6EPA
United States
Environment*! Protection
Agency
Office of
Sot»d Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9420.00-5
TITLE: FY 1989 RCRA Implementation Plan
«.
APPROVAL DATE: April 5, 1988
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 5, 1988
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
D FINAL
D DRAFT
STATUS:
Office of Solid Waste
REFERENCE (other documents)
OSWER POLICY DIRECTIVE #9420.00-4
( J A- Pending OMB approval
[ ] B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
f } C- For review &/or comment
[ ] D- In development or circulating
headquarters
OSWER OSWER OSWER
ME DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
«r
CDA Washington. DC 20460
crM OSWER Directive Initiation 1
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person Mail Code Office
Lillian Bagus WH-563B 0!
/ 1. Directive Number
ReqUGSt 9420.00-5
Telephone Code
>W (202) 382-2233
3. Title
FY 1989 RCRA Implementation Plan
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
Provides guidance on establishing priorities and developing State work plans
for FY 1989.
5. Ke^
6a. Di
b. DC
words
RCRA Implementation / Grant
3es This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(sj?
No \XX Y
IBS it Supplement Previous Direct(ve(S)7 v
XXX No Y
es What directive (number, title)
FY 1988 RCRA Implementation
Plan (#9420.00-4)
es What directive (number, title)
7. Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA B - Signed by Office Director
C - For Review & Comment D - In Development
' * «.
8.
Document
to
be
distributed
to
States
by Headquarters?
X
v» i |
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards.
^Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
10. Name and Title of Approving Official (J
J. Winston Porter, Assistant Administrator, OSWER
Date
Date
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER fe OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
OSWER Directive #9420.00-5
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
APR 5 !SSi
OFFICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMORANDUM.
SUBJECT: FY 1989 RCRA Implementation Plan
FROM: J. Winstcm Porter
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Attached is the FY 1989 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP).
The RIP provides guidance on implementing the RCRA Subtitle C
program and provides a framework for determining priorities
based on environmental benefits. I would like to thank all
of the Headquarters, Regional, and State staffs who provided
comments on the drafts of the RIP. I look forward to working
with you to implement the more flexible approach set forth
in this document.
The grant guidance document for the Underground Storage
Tank Program will be issued today under separate cover by the
Office of Underground Storage Tanks. The LUST Trust Fund
guidance will follow shortly.
Attachment
cc: Jack McGraw
Thomas Devine
Sylvia Lowrance
Gene Lucero
Henry^ Longest
Regi|fifal Waste Management Division Directors,
Regions I-X
ASTSWMO
NGA
Elizabeth LaPointe
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
FY 1989
RCRA
IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
-------
OSWER Directive #9420.00-5
FY 1989 RIP Index Page
Section 1 - National Priorities 1.1-1.4
Section 2 - Permitting/Closure/Post-Closure 2.1 - 2.8
Section 3 - Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement 3.1 - 3.9
Section 4 - Corrective Action 4.1-4.4
Section 5 - Federal Facilities 5.1 - 5.5
Section 6 - Cross-Media and Program Issues 6.1 - 6.4
Section 7 - State Authorization and Oversight 7.1 - 7.5
Section 8 - State Grants and Work Programs 8.1-8.3
Section 9 - Information Management 9.1 - 9.9
Attachment A - FY 1989 RCRA Grant Allotments
Attachment B - RCRA SPMS Measures
Attachment C - Report Forms
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
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 the national
direction and framework for establishing priorities for the
implementation of RCRA. This direction will be reflected in the
State work programs and Regional work plans as appropriate.
In FY 1989, as in FY 1988, the RCRA program will be results
oriented. The Regions and States will be issuing permits,
inspecting handlers, enforcing to return handlers to compliance,
requiring facilities to take corrective action, ensuring
environmentally safe closures, and taking other actions to
protect human health and reduce the risk to the environment.
Priorities for these activities will be based on the environ-
mental benefits expected to be achieved.
Integrated use of all the management, technical, and
enforcement resources in a strong Federal and State^partnership
will be necessary to achieve program progress. Superfund
authorities and resources will be used to assist the RCRA program
in addressing significant environmental problems at RCRA
handlers, including facilities accepting Superfund wastes,
closing facilities, and Federal facilities needing corrective
action. Regions and States may want to consider using other
non-RCRA authorities, both State and Federal, as appropriate.
RIP Framework
The purpose of the RIP is to establish national priorities
and address aljL activities which support a comprehensive model
RCRA program .^Because of Regional or State circumstances (e.g.,
no incineratoWs"-in a State) , the identified national priorities
and activities may not be applicable directly in a given Region
or State. The Regions are to work with their States and identify
Regional RCRA priorities and Regional and State concerns. When
identifying these priorities and activities, Regions are to place
emphasis on health and environmental benefits expected to be
achieved. Although the 1989 incinerator permitting deadline will
continue to be an important goal, some reallocation of resources
from incinerator permitting to other environmentally significant
1.1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
handlers and activities may be justified. See FY 1989 Regional
Work Plans (below). For FY 1989, trade-offs in the range of 10%
to 15% will occur within the RCRA program only.
As we incorporate an even greater emphasis on health and
environmental benefits in priority setting, it becomes
increasingly important for RCRA program managers to continue to
refine and apply their screening and ranking systems to identify
those handlers posing the greatest health and environmental
risks. Regions may use the Environmental Priorities Initiative
(EPI), discussed in Section 4 (Corrective Action); the facility
management plan and multi-year strategy process; and/or
Region-specific systems to rank handlers and establish priorities
for program activities. In FY 1989, Regions will expand their
priority setting efforts to include all RCRA treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, whether operating or closing, and other
handlers as appropriate. (See J. Winston Porter's memorandum,
dated December 14, 1987, "RCRA Program Directions for FY 1989", ,
OSWER Directive #9421.00.) As environmentally significant
handlers are identified and selected for action, Regions are to
choose the most appropriate mechanism (e.g., permit, post-closure
permit, Section 3008(h) order, CERCLA authorities, State
authorities, closure plans, post-closure plans) to achieve
environmental results.
The activities in the following table are the highest
priority activities at the national level. &
Highest Priority Activities
o Ensure that environmentally significant treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities, closing land disposal facilities,
and other environmentally significant handlers are
identified and adequately addressed (through operating
permit, post-closure permit, corrective action order,
closure, or CERCLA action, as appropriate).
o Process^permits for new and expanded facilities, especially
those pp5yiding treatment and incineration capacity, RD&D
permit applications, off-site commercial treatment
facilities and permit modifications.
o Complete final permit determinations on operating land
disposal facilities; make final permit determinations on
operating incineration facilities by November 1989.
o Conduct inspections mandated by HSWA, SARA, and agency
policy and pursue enforcement against significant
violators.
1.2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
o Emphasize; the development and implementation of Regional and
State programs that reduce or eliminate the generation of
hazardous waste utilizing Section 8001 grant funds.
o Within the constraints of available funding, support RCRIS
and other information management activities to ensure
comprehensive, quality data to facilitate effective
management of the hazardous waste program.
o Support HSWA authorization by working with States to develop
quality RCRA programs so that authorization applications may
be expeditiously processed.
FY 1989 Regional Work Plans
In addition to addressing the highest priority activities in
Section 1 that are applicable in a given Region, Regions also will
need to continue to manage other aspects of the RCRA program (e.g.,,-
training and oversight) , the RCRA program's contribution to other *.
important activities not specified in this document (e.g., ;
regulatory implementation strategies), and special RCRA
initiatives. As previously discussed in this Section/ Regions will
work with their States to identify RCRA priorities and activities
based on the following three considerations:
Health and environmental benefits
expected to be achieved. &
National RCRA priorities and activities
identified in this RIP.
- Regional and State RCRA priorities
and initiatives.
The Regions then are to consider the identified priorities and
activities in relation to allocated resources and work with the
States to develop Regional work plans, to the extent that Regions
deviate from rational priorities (1989 permit deadline and
statutorily mw|ated inspections) . These Regional work plans will
briefly explariPwhy the national priorities will not be met and
identify activities at specific handlers, as appropriate.
Commitments for FY 1989 will be based on completing as many of the
priority activities as resources allow, taking into account the
resources needed for support activities and special RCRA
initiatives, as well. These work plans are not intended to be
comprehensive, detailed workload analyses, but rather the basis for
negotiating FY 1989 commitments and SPMS targets. Regions may want
to model their work plans after Region 1's pilot planning project
for FY 1988 (July 27, 1987) or Region Ill's MERITS program.
1.3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Since the work plans will be used as the basis for negotiating
Regional commitments and SPMS targets, draft work plans are to be
submitted by July 15, 1988. Final work plans and commitments will
be negotiated by August 19, 1988. Work plans are to be submitted
concurrently to the Director, Permits and State Programs Division,
OSW, and the Director, RCRA Enforcement Division, OWPE.
1.4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Section 2
PERMITTING/FACILITY CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
Decisions and priorities for the permit and closure program,
including corrective action, are to be based on environmental
benefits expected to be achieved, as discussed in Section 1.
The objectives of the FY 1989 permit and closure program are
to: 1) address operating, closing, and closed facilities with a
high quality, enforceable approach; 2) process permit modifica-
tions and support permit schedules of compliance; 3) ensure
effective corrective action at operating, closing, and closed
facilities; and, 4) follow through on approved closure plans as
necessary and minimize the post-closure escape of hazardous
constituents into the environment. Sections 3008(a) and (h) and
3004(u) of HSWA and various State authorities provide flexible
tools for ensuring the environmental integrity of operating and
closing/closed facilities.
Relation to FY 1988 RIP
o Greater emphasis on;
- establishing priorities for all facilities based on the
environmental significance of the facility and the human
health and environmental benefits achieved through
operating or post-closure permit determinations or closure
plan approval, including corrective action;
- processing and tracking permit modifications and permit
schedules of compliance.
o Continued emphasis on;
- the 1989 deadline for incinerator permits as a goal;
- post-closure permits;
- providii|||ralternatives to land disposal of hazardous waste;
- re-examining facilities that closed by removal;
- approving closure plans, including corrective action as
necessary, for land disposal facilities that lost interim
status; activities necessary to support closure plan
schedules;
2.1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-50
- making final permit determinations for the remaining
operating land disposal facilities, to be completed by
November 1988.
o Decreased emphasis on:
- conducting RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs) at closing
facilities (see discussion of Environmental Priorities
Initiative, Section 4).
Priority Setting
Section 1 states that addressing environmentally significant
handlers is one of the highest priorities for FY 1989. Section 1
also discusses a general framework for determining which
handlers are environmentally significant and for selecting an
effective mechanism to address environmental concerns.
Facility management plans and multi-year strategies are
useful tools for establishing priorities based on environmental ;
significance, as well as supporting resource planning and workloadT
allocation. If these tools are relied on, Regions and States are ,
to continue to expand and update their facility management plans
and multi-year strategies to ensure that priority attention is
focused on those handlers and activities causing or likely to
cause the greatest health and environmental threats. All
activities and handlers will be included in this planning process.
Priority will be given to those activities expected to result in
the greatest health and environmental benefits. Regular
discussions between the Regions and States are encouraged to ensure
effective planning. These discussions may occur during routine
conference calls or meetings, grant negotiations, etc. As noted in
Section 1, Regions and States may use the EPI or Region-specific
systems to plan and establish priorities.
Statutory Deadlines/Requirements
The November 1989 deadline for incineration permits continues
to be an important goal for FY 1989. Regions and States also will
process permits for treatment and storage facilities in the
following instances: where such permits would produce greater
envirorrnentalfptjisnefits than land disposal or incinerator operating
permits; in those States without a heavy workload for issuing land
disposal or incinerator operating permits; for facilities providing
alternative treatment capacity; and for facilities with high
corrective action priority. Regions should note that the Joint
Permitting Policy (RCRA Reauthorization Statutory Interpretation #5,
July 1, 1985) is applicable to such permit issuance.
2.2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
In addition to imposing statutory deadlines for permit
decisions, HSWA requires permits to address corrective action for
releases. At a minimum, an RFA must be completed prior to permit
issuance. Also, Regions may issue Section 3008(h) orders prior to
permit issuance. Where corrective action activities are not
completed prior to issuance, the permit must contain a corrective
action schedule of compliance as discussed in Section 4.
Review of Permit Conditions/Permit Schedules of Compliance/Permit
Modifications/Approved Closure Plan Activities
FY 1989 will see an increasing workload associated with
reviewing documents and other submittals in accordance with permit
conditions, permit schedules of compliance, and approved closure
plan activities and with processing permit modifications. To
achieve the greatest environmental benefits, attention should be
focused on permit modifications for ground water (Subpart F), HSWA
corrective action, and expansion/new units which result in reduced
risk to human health and/or the environment or increased treatment
capacity. Permit modifications which support improved facility
management also should receive attention. Regions may modify
permits without the permittee's agreement when the standards or
regulations on which the permit was based have been changed by
statute or amended standards or regulations (40 CFR Section
270.41(a)(3), 52 Federal Register 230, December 1, 1987).
For permitted facilities with schedules of compliance, close
attention will be paid to ensuring compliance with milestone dates
and to planning/scheduling resultant permit modifRations. For
facilities with approved closure plans, compliance1 with milestone
dates also will be tracked. Coordination with enforcement is
essential to effectively support permit schedules of compliance and
closure plan activities. Activities to support these efforts should
be considered when developing and updating facility management plans
and multi-year strategies (or other management systems) and
associated workload planning.
Regions and States will use existing management tracking
systems, or develop tracking systems if necessary, to track the
milestone dates, as well as the permitting agency's review of
submittals, tggensure that milestones are achieved within the
prescribed tjapiframes. Regions and States also need to begin
tracking selJpiion-of-remedy decisions for HSWA corrective action,
as well as the factors that influence those decisions, to support
future decisions.
2.3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Alternatives to Land Disposal/Additional Capacity
Disposal, storage, and treatment capacity shortage due to the
large number of closures, more stringent land disposal facility
requirements, and the land disposal bans are having an increasing
impact on the capacity used to handle hazardous wastes. This
situation requires continued emphasis on the processing of: 1) new
storage, treatment, and disposal permit applications; and 2) changes
to existing interim status facilities and permit modifications which
will expand storage, treatment, and incineration capacity, or which
will reduce the production and/or toxicity of hazardous waste.
Processing of RD&D permit applications will aid in the develop-
ment of safe alternatives to land disposal of hazardous wastes.
RD&D permits must be tailored to the scope of the research proposal
and include those conditions necessary to protect human health and
environment. See Guidance Manual for Research, Development, and
Demonstration Permits Under 40 CFR Section 270.65, dated July 1986
(EPA/530-SW-86008; OSWER Policy Directive #9527.00-1A). States
are encouraged to adopt equivalent RD&D regulations as soon as
possible so that applicants are not precluded from obtaining RD&D %
permits by State law.
with the promulgation of Subpart X regulations for
miscellaneous units (December 10, 1987), further opportunities to
permit alternative treatment facilities exist. Until States are
authorized for Subpart X, EPA retains implementation responsibili-
ties for Subpart X facilities. It should be noted that all
non-land disposal, non-incinerator Subpart X facilities that had
interim status as of November 8, 1984, are subject '£o the
November 8, 1988, deadline for submission of Part B permit
applications. Additional guidance is being developed. The mobile
treatment regulations also should facilitate permitting of
alternative treatment. States are encouraged to adopt regulations
equivalent to the Federal mobile treatment unit regulations as
quickly as possible to provide for additional capacity for
corrective action remedies.
Post-Closure Requirements for Closure by Removal
Under the FY; 1988 RIP, identification of facilities that
closed by removal; and that did not meet the 40 CFR Section 264
standards was .w5 have been completed during FY 1988. During
FY 1989, the results of this effort will be used to develop a
strategy for addressing these identified facilities through a
post-closure permit or enforcement order. Once specific activities
are identified for a facility, they will be reflected in the
2.4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
facility management plan, if one has been developed, and the
Region's multi-year strategy in accordance with Section 1. See
40 CFR Section 270.1(c)(5) and (c)(6) (52 Federal Register 230,
December 1, 1987).
Closure
The FY 1987 RIP and the FY 1988 RIP directed Regions and States
to continue approving closure plans for closing or closed LOIS
facilities. In addition, Regions and States were to continue
conducting RFAs at closing or closed LOIS facilities. In
FY 1989, the Regions and States will use the facility management
planning process, the EPI, or Region-specific systems to establish
priorities for approving closure plans, conducting RFAs, and
monitoring approved closure plan activities at the remaining
closing and closed LOIS facilities.
Closure activities (review and approval of closure plans,
conducting RFAs, monitoring closure plan schedules) for non-LOIS
facilities also will be reflected in the management planning •?$•.
process and multi-year strategies. Priorities for these activities
will be based on the .environmental significance of the facility and
the environmental benefits expected to be achieved, as indicated in
Section 1.
