical compliance.
R/E-4(a)(l)
R/E-4(a)(2)
R/E-4(b)
R/E-4(c)
R/E-4(d)
R/E 4(e)
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Program Area; RCRA Enforcement
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
SPMS CODE
FREQUENCY
Significant Nonconpliance - Snapshot (10)
Report the number of land disposal facilities in SNC at this
point in time.(11)
Report the number of land disposal facilities in SNC, at this
point in time that have not had formal enforcement action
initiated against them to resolve all violations that are .
causing the facility to be in SNC. Report by time elapsed
fron inspection.
0 135 days or less.
0 136 - 180 days.
0 181 days or more.
Federal Facilities - Snapshot
Report the number of Federally owned or operated land
disposal facilities (including contractor-operated Federal
facilities) that are in SNC, at this point-in-time.
Report the number of these facilities against which there is
one or more formal enforcement action(s) addressing all SNC
violations.
R/E 5(a)
R/E 5(b)
R/E 5
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
Program Area; RCRA Enforcement
OBJECTIVE
MEASURE
SPMS CODE
FREQUENCY
Enforcement Actions
Report the number of formal administrative enforcement
actions issued, year-to-date, to TSDFs, not including
§ 3008(h), § 3013, and § 7003.(12) (Report separately EPA and
by State.)
Report the number of formal administrative enforcement
actions issued, year-to-date to TSDFs, under § 3008(h),
§ 3013, and § 7003.(13) (Report separately by EPA and State.)
Specify the number of State civil and criminal cases filed
this quarter against Subtitle C handlers.
Note; EPA civil referrals will taken from the OECM docket
system. EPA criminal actions will be tracked by NEIC.
Violation of Corrective Action
Specify the number of facilities that are not in compliance
with corrective action requirements in a final administrative
order, court judgment, or consent decree, or permit schedule
of compliance.(14)
R/E-7(a)
R/E-7(b)
R/E-7(c)
R/E-8
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
01,2,3,4
By Region
-------
Definitions
(1) R/E-l(a) Does not include Class I UIC wells, certified clean closed facilities, and pre-HSWA State delisted and EPA
delisted land disposal facilities.
(2) R/E-l(b) Does not include underground storage tanks, generators, transporters, notifiers carrying non-regulated status
.oodes or State-only regulated handlers.
(3) R/E-2(a) Once inspected in FY 87, a facility should not be recounted in this category. This measure is intended to
evaluate whether every facility has been addressed with a full compliance inspection under RCRA § 3007(c),(d)
and (e). Inspections to be counted are CMEs and CEIs. (Includes Federal, State and local facilities.)
(4) R/E-2(b) Once inspected in FY 87, a facility should not be recounted in this category.
This measure is intended to evaluate whether every facility has been addressed with a full compliance
inspection under RCRA § 3007 (c),(d), and (e). Inspections to be counted are CEIs. (Includes Federal, State,
and local facilities.)
(5) R/E-2(c) ihese numbers are a subset of the numbers targeted and reported in (a) and (b).
(6) R/E-3(a,b) This includes violations discovered through any means. (A facility can be counted only once, the first time
a violation is discovered in FY 87.)
(7) R/E-4 SMC includes those land disposal facilities (operating, closing, and closed) in significant noncompliance
for Class I violations related to groundwater, closure, post-closure, and/or financial
responsibility requirements. This universe is set at the beginning of the fiscal year (FY 1987). Facilities
do not enter or exit the fixed universe after October 1. Note that the FY 87 definition is the same as used
in FY 86. Submit facility names in support of data.
(8) R/E-4 thru For the purpose of R/E 4-7 "formal enforcement action" includes: all § 3008(a) (administrative or judicial),
§ 3008(a) final orders, § 3013 orders, §3008(h) orders, § 7003 orders, other formal actions identified in
R/E-7 footnote 9 and all equivalent formal State actions. To be "equivalent", a State action must be equal to
Federal § 3008(a) complaint or be legally binding. This excludes notices of violations, earning letters or
or agreements, etc.
(9) R/E-4(b) Initial formal enforcement action includes: filed administrative complaint or order or judicial complaint,
criminal action or State equivalent that addresses all violations that placed them in SNC.
-------
efiniti
finitions (cont'd.)
(10) R/E-5 This measure is designed to identify the total number of land disposal facilities with at least one SNC
violations at the end of each quarter. Include in the measure, the fixed universe, minus those facilities
.that have returned to and remained in compliance, and all SNCs identified to date in FY 87. (Report by total
number and by name new facilities identified in SNC.)
11) K/E-5(a) A facility can be counted only once as being in SNC.
12) R/E-l(a) Includes state actions comparable to formal actions under § 3008(a) but does not include State actions
comparable to actions under 3008(h), § 3013, § 7003.
13) R/E-7(b) Includes state actions comparable to actions under § 3008(h), § 3013, and § 7003.
14) R/E-8 Those facilities subject to corrective action as reported in I^/C 3(b) .
------- |