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) .

-------