Post-Closure Permits
Under the FY 1988 RIP, Regions and States were'to plan for
post-closure permit issuance by updating existing multi-year
strategies to indicate when the permitting agency expected to
issue the post-closure permits. In FY 1989, Regions and States
are encouraged to call in and process post-closure permits where
such action would achieve the greatest environmental benefit at an
environmentally significant facility.
Public Involvement
Effective implementation of the expanded public involvement
program continues to be an integral part of RCRA activities.
Public involvjSjjpJnt plans developed in previous years for targeted
facilities wi|fp|j3e implemented during FY 1989. Additional
facilities that warrant expanded public involvement should
identified in FY 1989. State grant work programs will contain
specific public involvement activities with appropriate grant funds
identified. Regions and States may refer to the Guidance on Public
Involvement in the RCRA Permitting Program, January 1986, for
2.5
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
additional guidance. Regional RCRA staff should, coordinate with
CERCLA community relations and enforcement activities to ensure
that the mutual objectives of both community involvement programs
are met. This is especially important for RCRA sites listed on the
NPL.
List of New/Proposed Regulations
o Codification Rule: Pushes back date of post-closure permitting
requirements; facilities receiving waste after July 26, 1982, or
closing after January 26, 1983, will need post-closure permits;
final December 1987.
*
o Standards for Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous Units (Subpart X):
Establishes permitting standards for miscellaneous units, such
as thermal treatment units and open burning/open detonation;
final December 1987.
o Permit Modifications Rule: Replaces current major/minor permit
modification process with a new, three-part classification system^
and associated approval processes; proposed August 1987; final
July 1988*.
o Revision of Subpart H Liability Regulations; final July 1988*.
o RCRA Facility Changes Rule: Clarifies facility's obligation
to comply with post-closure requirements even when a portion of
an operating permit is denied; provides for continued handling of
newly identified or listed wastes at facilities; removes the
reconstruction limit for certain changes at interim status
facilities (closure, corrective action orders, and compliance
with new requirements); proposed August 1987; final August 1988*.
o Mobile Treatment Unit Rule: Establishes a new, two-staged
permitting process for MTUs; incorporates delisting procedure
for residues into the permitting process; proposed June 1987;
final August 1988*.
o Revisions to Definition of Solid Waste: Per American Mining
Congress court, case; proposed January 1988; final November 1988*.
o Procedural arapgTechnical Regulations for Section 3004(u) Corrective
Action: Provides standards and procedures for conduct of Section
3004(u) corrective action requirements; proposed FY 1988*;
final FY 1989*.
*Scheduled date.
2.6
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
List of New/Proposed Regulations — Continued
o Exemption for Samples used in Treatability Studies; proposed
October 1987; final April 1988*.
o Hybrid Closure Rule: Provides hybrid option based on waste-
specific and site-specific factors that would allow some waste
residues to remain in place with modified post-closure care
requirements; proposed March 1987.
o Deferred Closure Rule: Would allow hazardous waste units to
remain open to receive non-hazardous solid waste after final
receipt of hazardous waste, if certain conditions were met;
proposed May 1988*; final October 1988*.
o Hazardous Waste Incinerator Amendments: proposed June 1988*;
final January 1989*.
o Regulations Covering Hazardous Waste Burning in Boilers and
Industrial Furnaces: proposed May 6, 1987; supplement June
final January 1989*.
o Clarification of Section 262.34 Rules for 90-day Generators:
Specifies what activities generators may conduct without permits;
proposed August 1988*; final March 1989*.
List of Applicable Guidances ^
i '*••'
o RCRA Guidance Manual for Subpart G Closure and Post-Closure Care
Standards and Subpart H Cost Estimating Requirements; January 1987,
o Clean Closure Guidance; draft March 1987; final September 1988*.
o Incinerability Index: preliminary index developed; ongoing over
next one to two years.
o Minimum Technology Guidance on Double Liner Systems — Design,
Construction, and Operation; May 1988*.
o Guidance oSpimiting Metals Emissions from Hazardous Waste
Incinerator^, final June 1988*.
o Guidance on Carbon Monoxide Controls for Hazardous Waste Incinera-
tors; final June 1988*.
o Guidance on Trial Burn Reporting and Setting Permit Conditions;
May 1988*.
*Scheduled date.
2.7
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
o Minimum Technology Guidance on Leak Detection Systems for Land
Disposal Units; June 1988*.
o Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Incinerator Permits (update
of 1983 guidance); June 1988*.
o Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement Guidance; July 1988*.
o Trial Burn Observation Guide; mid - 1988*.
o Problem POHC Reference Directory; late FY 1988*.
o Clean Closure of Hazardous Waste Tank Systems and Container Units;
draft September 1988*.
* Scheduled date.
2.8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.005
Section 3
COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT
Program Objective
The compliance monitoring and enforcement program objectives
are to ensure compliance and to take corrective action for releases.
Timely and appropriate enforcement action should be taken against
violators.
The program continues its transition from enforcement of
pre-HSWA interim status requirements to enforcing requirements
in permits and closure plans, requiring and enforcing corrective
action measures and orders and enforcing other major HSWA
requirements, including the land disposal restrictions and closures
of surface impoundments which have not met retrofit requirements
or obtained exemptions or waivers. An added focus is to prioritize
actions by focusing on environmentally significant facilities.
Relation to FY 1988 RIP
0 Continued emphasis on;
-meeting statutory inspection requirements;
-assuring compliance with outstanding orders and finalizing orders;
-issuing corrective action orders;
-criminal prosecution of illegal disposal;
-federal facility compliance;
-support for existing civil cases;
-enforcement of land disposal ban requirements; \&,
0 Increasing emphasis on;
-assuring compliance with permits and orders, particularly
corrective action requirements;
-assuring proper closure and/or corrective action at land
disposal facilities which do not receive operating permits and
at surface impoundments which must cease receiving hazardous
waste by November 8, 1988, in accordance with minimum technology
requirements;
-Regional enforcement initiatives.
0 Decreasing ^mphasis on;
-enforcemeriB||pf late and incomplete part B policy related to land
disposal permits;
-Loss of Interim Status.
The revised Enforcement Response Policy (December 21, 1987)
(ERP) goes into effect on October 1, 1988. This revised policy
reflects the changing RCRA program and universe. The 1984 Amendments
mandate greater programmatic attention to problems at treatment and
storage facilities as well generators. The operating land disposal
universe is smaller in size, and those facilities remaining are,
3.1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.005
or soon will be, permitted. In reflecting these changes the
revised ERP no longer requires that all Class I violations of
the ground water monitoring, closure/post-closure, and financial
assurance be classified as high priority violators (HPV). Instead,
the Policy emphasizes the importance of addressing those facilities
which pose the greatest threat to human health or the environment,
or which show disregard for the regulatory program. This will
allow the EPA and States to focus enforcement resources on the
true environmental priorities. Because of the reduction in
"mandatory HPVs" in the land disposal universe the Regions and
States will be able to focus more resources on treaters, storers,
generators and closing land disposal facilities.
The Regional Enforcement Strategic Planning Proposal offers
the opportunity for each Region to give greater attention to some
Regional priority, not recognized as a national program priority.
This process allows tradeoffs, at the margin (i.e. up to 10-15%),
between national enforcement objectives, SPMS targets, and important
Regional enforcement problems or initiatives. The Regional initiative
might be to correct industry-specific compliance problems; to clean
up a nationally significant hazardous waste site, or to focus on
other types of environmentally significant facilities as identified
through the Environmental Priorities Initiative. £.:
*,'''
Under the proposal, the Regions will propose adjustments to ]
RIP-directed Regional activities, and present the rationale for 1
the proposed adjustments to the Office of Waste Programs .Enforcement
by the middle of May. The Regions will then meet with Headquarters
for a face-to-face discussion on the proposed adjustments during
June. As a result of this discussion, Headquarters and each Region
will arrive at a mutually-agreed-upon written plan.^. If agreement
cannot be reached, the discussion would be elevates to the RA/DRA
and AA level for resolution. The plan, a short written document
outlining the agreement on the adjustments, will be incorporated
into the workplans due to Headquarters July 15 (as discussed in
Section 1).
Any Region which does not wish to participate in the Regional
Enforcement Strategic Planning proposal must notify the Director,
RCRA Enforcement Division in writing by May 25. For Regions wishing
to choose to participate in this process, all compliance monitoring
and enforcement-related activities may be considered for negotiation
under this prjajaosal, including "Mandatory Inspections".
Inspections
Inspection priorities are governed by: 1) statutory requirements;
2) the Agency's strong emphasis on groundwater protection; 3) the
significance of compliance with permit and closure plan requirements,
particularly schedules of compliance; 4) the importance of implementing
corrective action; and 5) the importance of enforcing the major HSWA
requirements, particularly the land bans and minimum technology
requirements.
3.2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Inspections in FY 1989 are discussed in two categories:
(A) mandatory inspections which fulfill statutory requirements
and Agency policy and (B) other inspections recommended to support
program goals. Significant aspects of inspections in all categories
are discussed under Subpart C, Inspection Requirements.
Case Development Inspections are to be conducted where
necessary to file high priority enforcement actions and to support
such existing cases.
A. Mandatory Inspections
1. Handlers presenting immediate threat to health or the
environment
Inspections should be conducted to provide necessary
documentation for enforcement actions where EPA or the State has
information that handlers may present an immediate threat to human
health or the environment.
'-.V.'
2. Government facilities .;.
RCRA §3007(d) requires that EPA conduct annual Compliance
Evaluation Inspections (CEI) at all facilities owned or operated
by State and local governments. Section 3007(c) requires that
all Federal TSDFs be inspected yearly. According to policy, EPA
must be present during Federal facility inspections. They may be
EPA lead, joint inspections, or oversight inspections. In any case,
EPA must show Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log (CMEL)
entry to indicate involvement. For State and local' government
facilities, EPA may undertake these jointly with the States or
utilize contractors; however they must be reported as EPA inspections,
State inspections cannot substitute for EPA inspections at State
and local facilities.
3. Commercial TSDFs receiving CERCLA waste
In accordance with the Revised Procedures for Planning
Implementing Off-Site Response Actions (November 13, 1987), the
following requirements must be met:
a) To madtofr.compliance determinations: treatment, storage and
disposal faciMiles (TSDF) which receive CERCLA waste must have
been inspecteo^(CEI or equivalent inspection) within six months
prior to receiving CERCLA waste. Units receiving CERCLA waste must
not have any "relevant" violations of State or Federal requirements.
b) To make release determinations:
1) Land disposal facilities receiving CERCLA waste must have
received a Operations and Maintenance Inspection (O&M) or CME
within the year prior to their receipt of CERCLA wastes; and
3.3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
2) RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities must have
received a RCRA Facility Assessment or equivalent investigation.
requirement does not apply to facilities already under a
comprehensive corrective action program.
These inspections should determine whether any unit at the
facility is releasing any hazardous waste, hazardous constituent
or hazardous substance. Releases must be addressed by a corrective
action program according to the criteria set out in Revised Procedures
for Planning and Implementing Off-site Response Actions.
CERCLA funds may be utilized for these inspections.
4. Land disposal facilities
a) RCRA Compliance Inspection: Each operating, closed and
closing land disposal facility, except certified closures-by-removal
and UlC-only facilities (which are inspected by the UIC program),
must receive an annual RCRA Compliance Evaluation Inspection (CEI)
conducted by the Region or the State. To determine conformance
with §3005(i), clean-closed LDFs may eventually have to be revisit-fed
(see Section 2). In addition to the general inspection requirements
in Subpart C, compliance with ground water monitoring requirements
must be evaluated as part of the RCRA CEI.
In addition to assuring compliance with the facility permit,
inspections of operating land disposal facilities should focus
on documenting compliance with corrective action compliance schedules
and assuring compliance with surface impoundment njinimum technology
requirements. After November 8, 1988 hazardous waste must not
be placed in surface impoundments which have not retrofitted or
obtained an exemption to the retrofit provisions. Inspections
must further verify that these units have closed or are closing in
accordance with the approved closure plan. The Regions must
collect data on these facilities. The status of this compliance
effort will.be monitored by Headquarters.
Compliance with land disposal restrictions must also be evaluated.
Where land disposal units are closed or closing, inspections must
evaluate compliance with closure plans and assure the adequacy of
ground waterJjp|nitorinq systems. Particularly at closing facilities,
inspectors slpild be alert to illegal activities, such as continuing
receipt of hazardous waste.
b) CME's: In FY 1989, one third of the land disposal universe
will receive either a Comprehensive (Ground-Water) Monitoring
Evaluation (CME) or an Operations and Maintenance Inspection (O&M).
The O&M inspection is designed to confirm that a facility's
ground-water monitoring system continues to function as designed.
It appropriate where a reliable comprehensive evaluation of the
system and site hydrogeology (CME) has previously been performed.
3.4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
The priorities for conducting CMEs in FY 1989 are as follows:
1) Facilities with unreviewed assessment monitoring systems;
2) Permitted facilities with complex compliance or corrective
action requirements at regulated units;
3) Facilities where there is doubt as to the adequacy of the
ground water monitoring system (e.g., a closing facility required
to re-do site characterization, poor quality prior CME etc.);
4) Facilities which have made major changes to their GWM system.
5. Treatment and storage facilities (TSFs)
a) In addition to government facilities, and regardless of
whether inspected in FY 1988, in FY 1989 inspections are to be
conducted at all permitted incinerators; all treatment and storage
facilities with significant corrective action measures required
under permits or orders in FY 1989; and all commercial treatment
facilities treating F001-F005, California list wastes subject to
effective land ban requirements, or any of the first third of the
listed wastes.
b) In any case inspections must be conducted at a minimum of 50%i
of the regulated TSF universe in accordance with RCRA §3007 (e), • •".'
including any facilities not inspected during FY 1988. Standards
in effect during FY 1989 for handlers of hazardous waste fuels
must be considered where applicable.
6. Generators and transporters
As the program expands generators must receiv^ greater
attention; this is especially important to the enforcement of the
land disposal restrictions. In addition to current restrictions
on untreated disposal of F001-F005 solvents and California list
wastes, new requirements governing land disposal of untreated
wastes will apply to the first third of the listed wastes during
FY 1989. In order to establish an enforcement presence in support
of the land ban, generator inspections will be increased.
Additionally, requirements governing transporters of hazardous
waste must be enforced. Regions and States should perform
inspections at large quantity generators, other environmentally
significant generators, and transporters. The total number of
these inspections will be based upon approximately seven percent
of the numbe^of large quantity generators, according to the best
available data." Documentation related to requirements governing
the export of hazardous waste should be checked where appropriate.
State inspection and compliance activities for small quantity
generators should reflect the EPA "Implementation Strategy for
Generators of 100-1,000 kg/month" (April 1986).
B. Other inspections
While not dictated by statute or specific policy other
inspections are also very important to the Program. The Regions
and States have discretion in determining which other inspections
to conduct, consistent with environmental and programmatic
3.5
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
priorities. The following are among those that are encouraged:
(1) inspections to support the criminal enforcement program;
(2) inspections of non-notifiers; (3) inspections of waste oil and
hazardous waste fuel burners and blenders, particularly processors,
for compliance with applicable standards. The RCRA Lab Audit
Inspection (LAI) can be conducted to confirm that owners/operators
are accurately analyzing their ground water monitoring samples.
The LAI may need to be performed based on the findings of a CME/O&M
inspection and will be conducted in accordance with EPA guidance.
C. Inspection Requirements
Quality inspections are essential to an enforcement program.
Proper documentation - including use of the appropriate checklists,
effective oversight and review of reports - is necessary. In
support of continuing efforts to improve inspection quality Head-
quarters is developing a variety of inspection guidance documents
and training programs. Additionally, during FY 1989 EPA will
perform oversight inspections at approximately 10% of the TSDF
inspections committed to in the State grant agreements and an
appropriate number of inspections at generators of land disposal
restricted wastes. These oversight inspections should be conducted
in accordance with the RCRA State Oversight Inspection Guide
(December, 1987) . ••
Evaluation of compliance with the base program, including
closure/post-closure and financial responsibility requirements
must continue. In addition, inspections must focus on compliance
with permits and orders, compliance with corrective action conditions
is of particular concern. During FY 1989 facilities with an on-going
corrective action should receive one additional inspection which will
focus on oversight of corrective action activities. Effective
tracking and oversight of owner/operator corrective action activity
at hazardous and solid waste management units under orders and
permits includes evaluation of corrective actions, RFI/CMSs and
interim measures to assure proper scope and adherence to schedules
of compliance.
In FY 1989, compliance with applicable land disposal restrictions
should be reviewed during all inspections. Land ban requirements
for waste identification and analysis, treatment and disposal,
operating records, and limitations on storage accumulation all
warrant particular attention. The possibility of illegal disposal
should also gKffbonsidered, and appropriate follow-up taken.
Enforcement Response
The program's approach to timely and appropriate enforcement is
set forth in the revised Enforcement Response Policy (ERP)(12/21/87).
Economic sanctions must be assessed against violators in accordance
with the ERP. The RCRA Penalty Policy or the appropriate State
penalty policy should be used to determine the appropriate dollar
value of the penalty. Sanctions should be selected in accordance
with State or Federal law, with the goal being to deter non-compliance.
Sanctions are to have a value greater than the economic savings
3.6
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
achieved by the non-compliance. States that do not have any
administrative means of taking a formal enforcement action and
imposing economic sanctions will need to address high priority
violators by taking prompt judicial action. While authorized
States are expected to take the enforcement actions, if unable
to do so, they may request that EPA take action, where justification
can be provided. Where a State enforcement action is not timely
or appropriate, EPA should consider Federal action, especially for
high priority violators which remain out of compliance.
At the end of FY 1988, many facilities will be subject to
enforcement actions. Where complaints have been issued, Regions
and States must move to finalize orders. Follow-up inspections
to ensure that compliance is achieved are important. Facilities
in substantial non-compliance with orders are presumed to be subject
to judicial actions and permit denial.
Priorities for enforcement actions are as follows:
1. Handlers with releases and threatened releases which
may present an immediate threat to health or environment
A number of enforcement tools are available to the Regions if
and States (e.g., RCRA §§3013, 3008(a), 3008(h), 7003, or State .';£-.
equivalent), depending on the circumstances. Where specific
criteria for use of the authority are met, use of these authorities
is encouraged. Consideration should also be given to the use of
CERCLA §104 or §106 response authorities, TSCA §7 authority, or
any other appropriate EPA or State authority.
&
2. Commercial facilities receiving CERCLA Wastes
Where necessary, in accordance with the Off-Site Policy,
priority attention should be given to compliance and corrective
actions needed to assist in maintaining CERCLA-acceptable treatment
and disposal capacity.
3. Land disposal facilities
Enforcement actions will be taken to address handlers who
continue to place hazardous waste in surface impoundments which do
not meet minimum technology requirements, in accordance with the
enforcement Jiiategy.
Appropriate actions are to be taken against operating
permitted and interim status facilities, as well as closing land
disposal facilities to assure proper closures, enforce corrective
action schedules, assure compliance with Final Orders and address
high priority violators. Continued compliance with ground water
monitoring requirements is essential to assure that releases to
ground water are detected. Violations of liability requirements
are to be addressed in accordance with applicable guidance.
3.7
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
4. Corrective action requirements
Regions, with appropriate assistance from States, must act
aggressively to achieve corrective action at TSD facilities, in
FY 1989, the emphasis is on the following:
(1) Substantial violations of corrective action requirements in a
permit or order;
(2) Use of enforcement authorities where necessary to obtain
corrective action at environmentally significant facilities,
consistent with available resources; and
(3) Compelling interim measures when warranted.
5. Land ban
Where TSDFs or generators are found to have substantial
violations of the land disposal restrictions, enforcement is a
high priority. Most of the inspections will be conducted by the
States under cooperative arrangement with EPA. States not
authorized to enforce the land disposal restrictions may issue
letters notifying owners/operators of violations. If formal action
is the appropriate response, EPA must enforce by issuing an order
or by preparing a referral. ..:
The most substantial violations are:
"For generators (including generating TSDs): shipping waste
exceeding treatment standards to land disposal facilities
without notifying about need for treatment.
°For treaters (who have inadequately treated Bastes): directing
waste exceeding treatment requirements to land disposal;
"For disposers; illegally disposing of wastes exceeding
treatment standards;
Other serious violations are the falsification of records and the
illegal dilution of waste by any handler.
6. Federal facilities
Authorized States will have the lead in enforcement for Federal
handlers. Hqaeyer, the Region must take action if a State declines
or is unable•«§£-take formal action against a high priority violator.
(See SectionSS^for a complete discussion of enforcement at Federal
facilities).
7. Criminal enforcement
The basic goals of an enforcement program are to encourage
compliance and to punish incidences of non-compliant behavior.
Because of the publicity and stigma attached to a criminal
conviction, criminal enforcement is a very effective tool.
Increased restrictions on the land disposal of hazardous waste
and increasing disposal costs create greater potential for
criminal activities. Criminal case development and prosecutions
are encouraged.
3.8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
8. Other important enforcement activities
Other significant violations at handlers should be addressed
as resources allow.
• The permit program should be supported by taking actions against
handlers submitting late or incomplete part B applications. Discretion
should be used in choosing between permit denial and enforcement.
0 The waste oil (hazardous waste in fuel) regulations should be
enforced, especially at waste oil processing facilities.
0 Enforcement support should be provided to biennial reporting data
collection efforts.
Relevant Guidance Documents
o Enforcement Response Policy
Revised, 12/87
o Revised Procedures for Planning and Implementing
Off-site Response Actions
o Operation and Maintenance Inspection Guide
(RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Systems)
o RCRA State Oversight Inspection Guide
o RCRA Inspection Manual
o RCRA Technical Case Development Guidance Document
o Inspection Manual for Hazardous Waste Storage
and Treatment Tank Systems
o RCRA Laboratory Audit Inspection (LAI)
o Land Ban Enforcement Strategy/Inspection Checklist
o Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Evaluation
(CME) Guidance Document
o Waste Oil luidance
o Waste Oil Interim Enforcement Guidance
o Enforcement of Financial Responsibility
at Operating TSDF's
11/87
3/88
12/87
4/88*
4/88*
4/88*
6/88*
6/88*
12/86
12/86
11/86
10/86
* scheduled date
3.9
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Section 4
Corrective Action
Program Objective
( \
The RCRA corrective action program monitors activities of
owners and operators initiated through permit actions and enforcement
orders to correct releases. More facilities will begin corrective
actions in fiscal 1989 through permits and enforcement orders,
including unilateral orders. A new initiative is being implemented
to facilitate corrective action at RCRA sites which might not
otherwise be expeditiously addressed.
Relation to 1988 RIP
Adds discussion on the Environmental Priorities Initiative;
The FY 1989 RIP discusses priorities for applying limited
resources to address corrective action needs; '£•'..
Environmental Priorities Initiative ?
Section 1 states that addressing environmentally significant
facilities is one of the highest RCRA priorities for FY 1989.
For many of these facilities, corrective action will be needed,
whether through an enforcement action or an operating or post-
closure permit. Section 1 also discusses a genera^ approach
for determining which facilities are environmentaily significant
and which mechanism to use in addressing the environmental problems.
Regions and States have already undertaken considerable
efforts to set priorities for corrective action, including developing
facility management plans, multi-year permit strategies and using
other information gathering and ranking schemes. Previous years'
RIPs set a goal of completing RCRA Facility Assessments (RFAs)
at 60% of closing land disposal facilities; where these have been
completed, Regions and States have a firm basis for making corrective
action priority decisions. A new initiative is underway that will
further assilp|priority setting for corrective action as well as
expand the ugplpf CERCLA authorities at RCRA corrective action sites.
The Environmental Priorities Initiative (EPI) is a new approach
to managing environmental problems, particularly at RCRA facilities.
As an integrated RCRA/CERCLA management system EPI will enable the
Agency and the States to identify, evaluate, prioritize, and clean-up
first, those sites which present or may present the greatest threat
to human health or the environment. The Initiative will enable
the Agency to address facilities, such as storage and treatment
facilities and closing land disposal facilities, which would not
otherwise soon be addressed under current Agency priorities.
4.1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
The EPI will:
1. Provide a streamlined, priority-setting mechanism for
storage and treatment facilities and closing land disposal facilities
to determine at which facilities an assessment should be performed,
and in which fiscal year.
2. Enable the Agency to conduct Preliminary Assessments
("PAs"), the CERCLA counterpart to a portion of the RCRA Facility
Assessment (RFA), at RCRA storage and treatment and closing land
disposal facilities which are not on a near term permitting path.
Information from the PA would help estimate the environmental
significance of the facility; this would include a preliminary
score based on CERCLA's Hazard Ranking System ("HRS"). Sites
which receive a high enough preliminary score will receive Sl/RFA's.
The SI/RFA will comprise key elements of a Superfund SI and a RFA
under RCRA. Once performed, the SI/RFA will provide a basis for
permitting or enforcement action.
3. Provide a scheme to be used by State and Regional management
to determine which sites will be handled by RCRA and which sites .:
should remain with CERCLA. ';••;
4. Provide a process by which the Regions and States can
determine an appropriate enforcement strategy for a site using
authorities available under RCRA and/or CERCLA to assure that a
site is cleaned up. Initially authorities under RCRA would be
used, but if an owner/operator is unwilling or unable, EPI would
allow the flexibility to use CERCLA authorities/procedures to
assure cleanup in accordance with the Agency's policy on the NPL
listing of RCRA sites.
There are many issues to be worked out regarding the EPI.
The EPI Task Force, composed of Regional and Headquarters staff
from both the RCRA and CERCLA programs, has been established to
facilitate resolving the difficulties of making the RCRA and CERCLA
clean-up programs more compatible so that the most effective use
of available resources and authorities may occur. During FY 1989
CERCLA Preliminary Assessments will be conducted at approximately .
1,000 RCRA l:§nd disposal, treatment and storage facilities which
have not yetjEpceived RFA's, to assist in further defining the
priority lisf^f facilities for CERCLA and RCRA corrective action.
4.2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Corrective Action Regulations
During FY 1989, final regulations for the RCRA corrective
action program will be promulgated. When proposed, these regulations
should be considered to be the latest guidance for implementing
corrective actions under RCRA and utilized in developing corrective
actions in permits and enforcement orders. The corrective action
regulations will define EPA's overall approach to the cleanup of
environmental contamination resulting from the mismanagement of
hazardous and solid waste. The regulations will establish a
regulatory framework for corrective action under §3004(u) of RCRA
and provide guidelines for corrective action orders imposed through
administrative orders under §3008(h) of RCRA. One of the Agency's
primary objectives in developing the RCRA corrective action program
will be to maintain consistency with CERCLA, while meeting the
specific needs and objectives of RCRA.
. As noted above these regulations will implement §3004(u),
which addresses corrective action at facilities seeking permits.
Typically, before a permit is issued, EPA or an authorized State
conducts an RFA at the facility to determine whether a potential
problem exists. Where a likely release is found, the permit will
contain a schedule of compliance requiring a remedial investigation
focusing on the specifics of the likely release. This schedule of
compliance will be a part of the permit, and would be successively
modified, as necessary, as corrective action at the facility proceeds.
The Agency's first priority will be to require interim
measures to address sites posing an immediate threat to human health
or the environment, and to pursue engineering remedies to control and
eliminate significant sources of releases. In adddirtion, prompt
remediation of all significant off-site contamination will be required.
Corrective action activities may be conducted during interim
status, permitting, and closure stages. Numerous Federal authorities
may be employed to initiate corrective action activities, including
RCRA §§3004(u) and (v), and 3008(h), 3013, 7003 and 3008(a), and
CERCLA authorities consistent with Agency guidance. Use of equivalent
State authorities is also encouraged where applicable.
Section 3004(u) should be used to incorporate corrective action
for releases from SWMUs and regulated units into the permit when the
permit issuanc^ is to be accomplished in the near future. In some
situations §§jnp)8(h), 7003 or CERCLA §106 may be more appropriate to
initiate corrKtsdve action. For instance, 3008 (h) should be used
where the permit issuance will not occur expeditiously. When a
permit is subsequently issued at the facility the response activities
may be continued under the permit, using §3005(c)(3) authority.
RCRA §7003 and CERCLA §106 may be used whenever a hazardous or solid
waste or hazardous substance (such as a product release) presents an
imminent and substantial endangerment.
4.3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Corrective Action Oversight
Many RCRA facilities are already carrying out various
phases of corrective action. Oversight of owner/operator
activities stipulated in permits and enforcement orders must
continue. The Regions will continue to work with facilities
to move them forward in completing RCRA Facility Investigations
and Corrective Measures Studies so that Corrective Measures
may be implemented.
The monitoring of corrective action activities must be
included as part of all compliance evaluations. During FY 1989
each facility with an on-going corrective action should receive
one additional inspection, notwithstanding other inspection
requirements at the facility. This inspection will focus on the
oversight of owner/operator corrective action activities.
Compliance with schedules of compliance for corrective action in
permits and with the terms of corrective action orders will be
evaluated. This inspection will supplement other corrective action
oversight activities.
Corrective Action at Federal Facilities v
See Federal Facilities Section 5 - "SARA §120/RCRA corrective Action"
Relevant Guidance Documents
o RCRA §3008(h) Model Order; January 1988.
^
o Guidance on the Use of Stipulated Penalties in Hazardous Waste
Consent Decrees; September 1987.
o Administrative Hearing Procedures for §3008(h) Orders;
February 1987.
o Guidance for Public Involvement in RCRA §3008(h) Orders; May 1987.
o National Corrective Action Strategy; October 1986.
o RCRA Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Guidance Document;
Interim Figgl*, November 1986.
o RCRA §3008
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Section 5
FEDERAL FACILITY/ISSUES
Program Objective
The objective of EPA's RCRA work with Federal facilities
is to ensure that they afford the same degree of environmental
protection as is required of other hazardous waste handlers.
In FY 1989, we will concentrate on: 1) ensuring that timely and
appropriate enforcement actions are taken to achieve compliance
and expeditious cleanup at Federal facilities; 2) integrating the
RCRA and CERCLA corrective/remedial action programs at Federal
facilities; and, 3) incorporating the DOE-NRC mixed waste
facilities into the RCRA program.
Relation to FY 1988 RIP
o Adds discussion on the Federal Facilities Task Force;
o Retains other discussion items of FY 1988 RIP.
Federal Facility Compliance Task Force
In 1987, the Assistant Administrator of OSWER established the
Federal Facility Compliance Task Force in the Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement. The Task Force is dedicatedcsto resolving
the complex issues that are posed by the integration of the RCRA
and CERCLA cleanup programs at Federal facilities and the
implementation of CERCLA Section 120 at Federal facilities.
In FY 1989, the Task Force will focus on three main areas of
implementation: 1) the update of the Federal Agency Hazardous
Waste Compliance Docket as mandated by CERCLA Section 120; 2) the
development of procedures, policies, and guidance under RCRA
and CERCLA to support the implementation of a nationally
consistent enforcement program at Federal facilities; and,
3) case-specific support of interagency agreements under CERCLA
Section 120, RCJRA corrective action orders, and RCRA compliance
agreements.
Section 120 of CERCIA/RCRA Corrective Action
In accordance with Section 120(c) of CERCLA, as amended by
SARA, the initial list of those facilities included on the
Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket was published in
the Federal Register on February 12, 1988. This listing will be
updated every six months as new facilities are reported to EPA by
Federal agencies.
5.1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Section 120 established the docket as a means of identifying
Federal facilities for potential NPL listing. Since many of the
Federal facilities on the docket were identified by RCRA
reporting mechanisms, most of the Federal facilities that become
final NPL sites also will have RCRA jurisdiction. When
developing a comprehensive strategy for addressing both RCRA and
CERCLA issues at a Federal facility, EPA and the States are to
consider the following options, alone or in combination, as
possible mechanisms for getting enforceable requirements in
place: 1) a RCRA permit containing corrective action
provisions; 2) a RCRA corrective action order under Section
3008 (h); 3) a CERCLA Section 106 order; or, 4) a CERCLA
Section 120 interagency agreement. The decision on which of
the above mechanisms to use at a Federal facility will be made
on a facility-specific basis. However, if the Federal facility
is on the NPL, or is likely to be placed on the NPL, Headquarters
is encouraging the use of a CERCLA Section 120 interagency
agreement to incorporate both RCRA and CERCLA activities under
one enforceable agreement. Guidance on the integration of CERCLA
Section 120 interagency agreements and RCRA permits incorporating 4i:
HSWA corrective action will be developed by the Task Force during •<*
FY 1989.
The enforcement/permitting mechanisms listed above are
described in greater detail in a memorandum from Dr. J. Winston
Porter to the Regional Administrators, dated January 25, 1988,
"Enforcement Actions Under RCRA and CERCLA At Federal
Facilities". Further guidance on agreements undei^CERCLA
Section 120 is being developed and will be made available to the
Regions as soon as possible. In the interim, the Regions should
consult with the Federal Facility Compliance Task Force on any
interagency agreement issues they encounter.
POD Chemical Demilitarization Facilities
Cooperation with the Army to issue permits for incineration
of chemical agent munition stockpiles is expected to continue in
FY 1989. The RCRA permit for the Tooele, Utah, chemical agent
incinerator, .scheduled to be issued by early FY 1989, will be
a model for r permits issued for other sites.
POD Installation Restoration Proram (IRP)
DOD developed the IRP to identify and clean up hazardous
waste sites. Under the IRP, DOD prepares studies and generates
data that can assist the permitting agency in drafting RCRA
permits. The Regions and States should incorporate the IRP
5.2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
process into the permit development process by reviewing the
results of each phase of the IRP process. When necessary, the
scope of the IRP should be expanded to include all solid waste
management units at a facility. For further information, see
memorandum from Marcia E. Williams to Regional Division
Directors, dated December 8, 1986, "The Department of Defense
Installation Restoration Program".
DOE-NRC Mixed Waste
Regions and States are to continue to address mixed waste
handlers under the RCRA hazardous waste program based on the
environmental benefits expected be achieved. Under the Federal
program, all RCRA requirements are applicable to mixed waste v
handlers. Until a State with final authorization is authorized
for radioactive mixed waste, handlers of such waste are not
subject to pre-HSWA regulation. Therefore, those authorized
States that have DOE facilities or NRC licensees are urged to
apply for mixed waste authorization as soon as possible. See
memorandum from J. Winston Porter dated October 20, 1986
"State Authorization to Regulate Hazardous Components of
Radioactive Mixed Wastes".
EPA will publish a notice which clarifies the availability of
interim status for owners and operators of TSDF's in unauthorized
States. The notice will indicate that owners and operators first
subject to Subtitle C permitting requirements because of their
handling of mixed waste have six months from the date of
publication of the notice to submit Part A permit applications in
order to qualify for interim status. Conversely, facilities
treating, storing, or disposing of radioactive mixed waste in
authorized States are not subject to RCRA until the State revises
its existing hazardous waste program to include authority to
regulate mixed waste.
However, it should be noted that prior to authorization,
States may have State regulatory authority over radioactive mixed
waste. States are encouraged to apply existing authorities,
including enforcement authorities, prior to authorization.
Regions apostates should be cognizant of the magnitude of
the potential' universe of mixed waste handlers as they implement
the RCRA program. For example, there are 26,000 Nuclear
Regulatory Commission licensees, each of which could be subject
to various aspects of the RCRA program. This situation is under-
scored when one considers the implications of the absence of a
permitted mixed waste disposal facility. Each generator that
5.3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
might ordinarily be exempt from RCRA permitting requirements will
need to obtain a permit for mixed waste stored in excess of
90 days. States and Regions should work with the appropriate
nuclear regulatory agency (i.e., Federal or State) to ensure that
compliance with RCRA regulations does not create a bottleneck for
radioactive waste management. To this end, each Region and State
should make a concerted effort to permit at least one mixed waste
storage facility in FY 1989, with attention focussed on
commercial facilities.
A-106 Process
Every year Federal agencies develop draft A-106 reports which
show the requested funding levels for the agencies' proposed
pollution abatement projects. EPA Headquarters distributes these
draft reports to the Regional Offices in January for comment on
whether the identified funding levels are sufficient to support
required activities. If possible, State review and comment also
is appropriate. EPA Headquarters uses these comments in
preparing a report to OMB, a draft of which is distributed to the
Regional Offices in July for comment. OMB uses EPA's comments
when recommending funding levels for pollution abatement
projects. The Regions' comments are to be based on information
available from permit and inspection files, inspection reports,
RFA's, etc.
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
The enforcement priorities in Section 3 apply to Federal
facilities. Authorized States have the lead on enforcement for
hazardous waste handlers, including Federal handlers. However,
the Region must take enforcement action where the State fails to
do so, especially for High Priority Violators. As described in
the Enforcement Response Policy, EPA will issue a Notice of
Noncompliance which is similar to a RCRA Section 3008(a)
complaint in format and content as the initial action at a
Federal facility that is in significant noncompliance. EPA then
will negotiate a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement with the
Federal agency to formalize a schedule for returning the facility
to compliances^ Each Federal Facility Compliance Agreement should
contain a claffijje stating that the provisions of the agreement are
enforceable tHrbugh the citizen suit provision of RCRA Section
7002.
The Regions also should consider the issuance of a formal
action with penalties to the contract operator of a government-
owned facility (GOCOs) as a means for returning the facility to
5.4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
compliance. GOCOs are not shielded from enforcement actions
for noncompliance with environmental laws. Issuance of a
press statement regarding non-compliance at Federal facilities
and the associated enforcement response is encouraged where
appropriate.
Certain information contained in inspection reports may not
be subject to release due to national security requirements.
These reports should be reviewed prior to release by the
appropriate security officials of the Federal agency involved.
This review should not delay enforcement action.
List of Applicable Guidances
o Joint EPA/NRC Guidance on the Definition and Identification of
Commercial Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste,
OSWER Directive #9432.00-2, January 8, 1987; will be updated
during FY 1988 based on comments received.
o Joint EPA/NRC Siting Guidance for Disposal of Mixed Low-Level
Radioactive and Hazardous Waste, March 13, 1987.
o State Program Advisory No. 2, RCRA Authorization to Regulate
Mixed Wastes, July 30, 1987.
o Joint EPA/NRC Guidance on a Conceptual Design Approach for
Commercial Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste
Disposal Facilities, OSWER Directive #9487.00-8,'August 3,
1987.
o Enforcement Response Policy, December 21, 1987.
o Enforcement Actions Under RCRA and CERCLA at Federal
Facilities, signed by J. Winston Porter on January 25, 1988.
o Preamble to the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance
Docket and Listing, 53 Federal Register 4280, February 12,
1988.
o EPA/NRC JoiffplPermitting/Licensing Guidance, August 1988*.
Scheduled date.
5.5
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Section 6
CROSS-MEDIA AND PROGRAM ISSUES/PRIORITIES/COORDINATION
Objective
The RCRA Program acknowledges that environmental programs
should not shift risks from one environmental media to another.
We must ensure that RCRA activities use all available tools to
focus on overall reduction of environmental risks. RCRA
activities particularly have an impact on, and need to be coordi-
nated with, EPA's air, water, and CERCLA programs.
Relation to FY 1988 RIP
o Adds discussion on Subtitle D;
o Adds discussion on waste minimization;
o Adds discussion on Toxic Chemical Release Inventory;
o Adds discussion on RCRA programs on Indian lands.
Subtitle D
New Subtitle D criteria for municipal solid waste landfills
will be proposed on during FY 1988. The proposed criteria
are expected to be finalized during FY 1989. Not &ater than
eighteen months after the final promulgation date of the revised
criteria, States are to have in place a permit program or other
system of prior approval and conditions to implement these
criteria. The Regions are to support the State's efforts to meet
this deadline through technical assistance. EPA is to determine
the adequacy of each State's program. A Subtitle D Interim
Implementation Strategy, based on the proposed criteria, will be
distributed by October 1988 and will include specific activities
for Regions and States to complete during FY 1989.
CERCLA/RCRA Integration
With the IJEraactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amend-
ments of 1984^ (HSWA) and the Superfund Amendments and Re-
Authorization Act of 1986 (SARA), the objectives, authorities,
and responsibilities of the RCRA and CERCLA programs are drawing
closer together. There will be a greater emphasis on activities
to integrate and coordinate the two programs to ensure effective,
non-duplicative, and coordinated implementation. Some activities
6.1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
that reflect mutual program needs include inspection and enforce-
ment activities at RCRA facilities that receive CERCLA wastes and
permitting activities at facilities that offer an alternative to
land disposal, helping ensure adequate capacity for wastes
generated by CERCLA actions. Specific coordination activities,
including the Environmental Priorities Initiative, are discussed
in the national priorities, permitting/closure, corrective
action, compliance monitoring and enforcement, and Federal
facilities sections of this document.
I
In addition, effective integration will include sharing
expertise and experience as the programs' work increasingly over-
laps. One area where support is needed is in applying RCRA
requirements to CERCLA cleanups. SARA requires that final
remedies comply with applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements (ARARs); RCRA often will provide ARARs for CERCLA
sites. The RCRA program will need to provide assistance to the
CERCLA program in identifying and determining compliance with
RCRA requirements at Superfund sites.
Section 104(k) SARA requires States to provide satisfactory
assurances to EPA that they have sufficient treatment and
disposal capacity for all hazardous waste expected to be
generated within their borders for the next twenty years. States
must provide appropriate assurances by October 1989. EPA has
•issued a grant to the National Governors' Association to develop
State recommendations, which are due the fall of 1988, as the
basis for issuing Agency guidance. EPA Regions currently are
devising strategies for aiding States in providing' assurances in
response to EPA guidance. Specific activities in this area are
listed in the Agency's Operating Guidances for FY 1989.
Water Discharges at TSDF'S
Continued attention should be paid to coordinating RCRA
permitting, corrective action, and enforcement activities with
water program activities, especially for POTW's treating
hazardous wastes. To the extent possible, RCRA ground water and
corrective action activities should be consistent with both
Federal and State water program requirements and aquifer
classif icaticfinsystems.
6.2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Waste Minimization
The 1984 HSWA amendments to RCRA support waste minimization
as a national goal by stating: "wherever feasible, the
generation of hazardous waste is to be reduced or eliminated as
expeditiously as possible". To implement this national policy on
waste minimization, EPA is developing a policy and implementation
plan that:
o defines waste minimization as source reduction and
recycling; and,
o includes a multi-media strategy which begins with
hazardous waste and identifies opportunities to
incorporate source reduction, recycling, and other
pollution prevention concepts.
Regional and State waste management programs, and facility-
wide management programs for generators, should address
pollution reduction across all environmental media, including
air, water, land, and ground-water resources. Source reduction
and recycling efforts also should focus on the transfer of toxic
substances across environmental media.
In FY 1989, Regions are to actively promote the national
waste minimization policy and program by:
o helping States to develop and implement wasbe£
minimization programs (see Section 8 on State
grants for waste minimization);
o assisting, as necessary, in the collection of needed
data on hazardous waste generation and management
trends to monitor and evaluate national progress;
o developing a network among the appropriate Regional
and State program offices to promote a multi-media,
integrated approach to waste minimization;
o providilufc outreach and education to, and communicating
with, Ijpaustry, States, and the general public;
o committing resources to waste minimization activities
in budgeting and planning processes; and,
o processing permit modifications which support waste
minimization.
6.3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
Under Title III of SARA, annual Toxic Chemical Release
Reports (TCRR) must be submitted on or before July 1 (e.g., the
report for calendar year 1987 must be submitted on or before
July 1, 1988). A complete TCRR must be submitted for each
toxic chemical manufactured, processed, or otherwise used at each
covered facility (see 40 CFR Part 372). Data from the TCRR
include releases to air, water and land; transfers to off-site
facilities; treatment methods and efficiencies; uses of
chemicals; quantities stored; and facility identification
elements. The data from the TCRR will be computerized, and EPA
Headquarters will complete initial data screens and reviews.
Processed information will be provided to Regions for follow-up
(i.e., TCRR information may assist in identifying non-notifiers
and illegal disposers). Specific guidance will be developed and
distributed during FY 1989. Information from the TCRR may be
helpful to Regions and States in establishing priorities.
Indian Lands
In accordance with the 1984 EPA Indian Policy and the
revised Strategy for Implementation of the EPA Indian Policy
(1987), the Regions are expected to undertake active outreach
and liaison with tribes. Relationships with states and tribal
governments, similar to those established by Region V with the
Menominee tribe and by Region VIII with three affiliated tribes
at Fort Berthold, are strongly encouraged. In FY i989, EPA will
be working with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Indian
Health Service to develop a Memorandum of Understanding that will
identify the respective Agencies' roles in implementing all media
programs on Indian lands.
6.4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Section 7
STATE AUTHORIZATION AND OVERSIGHT
Program Objectives
The goals of State authorization and oversight are twofold:
(1) to strengthen the Federal/State partnership; and, (2) to
enhance implementation of RCRA programs to ensure effective
protection of human health and the environment.
Relationship to FY 1988 RIP
o Continued emphasis on codifying changes to approved State
programs;
o Continued emphasis on assessing and enhancing State
capability to ensure expeditious processing of HSWA
authorization applications;
o Continued emphasis on maintaining State program consistency
with the Federal standards, including HSWA.
Maintaining Equivalency/Consistency
Under Section 271.21(a), any proposed modifications to an
authorized State's basic statutory or regulatory authority,
or its forms, procedures, or priorities, are to be'sent to EPA.
Whenever the proposed revisions raise questions about the equiva-
lency and consistency of the State program, the Region must work
with the State and Headquarters to address the identified issues.
Of particular concern are State restrictions on siting of new
facilities and on interstate movement of waste. These restrictions
raise concerns about whether the State program meets the
consistency requirements of Section 271.4.
An EPA Task Force on National Review of Hazardous Waste
Consistency and Capacity Issues is examining the issues surrounding
these types oJpjState restrictions. The Task Force plans to
recommend polKfc options to the Administrator later this spring.
Once a decisiw^is made on how the Agency will address State
authorization and consistency, we will inform the Regions.
7.1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Developing State Authorities
Authorized States should develop the legal authorities
necessary to revise their programs consistent with the deadlines
in the final State authorization Codification Rule (51 FR 33712,
September 22, 1986). Upcoming deadlines are:
State Application
Modification Submittal
Cluster Cluster Period Deadline Deadlines
HSWA Cluster I 11/8/84 - 6/30/87 7/1/89 9/1/89
HSWA Cluster II 7/1/87 - 6/30/90 7/1/91 9/1/91
Non-HSWA rules 7/1/87 - 6/30/88 7/l'/89 9/1/89
States are not precluded from applying for authorization before
cluster deadlines. Extensions are available if a State demonstrates
that it has made a good faith effort and that its legislative or i?T.
rulemaking procedures render the State unable to meet the deadlines;
The schedules for review and decisions on State applications are -,-
found on pages 1.4-8 (draft applications) and 1.4-10 - 1.4-11
(official applications) of the State Consolidated RCRA Authorization
Manual (SCRAM).
Each grant work program should include development of necessary
statutory and regulatory authorities, development <@fc the State's
authorization applications, and the State's schedule for submitting
progam revision applications. It will be the Region's responsibility
during the year to: track the states' progress in meeting the
deadlines, grant extensions to the deadlines if appropriate, and
negotiate compliance schedules for those States who are unable to meet
the deadlines. After grant negotiations are completed, the Regions are
to submit to the Chief, State Programs Branch, OSW, each State's
schedule for modifying its program to maintain equivalency. This
schedule will aid the Regions and Headquarters in planning resource
needs for timely application review and approval.
States aSptare encouraged to develop State regulations
consistent wjBk new Federal regulations designed to provide capacity,
promote innovative techniques, and generally streamline the program.
This includes regulations addressing mobile treatment units, RO&D
permits, and the proposed revisions to the permit modification
process. States are not precluded from developing regulations that
are more stringent than Federal regulations.
7.2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Codifying Approved State Programs
Codifying changes in approved State programs in Part 272 is a
continuing effort for FY 1989. Codification clarifies for the public
and regulated community those State hazardous waste program requirements
EPA has approved and will enforce in lieu of the Federal requirements.
The Regions must codify revisions to State programs at the same time such
revisions are approved. The Part 272 process is discussed in detail in
Chapter 1.6 (pp.1-4) of the SCRAM.
Developing and Assessing State Programs
EPA must review the States' progress in implementing quality RCRA
programs and work with the States to enhance their capability to
implement additional program elements prior to making authorization
decisions for HSWA requirements. To complete this review, the
Regions should consider grant commitments, as well as the RCRA
Quality Criteria, and should follow the guidelines established in a
memorandum from J. Winston Porter to the Regional Administrators,
dated April 8, 1987, OSWER Directive #9540.00-8, "Capability
Assessments for RCRA Authorization Program Revisions".
Ongoing, comprehensive evaluations of State RCRA programs
are an integral component of the Regions' oversight responsibilities.
These reviews are to determine where a State may need additional
assistance, such as training, and to identify highlights of a State's
program that may be useful to other States. The Regions are strongly
encouraged to use the following documents in reviewing State programs
and their progress against grant work programs and Memoranda of
Agreement commitments: $£
o RCRA quality criteria (revised July 1986);
o Protocols for evaluating permit quality and
closure/post-closure plans (August 1986); and
o Enforcement Response Policy (December 21, 1987).
The Region should determine the frequency and method of review
based on the State's capability and need for assistance. States
should receive^.at least one comprehensive, on-site review during
each fiscal y|g||«
Oversight^fnspections provide opportunities to evaluate State
inspection programs and can include joint inspections and/or
independent EPA inspections. During FY 1989, EPA will perform
oversight inspections at approximately 10% of the TSDF inspections
committed to in State grant agreements and an appropriate number of
inspections at generators of land disposal restricted waste. In
addition, regular reviews of inspection reports should be conducted
as part of the grant oversight process.
7.3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
A copy of each final review report should be'sent to the Chief,
State Programs Branch, OSW.
Training
State training activities are eligible for funding under RCRA
Section 3011 grants. States are strongly encouraged to use their
grant funds to provide management and staff training in permitting,
enforcement, and corrective action activities. It is recommended
that up to 5 percent of each State grant be earmarked for training
activities. The RCRA Implementation Contract and TES III and IV also
may be used to provide training, either with Regional contract
resources or with reprogrammed State grant funds. If a State plans 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.
In 1986, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials (ASTSWMO) initiated a Technology Transfer .!::
and Training Program as part of the State Program Enhancement |'
efforts of the Office of Solid Waste (OSW) and ASTSWMO. The goal;?:
of this program is to assist the States to develop a self- |"
sufficient training capability by building a cadre of State staff
to assist in training new personnel. To further-this goal, in
FY 1989, OSW and OWPE again will provide funding to ASTSWMO for
the development of an entry-level RCRA permit writers training
course. ASTSWMO will work with the University of Michigan to
ensure effective course presentation. The course '1£s scheduled
for February 1989.
In FY 1989, a special Congressional appropriation will fund
the development and implementation of State training programs
through the RCRA Integrated Training and Technical Assistance
project (RITTA). The goal of this program is to improve
hazardous waste management by building a highly skilled work
force at the State agency level and ultimately extending that
knowledge and expertise to the industrial sector and the general
public through outreach and technical assistance programs.
Grants will bj»|awarded to states to plan, develop, and institu-
tionalize an«f|iitegrated training and technical assistance
program und« """
7.4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Streamlining the Authorization Process
EPA has received several suggestions on how to streamline the
authorization process to make it more efficient and to strengthen
the Federal/State relationship. These suggestions include more
liberal use of interim authorization, partial authorization,
providing incentive for verbatim adoption of Federal rules, and
changes to the review process, among others.
While any changes made must continue to support the statutory
mandates of health and environmental protection, as well as
equivalency and consistency, we intend to pursue these
suggestions and develop options for implementing feasible
alternatives to the present system. This effort will succeed
only with substantial Regional and State input.
7.5
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Section 8
STATE GRANTS AND WORK PROGRAMS
This section specifies the formula for determining FY 1989
grant allocations and addresses how the money will be disbursed
by Regional Administrators and how it may be used to implement
State RCRA programs.
Relation to FY 1988 RIP
o Continues Regional allotments;
o Grant formula remains unchanged for FY 1989.
Grant Formula
For FY 1989, the grant formula remains unchanged. However,
the number of treatment, storage, and disposal facilities has
been updated, using HWDMS data as of March 14, 1988. Population
figures have been updated using the latest census data.
Grant Allotments
Regional grant allotments are,provided in Attachment A.
This Regional allotment disbursement procedure is t^'eant to
provide maximum flexibility to the Regional Administrators to
fund activities which reflect national goals, individual State
workloads, and special Regional and State RCRA initiatives. While
Regional Administrators have the discretion to set grant amounts,
it is suggested that a State grant not be decreased by more than
5% or increased by more than 12% from the FY 1988 State grant amount
It also is recommended that the Region negotiate proposed grant
activities with each State before State-specific allotments are
determined to ensure adequate and fair funding levels. State
grants will continue to require a 25 percent match.
8.1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Grant Work Programs
FY 1989 grants must be performance based. (For a detailed
discussion on performance-based grants, see EPA's "Policy on
Performance-Based Assistance", May 31, 1985.) This approach
provides for a consistent nation-wide method for managing and
evaluating State RCRA programs. All grant work programs must:
o contain quarterly commitments;
o provide for adjustment in activities, commitments
and funding (a "reopener" clause) if certain situations
(e.g., reversion of program, significant decrease in
State funds, additional commitments) arise.
This work program also should address, when appropriate:
o instances where a State did not meet its FY 1988
commitments or was administering its program in a
deficient manner and where the remedies that will be
undertaken to improve performance/correct deficiencies
extend into FY 1989;
o special grant conditions (e.g., disbursement of
funds other than annually).
If a State relies heavily on the State Attorney General or
other law offices in order to take enforcement actons, funding
should be provided. The Attorney General 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 Attorney General 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
circumstances that may affect the Attorney General's ability to
file within 60 days (Enforcement Response Policy, December 21, 1987)
As required b^f EPA grant regulations, the lead State agency is
considered responsible for grant management, even though funds
have been paifpid through to the Attorney General's office.- , -
The Regional Administrator may reprogram funds not awarded to
any State 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)
8.2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
program). Note, however, that State monies only-can be used to
support the implementation of state hazardous waste programs.
Section 3011 grant funds cannot be used to implement CERCLA or
UST program activities.
Copies of each State's grant work program should be sent to
the Chief, State Programs Branch, OSW, upon execution of the grant
award document by the Region.
Waste Minimization
While Section 3011 grants focus on hazardous waste management,
there also should be an effort to promote reduction and recycling
activities. Increased emphasis on reducing or eliminating the
generation of hazardous waste is needed to implement national
policy on waste minimization established in HSWA. For example,
specific waste minimization activities, such as technology
transfer, are fundable under Section 3011 grants.
In addition, in FY 1987 and FY 1988, Congress appropriated
grant funds specifically for waste minimization activities. Thes<
grants are in addition to Section 3011 grant funds. In FY 1987,
$3 million was appropriated to provide funding to a limited number
of States to develop hazardous waste training projects targeted to
waste minimization in support of the State's RCRA program. In
FY 1988, additional funds were appropriated to provide incentive
grants to States to establish and expand waste reduction technical
assistance programs. EPA will make $3 million available for this
purpose. Specific guidance (including statutory authority,
management approach, and eligible activities) for each of these
grants will be distributed to the Regions.
8.3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Section 9
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT
Reporting Objectives
The objectives of the RCRA reporting requirements are to
obtain information necessary to: 1) effectively manage the RCRA
program at the State, Regional and national levels; and, 2) to
demonstrate the effectivenes of the RCRA program in protecting
human health and the environment.
Relation to FY 1988 RIP
o Gives greater detail on RCRIS implementation;
o Adds a discussion of the 1989 Biennial Report;
o Adds a discussion on the Risk - Based SPMS Project;
o Adds targetting and reporting requirements for OWPE
corrective action SPMS measures;
o Adds new reporting requirements for tracking enforcement
and compliance monitoring actions at environmentally
significant facilities under the Environmental Priorities
Initiative system;
o Redefines Significant Non-Compliance to be equivalent to
High Priority Violator TSDFs; generator HPVs due to
land ban violations are reported in SPMS.
Reporting Requirements
EPA Regions and States will use two information systems in
FY 1989 as we move from HWDMS to RCRIS. Regions and States will
enter all required reporting data into HWDMS until they have
converted to RCRIS. Upon the implementation of RCRIS, Regions
and States will use RCRIS forms for data collection and the RCRIS
system for all data entry. The scope of RCRIS reporting
requirement*-will be no greater than their HWDMS counterparts.
The RCRIS reporting forms will be finalized before the beginning
of FY 1989. Parallel operation of HWDMS and RCRIS is expected to
continue for approximately two months in each Region and its
associated States. While HWDMS is still operational, States that
enter data directly into the HWDMS should comply with their
State/Regional agreement regarding submittal of hard copy
reports.
9.1
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
States that do not enter data directly into HWDMS or RCRIS
must submit required reporting information to EPA by the 20th
calendar day of the month following the reporting period (e.g.,
reporting information for April is submitted by May 20). The
Regions then have until the seventh working day of the next
month to enter this State-submitted data (e.g., reporting
information for April is submitted by May 20 and entered by the
Region by June 9). Data for direct entry States and Regions must
be entered by the seventh working day of the month following the
reporting period (e.g., data for April must be entered by May 10).
To ensure that progress is made in attaining compliance
goals, States must submit to the Regions copies of all land
disposal facility inspection reports (CMEs, CEIs) and other
reports deemed necessary by the Region. State administrative
complaints and orders taken against HPVs, as well as judgments,
must be submitted. This requirement will help ensure that
Regional files are sufficient to determine a facility's
compliance status and to track related State actions. To ensure
complete State files, the Region also should provide the State
with similar information.
Similarly, to enable EPA to enforce HSWA requirements where
States have done the inspections, States must submit reports of
inspections resulting in determination of significant violations
of corrective action requirements in permits or orders,
significant violations of land ban requirements, and reports on
surface impoundment retrofits.
Regions must submit copies of Regional adminstrative
complaints, initial orders, and final orders to the Director,
RCRA Enforcement Division, OWPE.
Biennial Report Requirements
Biennial reporting implementation requirements for Regions and
States span a two-year cycle. Throughout this two-year cycle,
authorized States are responsible for program implementer
activities. EPA Regional Offices are responsible for program
implementer activities in unauthorized states, unless such
responsibilities are delegated to states through Cooperative
Agreements. EPA Regions also are responsible for program oversight
activities where States are program implementers.
9.2
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
During FY 1988, program implementers obtained 1987
calendar year data from regulated generators and treatment,
storage, and disposal (TSD) facilities through biennial or
annual reports or other data collection mechanisms. As
specified in the FY 1988 RIP, implementers are responsible
for ensuring that reported data are accurate and complete, for
ensuring that reguired reports are submitted on a timely basis,
and for submitting State Biennial Program Reports to oversight
by September 30, 1988.
Deadlines for generators and TSD facilities to submit 1987
biennial reports were extended at OMB's reguest from March 1,
1988, to May 1, 1988, with case-by-case extensions to July 1,
1988, granted upon written reguest. Accordingly, OSW is
extending the deadline for submission of 1987 State Biennial
Program Reports from September 30, 1988, to November 30, 1988.
During FY 1989, program implementers are responsible for
completing their validation of data reported by generators and
TSD facilities and submitting 1987 State Biennial Program Reports
to oversight by November 30, 1988. OSW will provide guidance for
preparing 1987 State Biennial Program Reports by April 30, 1988.
The guidance will identify the specific data to be transmitted
from implementers to oversight and will provide specifications
for both automated and hard copy data transfers. OSW also will
provide software for implementers to use in processing EPA's
revised 1987 reporting forms. This PC-based Biennial Report
Data System (BIRDS) will be distributed in three phases: Data
Entry (June 16, 1988); Data Validation (August 15, 1988); and
Retrieval/Reporting (September 15, 1988). OSW will provide
training for implementers in using BIRDS during June and July
1988.
Oversight responsibilities during FY 1989 include loading
data transmitted by implementers in 1987 State Biennial Program
Report into the BIRDS National Data Base, auditing transmitted
data to assess compliance with OSW's specifications for such
data, and directing implementers to follow-up on errors and
incomplete data identified through the oversight audit process.
Oversight responsibilities for the 1987 reporting cycle also
include implementing waste minimization reporting requirements,
unless theae^-are being implemented for oversight by States.
Implementer and oversight activities for the two-year 1987
reporting cycle are summarized in the following table.
9.3
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Summary of Biennial Report Activities
Responsible
Party (I)
FY
I
I
I
.1
(HQ)
(HQ)
(HQ)
1988
1988
1988
1988
3/88
1/88 - 6/88
4/88
3/88 - 7/88
I
0
(HQ)
I
o
I
(HQ)
1988/1989
1988/1989
1988/1989 6/88 - 11/88
1988/1989 6/88 - 11/88
1989
Activity
Print and Mail Reporting Forms
Provide Telephone Assistance
Track Dead Mail
Receive Reported Data
Process (Enter/QA/QC) Reported Data
- Biennial Report
- Waste Minimization.Package
Follow Up on Non-Response/
Incomplete Data/Data Errors
- Biennial Report
- Waste Minimization Report
Transmit Data to Oversight
Load Transmitted Data into
National Data Base
- Load automated files
- Automate hardcopy data
Audit Transmitted Data
Follow Up on Errors Identified
Through Audit Procedure
Release BIRDS National Data Base
Release 1987 National Summary
Report
1 Notations in parentheses indicate oversight activities normally
performed by EPA Regional Offices that will be performed by EPA
Headquarters for the 1987 reporting cycle only, unless EPA
Regional Office or States choose to perform them.
Key: I = Implementers (States or EPA Regional Offices)
0 = Oversight (EPA Regional Offices)
HQ = EPA Headquarters
Completion
Date
6/88 - 11/88
6/88 - 11/88
11/88
0
0 (HQ)
0
I
HQ
HQ
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
1989
12/88
1/89
1/89
1/89 - 3/89
3/89
6/89
9.4
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Strategic Planning and Management System
The Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS) provides
a way to plan and report major program goals and accomplishments.
See Attachment B for FY 1989 measures and definitions. Data in
HWDMS and CARS will be counted for RCRA permitting, enforcement,
and corrective action SPMS achievements until a Region and its
States have converted to RCRIS. If it is determined that RCRIS
accurately reflects the information reported in HWDMS, subsequent
SPMS reporting will be taken from RCRIS. Otherwise, SPMS will be
taken from HWDMS until the information is accurate and obtainable
from RCRIS.
SPMS reporting will be quarterly (e.g., October-December,
etc.). However, for each quarter, there will be a one-month lag
in reporting for all ".non-direct entry States. For example,
the first quarter will include all data entered into HWDMS by the
date of the SPMS retrieval (January 11, 1989). Because some
State data will not be entered into HWDMS until February if the
timeframes in the "Reporting Requirements" Section are followed,
first quarter data will not include actions occurring in December
in these States. However, SPMS data is reported cumulatively;
therefore, State December data will be reported in the second
quarter report, unless such data is in HWDMS by January 11. At
the end of FY 1989, the Office of Management and Systems Evalua-
tions will delay issuing the FY 1989 SPMS report so that data
from the full fiscal year for the State and Regions will be
included. This one-month lag must be kept in mind when
negotiating SPMS commitments.
(Please note that draft report forms for the SPAR and CAR and
a final report form for the CMEL are included in Attachment C.)
Schedule for SPMS Commitments
In order to provide a review and negotiation period among
OSW, OWPE, and the Regions, draft FY 1989 SPMS commitments must
be submitted by July 15, 1988. These commitments must be signed
by the Regional RCRA Division Director and sent to the Director,
Permits and State Programs Division, OSW, and the Director, RCRA
Enforcement Division, OWPE. The only exception to these dates is
for commitments related to beginning-of-year SNC's. Instructions
for these commitments will be sent later.
9.5
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Risk-Based SPMS-~ Proiect
OSW is considering the feasibility of developing a SPMS
targeting methodology that would take into account environmental
benefits expected to be achieved by an activity, national
priorities, and Regional/State RCRA initiatives. If feasible,
the project is expected to be implemented for the FY 1990 cycle,
with potential for a pilot project first. Regional and State
input will be solicited to determine the feasibility of such a
project.
RCRIS Conversion/Implementation
Implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Information System (RCRIS), the newly developed information
system to support the reporting requirements of States, Regions,
and EPA Headquarters, is scheduled to begin the second quarter of
FY 1989. HWDMS will continue to operate for each Region and its
associated States until it is determined that RCRIS is operating
reliably in that Region and its States, and the users in that
Region understand the use and reporting of RCRIS data (estimated
at approximately two months). SPMS counts for a Region and its'
States will be taken from HWDMS until that determination is made.
A number of activities must take place, both prior to
conversion to RCRIS and following its implementation. Detailed
guidance is (or will be) available for each required activity, as
indicated under "List of Applicable Guidances" at the end of this
Section.
All Regions are expected to begin RCRIS operation during
FY 1989. _Although EPA Headquarters will provide the technical
and planning lead for RCRIS, specific implementation plans must
be developed by each Region and State. The purpose of each plan
is to document the strategies and planned activities involved in
the preparation for and completion of system implementation within
that Region/State. It includes a schedule for the performance of
all activities (data base initialization, reporting schedules, data
collection/cleanup, etc.)/ a description of the architecture
proposed for the system (hardware/software/tele-communica-
tions) , data administration/coordination organization, and
training no«ds. Regions and States must include schedules and
plans for RCRIS implementation in their FY 1989 grant
negotiations. Regions will set aside 5% of the total Regional
grant allocation to support RCRIS activities in States. Regions
need not allocate 5% to each State or include each State in this
funding activity but should negotiate commitments and funding based
on the status of a State's program and the State's needs.
9.6
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
A "template" or blank implementation plan, is available to
assist implementers in understanding the format and content of
this plan, as well as samples of how these plans were completed
for the pilot. In addition, EPA HQ will provide assistance to
each Region and State as needed to develop implementation plans.
Some of the more important issues to be resolved in developing
these plans include: how parallel operations will be conducted
(roles and responsibilities); a schedule for collection of new
data and cleanup of existing data; appropriate application of the
two domain concept in data management (including control of
changes to data); coordination of the installation and operation
of State hardware with EPA equipment; and issues regarding
translation of data from internal State systems (where
applicable).
The choice of "how" and "when" each State/Region will be
ready to start automated operations will need to be estimated
during the State/Region grant negotiations. States may choose
to continue "manual" reporting until they are in a position to
undertake responsibility for automated data processing (or may
elect to continue long-term manual processing). The Regions will
institute RCRIS reporting to these States, however, and the
States will be asked to provide quality assurance reviews of the
RCRIS data.
i
Regardless of whether a State will conduct manual operations
initially or not, the Regions and States must negotiate the
schedule for automation. This includes equipment upgrades,
personnel for data review/collection, personnel for system
administration, etc. The most critical factor will be a clear
understanding of the respective roles in ensuring data accuracy
and integrity. It is expected that most data cleanup will occur
in the RCRIS environment (data from HWDMS will be converted
followed by cleanup by the Region or State using RCRIS automated
tools). The completion of these "cleanup" activities will be
defined by the negotiations.
Headquarters will provide support in a number of areas
including the guidelines listed below and through the RCRIS
User Support Group, the RCRIS Resource Group (consisting of
representatives from Regions, States, and EPA Headquarters),
and the RCRIS project management staff. Headquarters also
will provide:
a full set of software and system administration
procedures, that have been fully tested by a
third party testing group and in Region IV and
four of its associated States (January, 1989);
9.7
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
policy *on determining when parallel operations of
HWDMS and RCRIS can be stopped; i.e., when
reconciliation of the systems has shown RCRIS to
carry accurate and complete data;
technical support in needs assessment and
resolution, at an oversight level; Headquarters
will not be involved in detailed State-by-State
negotiation, but will provide consultation to the
Regional Coordinator;
baseline documentation (as detailed in Applicable
Guidances below), training, and centralized user
support.
States will be expected to include RCRIS implementation
needs as part of the State grant package.
List of Applicable Guidances
o DATA Base Initialization Handbook, March 1988: includes
pre-conversion data cleanup and post-conversion data
cleanup/collection of new data.
o Pilot Evaluation: Cost Models, October 1988; implementa-
tion strategy/plans, Headquarters also plans to provide
technical implementation teams to assist in developing an
implementation plan and schedule.
o Configuration Specifications, December 1987, Assessment
and Evaluation: Architecture Review, December 1987:
hardware/software/telecommunications requirement.
o System Administration Handbook, March 1988, procedures,
roles, and responsibilities.
o Translator Feasibility Study, March 1988, RCRIS
Specifications for Translators, January 1988, Florida
Implementation Plan, January 1988; Pilot Evaluation:
Translator Review, October 1988; Pilot Evaluation: Cost
Models^ October 1988: development of translator software,
for tltoce States choosing to use a State system rather
than RCRIS software.
o Functional Specifications for the Parallel Operation of
RCRIS and HWDMS, January 1988: procedures for parallel
operation of RCRIS and HWDMS.
9.8
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
o National Implementation Plan: Training Schedule, July
1988; RCRIS User Manuals, July 1988; RCRIS Training
Plan: Course Available, June 1988: Training.
o National Implementation Strategy: Details on approach,
Regional "phase-in", preliminary cost estimates/models,
March 1988.
Note: The listed documents may be revised based on the pilot
proj ect results.
9.9
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
ATTACHMENT A: FY 1989 RCRA GRANT ALLOTMENTS
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
Attachment A
FY 1989 Grant Allotments *
Region
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
($ in thousands)
Regional
Ratio
.06814
.11535
.11952
.16449
.21237
.14259
.05041
.03507
.11253
.03150
FY 1989
Base
Allotment
4,323.3
7,213.1
7,491.7
10,260.6
13,246.8
8,912.2
3,162.9
2,278.1
7,109.9
2,001.4
* The allotments reflect the FY 1989 budget request to Congress
($66 million). The allotments could change based on the actual
appropriation or subsequent budget adjustments (e.g., Gramm-
Rudman-Hollings cuts).
NOTE: A workgroup consisting of Headquarters, Regional and State
representatives will be convened to decide what, if any,
changes will be made to the grant formula for FY 1990.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
ATTACHMENT B: RCRA SPMS MEASURES
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1989
Program; RCRA Permitting
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
Make final RCRA permit
determination by the
statutory deadlines.
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 target for
land disposal and incinerator facilities.
Distinguish between land disposal facilities
with incinerators and land disposal facilities
without incinerators.
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-Kc)
R/C-l(d)
R/C-l(e)
K/C-l(f)
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3.4
By Region
Q 1,2,3.4
By Region
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1989
Program; RCRA Permitting
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
Modify permits to
expanded capacity and
protection of ground water
and other environmental media.
Make decisions on requests
for waivers from regulations.
SPMS CODE FREQUENCY
Permit Modification Measures V (Report the following
information for all facilities.)
Number of significant permit modifications issued year to
date.
Number of significant permit modifications denied year to
date.
Waiver Requests _V
Number of waiver requests granted year to date.
Number of waiver requests denied year to date.
R/C-2(a)
R/C-2(b)
R/C-3(a)
R/C-3(b)
Q l',2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1.2,3,4
By Region
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1989
Program; RCRA Permitting
OBJECTIVE
MEASURES
SH4S CODE FREQUENCE
Assess and implement
to correct releases of hazar-
dous wastes and hazardous
waste constituents to the
environment.
Corrective Action Measures V (applies to facilities
seeking operating permits and closing facilities!
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) completed for«
entire facility; remedial investigation decision
made. ' • • • ] '
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) imposed.
(Separate by entire facility or partial facility.)
RCRA corrective action remedy selected. (Separate
by entire facility and partial facility.)
Corrective action design approved. (Separate by
entire facility and partial facility.)
K/C-4
R/C-4(a)
R/C-4(b)(l)
R/C-4(b)(2)
R/C-4(c)(l)
R/C-4(c)(2)
R/C-4(d)(l)
R/C-4(d)(2)
Q 1,2,3,4
•By Region
-------
RCRA Permitting Definitions
Public notice of draft permit issued; The date the public notice of draft permit is issued.
Notice of intent to deny RCRA permit, issued; The date the public notice of intent to deny a RCRA permit
issued.
Notice of availability of closure plan issued: The date the public notice is issued.
KCRA permit issued; The date the RCRA permit is issued.
RCRA permit denied; The date the RCRA permit is denied.
Closure plan approved; The date the closure plan is approved following an inspection of the facility and
public notice of the plan.
Number of.significant permit modifications issued year to date; Number of significant permit modifi-
cations issued by EPA or authorized State year to date. Significant permit modifications include those
that address one or more of the following: ground water (Subpart F), HSWA corrective action, and expansion/
new units.
Number of significant permit modifications denied year to date; Number of significant permit modifi-
cations denied by EPA or authorized State year to date- Significant permit modifications include those
that address one or more of the following: ground water (Subpart F), HSWA corrective action, and expansion/
new units.
Number of waiver requests granted year to date; Number of waiver requests granted by EPA or authorized
State year to date. Include waivers granted for the following: ACLs, double liner waivers, and/or
tank secondary containment waivers.
Number of waiver requests denied year to date; Number of waiver requests denied by EPA or authorized
State year to date. Include waivers denied for the following: ACLs, double liner waivers, and/or
tank secondary containment waivers.
-------
RCRA Permitting Definitions
(continued)
RCRA facility assessment (RFA) completed for entire facility; When a decision is made to initiate a
remedial investigation or that a remedial investigation is not necessary.
RCKA facility investigation I(RFI) imposed; When a permit or permit modification is issued which incor-
porates a requirement for an RFI; or EPA or authorized State takes formal enforcement action to require
an RFI. Where a complete RFI is required for an entire facility, report as an entire facility. Where
the RFI 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 RFI; report as partial
facility.
HCRA corrective action remedy selected; ! When the RCRA correcti\*e action remedy lias been selected or
when a decision has been node that corrective action is not nec.«;;sary. Where corrective action remedy
has been selected, permit or permit modification is issued incorporating corrective action remedy
selected; or, ovper/operator is notified in writing by EPA or authorized State that the corrective
action remedy h-is been selected pursuant to an existing permit condition; or, enforcement order is
issued or modified incorporating corrective action remedy selected; or, owner/operator is notified in
writing by tPA or authorized State that the corrective action remedy lias been selected pursuant to an
existing enforcement order. When a decision has been made that corrective action is not necessary,
EPA or authorized State notifies the owner/operator in writing that corrective action is not necessary
as a result of flie RFI. Report the entire facility if the permit/order addresses the entire facility;
report partial facility if the permit/order addresses less than the entire facility.
.»
Corrective action design approved; Date EPA/State approves the corrective action design. Report entire
facility if the permit/order addresses the entire facility; report partial facility if the permit/order
addresses less than the entire facility.
-------
OFFICE OF SOLJP WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1989
Pnxiram; RCRA Enforcement
OBJECTIVE
MEASURE
SfftS OOP? FREQUENCY
Improved compliance of
waste handling with RCRA
requirements.
Return significant non-compliers
to compliance.
Inspections
Target and report, year-to-date, the number of land disposal
facilities that have received an inspection in FY89.
(Ooobined EPA/State target). _/ '
Target and report, year-to-date, the number of
Treatment Storage Disposal (TSOs) facilities, other
than land djsynaai, that have received an inspection in
FY89. (Ocnbined EPA/State target). _/
Target and report, year-to-date, the number of Federal,
State, and local government TSOs (including land disposal)
that received an EPA inspection in FY89. (EPA target). _/
Significant Nonoatolianoe - Fixed Universe
Report the number of TSOs in significant ran-compliance •
as of the begining of the year (EPA and State combined
report). J
Specify the number of TSOs that received formal enforcement
action pricr to FY 89 addressing all R/E 2 (a) SNC
violations.
Report the number of these facilities that have had a
referral for filing of a judicial action that addresses
all outstanding R/E-2(a) SNC violations (Report EPA and
State separately.)
_/ Definition at end of program measures.
* SH«S Target
R/E-l(a)*
R/E-l(b)*
R/E-l(c)*
R/E-2(a)
R/E-2(b)
R/E-2(c)
Q 1,2,3,4
by Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4,
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
-------
OBJECTIVE
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
FY 1989
Program: RCRA Enforcement
MEASURE
SIMS POPE FREQUENCY
Report the number of these facilities that have received an
initial filed formal enforcement action that addresses all
outstanding R/E-2(a) SNC violations (Report EPA and State
separately.)
Report the number of these facilities that are under a
final formal enforcement order that addresses all out-
standing R/E-2(a) SNC violations (Report EPA and State
separately).
Report the number of facilities returned to physical
compliance for all R/E-2(a) SNC violations - regardless of
how accomplished. (Report EPA and State combined.)
Target the number of facilities in R/E-2(a) that have
not had a formal enforcement action taken against
them by the beginning of FY 89 to resolve all R/E-2(a)
SNC violations. (Separate EPA and State targets.) _/
This measure will be reported cumulatively.
All facilities must be addressed prior to the end of the
fiscal year through formal enforcement.
_/ Definition at end of program measures.
* SFMS Target
R/E-2(d)
R/E-2(e)
R/E-2(f)
R/E-2(g)*
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
-------
OF SOI
FY 1989
Program: RCRA Enforcement
Ensure that timely and
priate enforcement
taken against SNC's.
Ensure compliance by Federal
facilities.
Significant
Report the number of TSD facilities in SNC at this point in
tire, J
Report the number of TSD facilities in SNC at this point in
£ll£ that have not had a formal enforcement action initiated
to resolve all violations causing the facility to be in SNC.
Report by ti^e lapse from inspection;
- 135 days or less
- 136-180 days ,
- 181 days or more
Federal facilities - Snapshot
Report the number of Federally owned or operated TSD
facilities that are in SNC, at this point-in-time. __/
Report the number of these facilities against which there is
one or more appropriate enforcement action (s) addressing
all SNC violations. _/
_/ Definition at end of program measures.
* SEWS Target
R/E-3(a)
R/E-3(b)
R/E-3(b)(l)
R/E-3(b)(2)
R/E-3(b)(3)
R/E-4(a)
R/E-4(b)
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND
RESPONSE
OBJECTIVE
FY 1989
Program: RCRA Enforcement
MEASURE.
FREQUENCY
Ensure that violators of
Land Disposal Restrictions are
returned to compliance.
Ensure that TSD facilities
with releases take appropriate
Corrective Action
Report the number of generators generating over 1000kg of
waste that receive a land Ban inspection in FY89. _/
Report the number of generators that are classified as
HEVs due to Land Ban violations. __/
Corrective Action
Target environmentally significant facilities for issuance
of fomal enforcement orders or permits requiring RFI's. _/
(Targets are subject to negotiation between Regions and HQ.)
Establish the number of facilities which have an ongoing
RCRA Facility Investigation(RFI), Corrective Measures
Study(CHS) or Corrective Measures Implementation(CMI)
at the beginning of FY 89. Report corrective action
oversight inspections at these facilities during FY89.
_/ Definition at end of program measures.
* S»S Target
R/E-5(a)
R/E-5(b)
R/E-6(a)*
R/E-6(b)
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1/2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
-------
RCRA EMPORGEMEtrr DEFINITIONS
FY 1989
IVE-l(a) Inspections; All operating, closed and closing land disposal facilities (except Class I UIC
wells, certified clean closed facilities and delisted facilities) must be inspected in FY 1989.
Once inspected in FY 1989, a facility should not be recounted in this category. Ihis measure is
intended to evaluate whether every facility has been addressed with a full compliance inspection
under RCRA Sections 3007(c), (d) and (e). (Includes Federal, State and local facilities.)
Inspections tp b* counted are Compi iance Evaluation Inspections (CEIs).
-f v <•• " • 0
R/E-l(b) inspections; All treatment and storage facilities owned/operated by federal/state/local entities,
all commercial treatment facilities known to be subject to effective (not extended) land ban
requirements, all permitted incinerators, and all treatment and storage facilities with substantial
corrective action activities such as studies, investigations, interim measures or remedial measures
required in FY 89 under permits or orders must be inspected. In addition, at least one half of the
remaining treatment and storage facilities must be inspected. Once inspected in FY 89, a facility
should not be recounted in this category. This measure is intended in part to assure that every
facility has been addressed with a full compliance inspection under RCRA Sections 3007 (c), (d), and
(e). (Includes Federal, State and local facilities.) Inspections to be counted are CEIs.
R/E-l(c) Federal. State and local TSDs: These numbers are a subset of the numbers targeted and reported
in (a) and (b). Thus, Federal, State and local facilities are counted both in (c) and in (a) or (b)
Number of "TSDs" in significant noncompliance consists of (1) those land disposal facilities in
significant non-compliance at the Begining Of Year (BOY) with Class I violations of ground-water
monitoring, closure/post closure or financial responsibility requirements and (2) all TSDs in
significant noncompliance with Class I corrective action compliance schedules. An owner/operator
is in substantial violation if he is not meeting those conditions in a timely manner and/or the
quality of work is substantially unacceptable.
If a closing facility is not in compliance with liability requirements at BOY but is in compliance
with all other SNC violation requirements at BOY, it is exempt from BOY-SNC status. A "closing facility"
for this purpose is defined as any land disposal facility which lost interim status on November 8, 1985 and
has submitted (or should have submitted) a closure plan for at least all of its land disposal units and is
not putting any waste (neither hazardous nor non-hazardous) into any of its land disposal units.
-------
BOY SNCs are calculated officially during the first Quarter of FY89 to reflect status as of the
beginning of the year and are not allowed to vary for the remainder of the year.
R/E-2(g)
R/E-3(a)
R/E-4 (a)
R/E-4(b)
R/E-5(a)
R/E-5(b)
R/E-6(a)
R/E-6(b)
Formal enforcement actions include Section 3008 (a) complaints or State equivalent orders as well as
Referrals for judicial action (including criminal) made to DOT, State AG or other appropriate official.
For Federal facilities an appropriate enforcement action for a State is a formal enforcement response,
while for EPA tba response is a notification of nonoompliance. Both Administrative Orders and Judicial
Referrals will 'OOUlt as a formal enforcement action addressing a SMC.
SNCs identified during FY89 will be those TSD facilities (including Federal Facilities)
that are classified High Priority Violators (HPVs) according to the revised Enforcement Response Policy
(ERP) . These facilities are indicated on the Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log.
Note: Included are those TSD facilities that are designated HPVs because of Land Disposal Restriction
violations. '
Ihese facilities are a subset of those in R/E-3 (a) .
Appropriate enforcement action for a State is a formal enforcement response, while for EPA the response
is a notification of nonccBpliance.
Applies only to generators generating over 1000KG of waste. The types of inspections that are to be
reported under this measure are: Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI) , Comprehensive Monitoring
Evaluation (CME) , sampling inspections, and follow-up evaluations.
Refer to the ERP guidelines for designating generators as HPVs.
Formal enforcement orders include 3008 (h) orders, State equivalent orders, Section 3013 orders, Section 7003
orders, CERCLA Sections 104 and 106, or Judical decrees or court orders that require RFIs at RCRA
facilities. Permits include operating and post-closure. In some cases Permit Modifications of earlier
State issued permits will count if the modification requires an RFI. Through negotiations, targets will
be set.
In addition to the regulatory inspections which look at Corrective Action compliance schedules, one
additional inspection should be scheduled at facilities with ongoing Corrective Action.
The inspection types that count are: CEI, CME, sampling inspections, and follow-up evaluations with
corrective action compliance schedule reviews.
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE #9420.00-5
ATTACHMENT C: REPORT FORMS
-------
ENTRY INSTRUCTIONS: UK API
STATUS 'OP P&RMIT AND CLOSURE ACTIVITIES REPORT
NOTE: The number and title refer to the Action Event.
"Source" refers to the source of the information for the
Action Event.
"Action Date" refers to the date when the Action Event
took place.
"Status Code" refers to the codes applying to the Action
Event*
"Director" refers to the State or EPA official with the
authority to sign the document referred to in the Action
Event.
HWDMS allows a facility to have multiple "header records"
(or headers) because different permitting actions can be taking
place for different groups of units at the facility. A facility
might have headers -established for a group of units seeking a
permit, other group(s) units seeking approval of interim status
closure plans/ and other units seeking a post-closure permit.
A large facility can easily have a dozen or more headers. When
this occurs, permit writers and other State and EPA. staff
responsible for submitting or quality controlling SPAR forms
must ensure that the forms relate the Action Event information
to the right grouping of units at the facility. Each facility
header will have a sequence number. For £act Lities. with
multiple headers, check the sequence number to ensure that the
SPAR information is applied to the right header covering the
right grouping of units.
PART ONE-: BASIC INFORMATION
The following information is required for all facilities
seeking an operating* post-closure permit or RD&D permit, or a
modification to an operating, post-closure or RD&D permit, or
approval of an interim status closure or post-closure plan.
Part One information must be on all SPAR forms. Process
information (s«« Action Event Three) must correspond with the
Action Bv«at b«ing reported. Information in Part One is
integral tfeall information retrievals.
1. EPA r- NUMBER
Sourc«t Notification form (EPA Form 8700-12).
Action Date: assigned when the notification is received.
Status Codes: none.
2. FACILITY NAME
Source: notification form (EPA Form 8700-12).
-------
DRAFT
3, 4, and 5* -"FACILITY WASTE HANDLING PROCESSES
Source* Part A. form (EPA Form 3510)
Part B
Facility Permit, Permit Denial, or Approved
Closure Plan
This item defines the type of facility by storage, disposal
and treatment activities at the facility. It can change
depending on which processes at the facility are called in
(requested) for permitting, which processes are submitted for
permitting and closure, and which processes are covered on the
final permit or approved closure or post-closure plan. This
item also lists the total waste capacity for each process and
the unit of measure for that capacity.
INDICATOR CODES:
The processes on the Part B call-in have an "R" (for
"requested") in the "IND" column.
The processes submitted with the Part B, permit
modification request, or an interim status closure plan
(and post-closure plan if applicable) have an "S" (for
"submitted") in the "IND" column.
The processes covered by the permit issuance, permit
denial, permit modification request final determination, or
approved interim status closure plan (and post-closure
plan) have a "C" (tor "covered") in the "IND" column.
PROCESS CODES AND UNITS OF MEASURE:
Enter capacity amounts and units of measure with the
first process codes and change as necessary.
Processes and units of measure are as Hollows:
STORAGEi
Container* (SOI) G =• gallons
•*.. L = liters
IF-'"
Tank* (SO2) G - gallons
L » liters
Waste Piles (S03) * 3 cubic yards
C =» cubic meters
Surface Impoundments (S04) G » gallons
" L » liters
-2-
-------
DISPOSAL:.
Injection Wells-(D79)
Landfills (D80)
Land Treatment (D81)
Ocean (D82)
DRAFT
G a gallons
U » gallons per day
L » liters
V a liters per day
A * acre feet
F a hectare feet
B = acres
0 a hectares
(J a gallons per day
V a liters per day
Surface Impoundments (083) G a gallons
L = liters
TREATMENT:
Tanks (T01)
Surface Impoundments (T02)
Incinerators (T03)
U » gallons per day
V a liters per day
U a gallons per day
v a liters per day
D =
Other (T04)
u = tons (short) per hour
W = metric tons: per hour
E = gallons per hour
H = liters per hour
K = BTUs per hour
gallons per day
liters per day
tons (short) per day
metric tons per hour
pounds per hour
metric tons per day
kilograms per hour
other
U
V
D
W
J
S
R
N
Accucitfjjfr indicator and proceses codes are crucial to any
retrieval Wit gathers information for a group of units that
cover leas "than th« entire facility. A facility Part B call in
may cover disposal, treatment, and storage units. The facility
may submit a Part B for its disposal and storage units and a
closure plan for its treatment units. The permit issued to
the facility may only cover the storage units and the facility
will be subject to interim status closure and post-closure and
post-closure permitting at its disposal units, along with
interim status closure at its treatment units. Failure to keep
the indicator and process codes accurate as the units go through
different actions, will lead to inaccurate information. For
-3-
-------
DRAFT
Status". Codes: none.
9. PUBLIC NOTIC3-ISSUED:
Source* draft permit or intent to deny a permit.
Action Date: in an authorized State, the date establishing
legal notice to the public under State law. For EPA-
issued public notices/ the date the notice was mailed to
the applicant.
Status Codes: DP = Draft permit
ID » Intent to deny the permit
10. FINAL PERMIT DETERMINATION:
Source: permit or letter officially denying the permit
application.
Action Date:' date the Director signs the permit or denial
letter.
Status Codes: PI * RCRA permit issued/ HSWA requirement*
do not apply to this: facility
PP » Permit issued, by the. State, HSWA
requirements apply ta this facility,
EPA permit covering HSWA. has not been
issued
PJ = RCRA permit issued with HSWA
requirements including a schedule of
compliance for corrective action
PG » RCRA permit issued with HSWA
requirements, corrective action
schedule of compliance not included
PD » Permit denied.
These status codes delineate HSWA corrective action status
of the facility in regard to additional permitting action.
PI, PJ and PG indicate that no additional corrective action
permitting work is necessary. PP indicates that additional
corrective action permitting work is necessary.
11. Pfjafe MODIFICATION FINAL DETERMINATION:
permit modification or letter officially denying
the application for a permit modification.
Action Date: date the Director signs the permit
modification or denial letter.
Status Codes: AC * Additional capacity
CA * HSWA corrective action
GW * Groundwater monitoring
OH * Modifications other than groundwater
monitoring, HSWA corrective action or
-5-
-------
DRAFT
instance, the selection criteria for land disposal permits
issued will search tor facilities with the permits issued
action event* and land disposal process codes with a "C"
indicator.
PART TWO: PERMITTING INFORMATION
TYPE OF PERMIT:
Check the box indicating which type of permitting action
the SPAR covers. The three options include a RCRA operating
permit, a RCRA post-closure permit, and a RCRA RO&D permit.
All three types of permits have information entered into
different headers within HWOMS. All three have identical
action event numbers for all items on the SPAR.
6. PART B CALL IN:
Source: letter to facility owner/operator requesting the
facility Part B permit application.
Action Date: date the Director signs the Part B call in
letter.
7.
3.
Status Codes: none.
PART B RECEIVED:
Source: Part B
Action Date: date the State or EPA receives the Part B.
Status Codes:
CR » Confidentiality requested
CS » Confidentiality substantiated
CU * Confidentiality unsubstantiated
These codes show if the facility has made a request for
confidentiality for the Part B application and the
response to that request. They are only used when
retrieving data concerning facilities that requested
confidential business information status.
Source: Part B for "CRM and letter to
with the determination on the request for
iallty for "CS" and "CU". The "CR" code should
confi
be changed to "CS" or "CU* when the letter with the
confidentiality request is signed by the Director.
APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE COMPLETE:
Source: letter from the Director to facility applicant
stating that the Part B permit application is complete.
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter.
-4-
-------
DRAFT
additional capacity.
MD » Modification denied.
JIW » Modification recruest withdrawn.
NOTE: The first four status codes (AC, CA, GW and OH) are
hierarchical. If a permit modification covers more than one
type, the highest value must be appli.ed. AC is the highest
value, followed in order by CA, GW and OH. MD and RW apply
when the entire modification reauest is denied or withdrawn.
Additional capacity includes additional waste processes.
12. PART B WITHDRAWAL REQUEST:
Source: letter from owner/operator of a RCRA facility
requesting the withdrawal of their permit application.
Action Date: date the State or EPA receives the letter.
Status Codes: . LN * Applicant has gone or will go to less
than 90 day storage
NW » Applicant now handles or will handle
only non-regulated wastes
FC » Applicant has closed or intends to
close all waste handling activities
SO » Applicant has become or will become a
small quantity generator with on-site
storage.
FE = Applicant is a protective £iLer (i.e. ,
the facility was not conducting
activities reauirinq a permit on
November 19, 1980, and therefore never
qualified for interim status)
OT * Other reason for withdrawal.
A facility can reauest withdrawal of all the Part B for
all of its units or some of its units. The facility may send
a withdrawal request after the State or Reqion calls in its
Part B or after it submits its Part a. SPAR entries should be
made in all Action Events applying to the facility if the
withdrawal request was sent after the Part B was received. If
the withdrawal request is denied, entries should be made for
all subsequent Action Events applying to the facility.
Iff a flirtlity has units that withdraw for differing
reasons, insffvidual headers should be established for the units
covered by each status code. If the facility also has units
proceeding to permitting, those units should remain in a
separate header.
13. WITHDRAWAL REQUEST DETERMINATION:
Source: letter to facility -"approving or denying the
withdrawal request.
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter.
-6-
-------
DRAFT
Status Codes: AR = Approved request (facility has an
approved closure plan)
E7R » Denied request (facility requires a
Part B)
FE » Filed in error, withdrawal request
approved/ facility was non-regulated
and is not required to go through
closure.
14. DOUBLE WAIVER LINER REQUEST:
Source: letter to the State or EPA requesting a waiver
from the double liner, requirement in accordance
with the provisions of S3004(o)(2) of RCRA.
Action Date: date the State or EPA receives the letter.
Status Codes:, none.
15. DOUBLE LINER WAIVER REQUEST DETERMINATION:
Source: letter from Director to applicant approving or
denying the request for a waiver from the double liner
requirement.
Action Date: date the Director signs the latter.
Status Codes: AR 3 Approved request
OR = Denied request.
RW = Request withdrawn by facility
16. FACILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN SCREEN:
Source: facility management plan.
Action Date: date the State or £PA screens the facility's
file to determine if the facility is or is not
environmentally significant.
Status Codes: ES * Environmentally significant
NS « Not environmentally significant.
17. FACXUn MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED:
facility management plan.
Action Dates date the State and EPA approve the plan.
Status Codes: none.
18. EXPOSURE INFORMATION RECEIVED:
Source: exposure information submitted by all landfills
and surface impoundments receiving permits after August 8,
1985. A RCRA permit cannot be issued if this information
has not been received.
-7-
-------
DRAFT
Action Date: date the State or EPA receives the assessment.
Status Codes: CO = Complete
IN = Incomplete.
(These status codes are optional.)
19. EXPOSURE INFORMATION REFERRED:
Source: letter referring the exposure information to the
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry for a
health assessment.
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter.
Status Codes: none.
20. COMPLIANCE WITH {270.14(c)(4) DETERMINED:
Source: letter from the Director notifying the facility
whether it will remain in detection monitoring or go into
compliance monitoring or corrective action.
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter*.
Status Codes: none.
A land disposal facility subject to Subpart F most, have a
groundwater monitoring plan in its permit application. Before
the permit writer can notify the facility which type of plan
it must submit, the facility must successfully complete
Appendix VIII sampling and plume characterization as required
by {270.14(c)(4). This is a waystation on the path to
receiving a draft permit. Enter this information before the
draft permit is issued.
21. GROUNDWATER MONITORING PROGRAM DEVELOPED:
Source* draft permit with a groundwater monitoring program
or • letter to the facility notifying it that a groundwater
mooito^ng program submitted in response to an enforcement
ord«B$Btisfie» the requirements of that order.
Action date: date the Director signs the draft permit or
the letter.
Status Codes: DM = Detection monitoring through a draft
permit or draft permit modification
DO = Detection monitoring through an
enforcement order
PC * Compliance monitoring through a draft
permit or draft permit modification
-8-
-------
DRAFT
OC = Compliance monitoring thorugh an
enforcement order
XA = Corrective action: through a draft
permit or draft permit modification
OA = Corrective action through an enforcement
order .
22. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT RETROFITTING WAIVER REQUEST:
Source: waiver request submitted by surface impoundments
in response to {3005 (j) (5) of RCRA.
Action Date: date the State or EPA receives the waiver
request.
Status Codes: none
HSWA requires all surface impoundments desiring a waiver
from the retrofitting requirement of HSWA to make that request
no later than November 8, 1986.
23. .SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT RETROFITTING WAIVER REQUEST
Source: letter to facility approving or denying the-
facility's surface impoundment retrofitting waiver request.
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter.
Status Codes: AR = Approved request
OR » Denied request
WR * Request withdrawn by the facility.
This action must take place by November 8, 1987.
24. LAND DISPOSAL BAM PETITION RECEIVED:
petition from a land disposal facility to exclude
a vMlb* oc wastes from the land disposal ban.
i: date the State or EPA,receives the petition.
Status Codes: none.
25. LAND DISPOSAL BAN PETITION DETERMINATION:
Source: letter to the facility approving or denying its
land disposal ban petition.
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter.
-9-
-------
DRAFT
30. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE:
Source: permit.
Action Date: date on which the permit expires.
Status Codes: none.
31. PERMIT TERMINATED:
Source: letter signed by the Director terminating the
permit.
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter.
Status Codes: none.
PART THREE: INTERIM STATUS CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE
(32,36) CLOSURE PLAN SUBMITTED:
Source: closure plan.
Action Date: date the State or EPA receives the closure
plan. •:,-••'. '
Status Codes: CL = Closure (this code is used ONLY for
land disposal facilities closing in
interim status and subject to interim
status post-closure).
(33,37) CLOSURE PLAN PUBLIC NOTICE
Source: notice to public of intent to approve a closure
plan.
: in an authorized State, the date establishing
* to the public under that State's law. For
public notices, the date the public notice was
mail«A»to the applicant.
Status Codes: CL * Closure (this code is used ONLY for
• land disposal facilities closing in
interim status and subject to interim
status post-closure).
(34,38) CLOSURE PLAN APPROVED:
Source: letter to the facility approving the closure plan.
-11-
-------
DRAFT
Status Codes: AR = Approved request.
DR = Denied request.
FW * Request withdrawn by the facility.
26. ACL STMCARD REQUEST RECEIVED:
Source: Part B submission from a facility proposing an
Alternative Concentration Limit (ACL) Standard for
hazardous constituent concentration in the groundwater in
lieu of background levels or maximum concentration levels.
Action Date: the date the State or EPA receives a Part B
or a revised Part B with an ACL Standard request.
Status Codes: none.
27. ACL STANDARD REQUEST DETERMINATION:
Source: letter' to the facility approving or denying the
ACL Standard request.
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter.
Status Codes: AR - Approved request
DR = Denied request
RW = Request withdrawn by the facility.
28. TANK SECONDARY CONTAINMENT WAIVER REQUEST RECEIVED:
Source: request submitted by a facility foe a waiver from
the tank secondary containment retrofitting requirement in
accordance with 40 CFR 264.193(g) or 265.L93(g).
Action Date: date the State or EPA receives the request.
Status Codes: none.
29. TANK SECONDARY COMTAIbMENT WAIVER REQUEST DETERMINATION:
Source: letter to the facility approving or denying its
containment waiver request.
: date the Director signs the letter.
Status Codes: AR - Approved request
DR * Denied request
RW * Request withdrawn by the facility.
-10-
-------
DRAFT
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter.
Status Codes: ME = Final closure
MO = Partial closure
Final closure means that the entire facility is now closed
and no RCRA regulated units are operating under either
interim status or an operating permit. Partial closure
means that the plan covers part of the facility with
additional units subject to subsequent closure or
permitting action. Use the partial closure status code in
all header records until final closure is achieved. Enter
final closure in the header record for those units subject
to final closure.
(35,39) CLOSURE CERTIFICATION:
Source: letter signed by a registered professional
engineer certifying that the facility has closed in
accordance with its closure plan.
Action Date: date the State or EPA receives the letter.
Status Code: YE = Yes
NO = No
NOTE: the use of "NO" for will occur either -when the
registered professional engineer sends a letter to EPA
stating that the facility failed to close in accordance
with its closure plan OR when EPA, upon inspecting the
facility/ discovers that the facility failed to
successfully clean close.
"YE" is used when both the facility and a registered
professional engineer send letters to EPA stating that
the facility has closed in accordance with its approved
closure plan.
40. POST-CLOSURE PLAN SUBMITTED:
Sourotfet, interim status post-closure plan.
Action Ofete: date the State or EPA receives the plan.
Status Code: PC » Post-closure.
41. POST-CLOSURE PLAN PUBLIC NOTICE:
Source: notice to public of intent to approve an interim
status post-closure plan.
Action Date: in an authorized' State, the date establishing
legal notice to the public under that State's law. For
EPA-issued public notices, the date the public notice was
-12-
-------
mailed to"the applicant. DRAFT
Status Code: PC = Post-closure.
42. POST-CLOSURE PLAN APPROVED:
Source: letter to the facility approving its interim
status post-closure plan.
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter.
Status Codes: MF = Final post-closure
MP = Partial post-closure.
Final post-closure means that all units at the facility
are subject to an interim status post-closure plan.
Partial post-closure means that additional units will be
subject to interim status post-closure.
-13-
-------
STATUS OF PEWIIT AND CLOSURE APPLICATIONS
Form Submitted By:
1. EPA ID | | 1 1 1 1 1 1 III 1" 1 Date: / /
2. Facility Name
M D Y
I. For each appropriate process, fill in the R, S, C or Code, Process Amount and circle the Unit Code
3. STORAGE
•^wnwj
jl.'lfV
3A. Containers (SOI) f«
3B. Tanks (SO2)
3C. Waste Piles (SO 3)
3D. Surface lapoundnnents (S04)
4. DISPOSAL
4A. Injection Well (D79)
4B. Landfills (D80)
40. Land Treatment (D81)
4D. Ocean (D82)
4E. Surface Impoundments (D83)
5. TREATMENT
t
5A. Tanks (T01)
SB. Surface Impoundments (TO 2)
5C. Incinerators (T03)
5D. Other (TO 4)
IND*
• '
PROCESS AMOUNT
—
_
_
_
«.
_
—
_ '
_
•
_
^
_
^
UNIT (Circle One)
G L
t L, DRAFT
G L
G L U V
A F
BO
U V
G L
"u v
U V
D W E H K
UVDWNSJR
*Must be an "R", "S", or "C"
PAGE 1
-------
EPA
Facility Name
REPORTING EVENTS RELATED TO PERMITTING: CHECK BOX TO INDICATE TYPE OF PERMIT: 1 [ OPERATING (P) | f W*-D (R)
(Note: in all cases, the P Action Event will be the sane as the R, W
and M Action Event. ) FT PERMIT MOD. (M) 1 f POST-CLOSURE (I
ACTION EVENT ACTION DATE STATUS APPLICABLE VALUES
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
?orm
. t
PART B CALL IN (P-01) »ijty! /
PART B RECEIVED (P-02) (_
APPLICATION DETERMINED TO BE /
COMPLETE (P-06)
PUBLIC NOTICE ISSUED (P-13) /
FINAL PERMIT DETERMINATION (P-16) /
PERMIT MODIFICATION FINAL DETERMINATION /
(P-20)
PART B WITHDRAWAL REQUEST (P-33) /
WITHDRAWAL REQUEST DETERMINATION (P-32) /
DOUBLE LINER WAIVER REQUEST __/
RECEIVED (P-37)
DOUBLE LINER WAIVER REQUEST /
DETERMINATION (P-38)
FACILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN SCREEN (P-39) /
FACILITY MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED (P-40) /
EXPOSURE INFORMATION RECEIVED (P-43) /
EXPOSURE INFORMATION REFERRED (P-45) /
Submitted By:
/M /A _..,..
N/A - -
/ CR, CS, CU
/M /K .,._..._» -—--. — — ^. — j _..
N/A
DRAFT
/ DP, ID *^
/ PI, PD, PP, PJ, PG
/ AC, CA, GW, OH, MD, RW
/ LN, NW, SQ, FC, OF, FE
/ AR, DR, FE
N/A
/ ''' - AR, DR, RW
/ ES, NS
/ N/A
/ CO, IN (Optional codes)
N/A
Date: / / fAGI
-------
EPA I.D. / /__/_ / / / /
/ / / / Facility Name
'|MG WAIVER
ACTION EVENT
20. COMPLIANCE WITH 270.14(c)(4)
DETERMINED (P-62)
21. GWM PROGRAM DEVELOPED (P-63)
22. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT
REQUEST RECEIVED (P
23. SURFACE IMPOUNDMENT RETROFITTING WAIVER
REQUEST DETERMINATION (P-69)
24. LAND DISPOSAL BAN PETITION RECEIVED (P-70)
25. LAND DISPOSAL BAN PETITION DETERMINATION
(P-71)
26. ACL STANDARD REQUEST RECEIVED (P-72)
27. ACL STANDARD REQUEST DETERMINATION (P-73)
ACTION DATE
STATUS
APPLICABLE VALUES
30. PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE (P-36)
31. PERMIT TERMINATED (P-22)
28. TANK SECONDARY CONTAINMENT WAIVER REQUEST /_
RECEIVED (P-74)
29. TANK SECONDARY CONTAINMENT WAIVER
DETERMINATION (P-7S)
N A DRAFT
DM, DO, PC, OC, XA, OA
kl/A ——•—•
••«/ n '^^^•^^^•^^^^^•—
AR, DR, RW
:
AR, DR, RW
AR y DR ^ fvt
^
AR, DR, RW
N/A :
N/A
Form Submitted By:
Date:
PAGE 3
M D Y
-------
EPA I.D. /__/__/__/__/__/__/__/_./_/__/—_/_/ Facilifcy
REPORTING EVENTS RELATED TO INTERIM STATUS CLOSURE/POST-CLOSURE: UK/Vl I
NOTE: C Header Action Items cover interim status closure actions for all storage and incineration facilities
and for land disposal facilities that are clean closing (closure by removal) and will not undergo
interim status post-closure or post-closure permitting.
ACTION EVENT '•!*>' ACTION DATE STATUS APPLICABLE VALUES
32. CLOSURE PLAN SUBMITTED (C-i3)
33. PUBLIC NOTICE OF CLOSURE PLAN (C-06)
34. CLOSURE PLAN APPROVED (C-10)
35. CLOSURE CERTIFICATION (C-12)
/ / M/A i_:_i
/ / N/A
/ / M/ft _
/ / W/ft. . . - - -
/ / ME, MO
/ / YE, NO
NOTE: L Header Action Items cover land disposal facility interim status closure and post-closure actions.
Facilities in the L Header will also be subject to post-closure permits.
36. CLOSURE PLAN SUBMITTED (L-03) / / CL
37. PUBLIC NOTICE OF CLOSURE PLAN (L-06)
38. CLOSURE PLAN APPROVED (L-10)
39. CLOSURE CERTIFICATION (L-14)
40. POST-CLOSURE PLAN SUBMITTED (L-03)
41. PUBLIC NOTICE OF POST-CLOSURE PLAN (L-06)
42. POST-CLOSURE PLAN APPROVED (L-10)
/ / CL
/ / ME, MO
/ / YE, NO
/ / PC
/ / PC
/ / , MF, MP
Form Submitted By:
Date: / / PAGE 4
-------
•jHMMiMMfitKHKHflBBi
UPDATl Ol
— — J fPAD 1
FACIITYNAME:
Jfcgsf
QftPo*
RFADtf DATf:^-/_
RFARt*ti1t:__ (
V^TAOlflfV*
Jnaii"i»iii ant nf tK«
CORRECTIVE ACTION RECOR9
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 | 1 1
/ COMPUTE DATE / ' 1
V - Hfl te NtotsMry ; N - RFI to not NoetSMry ) 1
• fit CWK !• at > r B^4V<4ii • f V - V«« • M M. ^ 1
» BT dwrw> *» 4 f Mlnly . ^__ S T • T»S , H • NO J
^J^»AA^«MA AAA^AA . f n A_^^« . a B.*~._.^A \
^m^H
djtv / /
•
ENV. SIG.: 1
(Y.YES;N.NO) 1
Rtsponsftto A9»nq|: ( C - EPA; S - St«t», J • Joint )
lnstrun»flt Sto^net Numbtr: I 1 (01-W) Rtsponsibto P»r*on: I I I
0«t* of or0>r or Pormit: __/..^/«_ Ptrmrt fff»ettv» 0«t«: - _/ /
Statutory Awlhority (i.r 30W(u). S008(h), 3013. V I I I I I I I I I I
Typ» of Rt1»as«: Ground w«ttr __ Surf«e» v«ttr ___ Air
Soil Sodimont Su6-t urf*e» CM
AJSANATC:.
DESCRPTDN:
I I i I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I
ACTON
TYPC
I Rtf.
Schf^llf
AettMl
Cront
CN • N»w i w> **^' tvto* "*"* °*** D**' 8Utu»
U • UMotr) ' ***' "*' (I I'l/DO^W) (MM/DO/Y5lf)
I 1 Rfl t^POSCP
- «f 1 VORKPL AN
i
i
i
^
;:*:
;:vm-:^tMMr^AS^g(CiOM>ittrt:;:ix^
r^^^P«*«^^^P^TTmP^Tf^r^^r^^r^^^r^^r^^r^^^r^^r^^r^^r^^^^^^^^r^^^r^^r^^^^^^^^^^T. * .*^^^^^^. ^^^^^^I^^^^^T. •
CTIVC ACTION SUPCRCtDCDAfBHMATtD / /
V /
-------
IOUSLY--UNREGULATED SWMUS:
Sources letter from facility in response to a request from
the State or EPA concerning the existence of solid waste
managcBHnt units (svmu's) not previously subject to RCRA
but now subject to HSWA corrective action; results of
inspection discovering existence of swmu's at facility;
determination by permit writer based on examination of
Part B that facility has swmu's; exposure assessment
identifying the existence of swmu's, etc.
Action Date: date of first determination of existence of
swmu's.
Status Codes: YE » Yes
NO a NO
UN » Unknown.
This Action Event determines the universe of facilties
with "previously unregulated" solid waste management units
that are now subject to the corrective action authorities of
(3004(u) of RCRA. The term "previously unregulated" was
originally applied to those swmu's subject to HSWA corrective
action. HQ terminology no longer uses the term "previously
unregulated" in regard to swmu's. Facilities with sunu.'s
should have all applicable corrective action entries, atatting
with the RCRA Facility Assessment.
RCRA FACILITY ASSESSMENT:
Source: document(s) with results of the RCRA Facility
Assessment (RFA) for the entire facility. These results
must include a determination as to whether or not to
proceed with a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) at the
facility.
Action Date: date the Director approves the results of the
RFA. This can be the date the Director signs a letter
notifying the facility whether an RFI will or will not be
RX » Remedial investigation necessary
RM » Remedial investigation not necessary.
-**
The Rfl w originally called a "Preliminary Assessment/
Site Investigation".
-------
100. RCPA FACILITY INVESTIGATION IMPOSED:
Source: enforcement order, permit or permit modification
with a schedule of compliance imposing a legal obligation
upon the facility to caonduct a RCRA Facility Investigation
(RFI). The legal obligation can be limited to initiating
the first phase of the RFI.
Action Date: date the Director signs the enforcement order,
permit or permit modification imposing the RFI requirement.
The RFI was origonally called the "Remedial Facility
investigation".
150. RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION PLAN APPROVED:
Source: letter from State or EPA approving the RFI plan
prepared by a facility in response to an order, permit or
permit modification with a schedule of compliance imposing
an RFI obligation upon the facility.
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter.
Status Codes: RP = RFI plan approved through the issuance
of a permit or permit modification
RO « RFI plan approved pursuant to an
enforcement order.
400. CORRECTIVE MEASURES REMEDY SELECTED:
Source: permit, permit modification, or enforcement order
specifying the corrective measures remedy for a facility
or a letter from the Director to the facility owner/operator
approving the corrective measures remedy selected by the
facility in response to a permit, permit modification, or
at order requiring the facility to select a remedy
lion based on the results of an RFI that further
Ive measures are not necessary.
Action Dtt»: the date the permit, permit modification, or
enforcement order is issued specifying the corrective
measures remedy or the date a letter to the facility is
signed by the Director approving the corrective measures
remedy selected in response to a permit, permit
modification or enforcement order, or the date a letter is
signed by the Director to the facility owner/operator
indicating that further corrective measures are not
necessary.
-------
\Yv«^:ati
itus Codes: CX = Further corrective measures
necessary
CN = Further corrective measures not
necessary
A corrective measures decision cannot be made until the
facility owner/operator characterizes the nature and extent of
all releases at the facility and EPA or the authorized State
approves appropriate corrective measures (i.e., remedies) for
all identified releases.
300. CORRECTIVE MEASURES WORKPLAN APPROVED:
Source: corrective measures plan.
Action Date: date the Director signs approval of the
corrective measures plan.
Status Codes: none.
450. CORRECTIVE MEASURES DESIGN APPROVED:
Source: enforcement order, permit, or permit modification
containing the corrective measures design for the facility,
or a letter from the Director to the facility owner/operator
approving the design prepared in response to a schedule of
compliance in a permit, permit.modification, or. enforcement
order requiring the facility to prepare a corrective;
measures design.
Action Date: date the permit, permit modification or
enforcement order containing the corrective measures design
is issued or the date the Director signs a letter to the
facility owner/operator approving the corrective measures
design prepared in response to schedule of compliance in a
permit, permit modification or enforcement order.
600. INTERIM MEASURES REQUIRED:
enforcement order, permit or permit modification
the facility to undertake interim measures to
abate, oc contain identified releases from the
*•
Action date: date the Director signs the order, permit
or permit modification.
Status Codes: none.
Interim measures can take place during the RFA, or during
or after the RFI.
-------
iNTERIM MEASURES COMPLETED:
Sources letter from the Director confirming that interim
measures required by an enforcement order, permit or permit
modification have been successfully completed.
Action Date: date the Director signs the letter.
Status Codes: none
-------
FY89 Ocgplianoe Monitoring and Enforcement Log (OffiL)
Reporting Requirements
-------
FY 1989 HAZARDOUS UASTE COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT LOG
ADDRESS:
4. Data Entry
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I
NAME:
New |_l
Update | |
5. DATE OF INITIAL EVALUATION WHICH IS
THE BASIS FOR THIS REPORT:
5a. AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR
EVALUATION:
Put code in box
E = EPA 0 = Other
S a state B = Contractor/State
C a Contractor/EPA X = Oversight
6.
7.
I
1 = Compliance Eval. Inspection(CEI) 4 = Coup GUM Eva I(CHE)
2 a Sampling Inspection 5 = Compliance Sched. Eval
3 = Record Review 11 = Case Dev. Inspection
12 = O&M Inspection
DATE OF EVALUATION COVERED BY THIS REPORT (enter only if different from 5): / /
TYPE OF EVALUATION COVERED
BY THIS REPORT:
Select Evaluation Type and insert in box:
7a. Eval. Comments:
8. CLASS and VIOLATIONS |
(Class of
Key. (Violation.
'X'=Violations, no Specialties |
'B'=Violations & Specialty
'S'=Same Viol. /Specialty
'Z'=Pending determination
'0'=No Viol or Specialty found
Specialties
M' = No- insurance only
'C' = CA Schedule Violation
>H' = HPV
* = Class I only
I
II
Violations
GUN ' 1 C/PC iFin.Res 1 Pt. B ICnol.SchlManifestlLahd-Banl Other
1
1
1
1
X | X
S | S
z 1 z
0 | 0
H | H
1
1
Accent
X
S
Z
0
I*
B*
H
1
1
1
1
able Codes
X | X
S | S
z 1 z
0 | 0
H | C
X
S
Z
0
H
1 B 1
1 H 1 &
1
1
1
1
X | X
S | S
z z
0 | 0
H 1 H
1
1
8a Viol. Conment:
9. ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS:
| | Area of
|Class Iviol/rel.
I I
I I
I I
I I
| Type | Date Action)
I (use code)! Taken I
I I I
I I 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
Compliance Dates
Scheduled 1 Actual
1
1
1
1
| Penalty | Resp.Ag. |
1 Assessed 1 Collected Kuse code)l
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1
1 1 II
Codes for 03 = Warnim tetter 11 • Filed Civil Action 15 = CA Init. Admin Order
Types of 04 » Adjrin. Complaint 12 • Filed Criminal Action 16 = CA Final Admin Order
Enforcement 05 * Final Adjrin. Order 18 - Civil Referral to AG/DOJ 21 * Notice of Non-comp.
Actions: 10 » Informal 19 • Final Judicial Order 22 » FFCA
Reso Agcv Codes
E => EPA
S * State
X * EPA Oversight
23 = Fed. Fac. Referral to HQ
10. Enforc. Comment:
-------
-1-
INSTRUCTIONS
FY 1989 RCRA COMPLIANCE
MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT LOG
BLOCK
DIRECTIONS
1. EPA ID #:
2. HANDLER NAME:
3. ADDRESS:
4. DATA ENTRY TYPE:
5. DATE OF INITIAL
EVALUATION:
5a. RESPONSIBLE
AGENCY
Enter the Handler's EPA ID number.
Enter the Handler's Name.
Enter the Handler's Address (street,
city, state)
Check 'NEW if new initial evaluation is
being reported; check 'UPDATE' if a
subsequent evaluation, or violation
or enforcement data is being provided.
Enter the DATE the Initial Evaluation
started. This date is essential to
enter information into and retrieve it
from HWDMS. The date of the initial
evaluation must be included on the form
when reporting a Compliance Schedule
Evaluation, an enforcement taction,
or any subsequent information related
to the initial evaluation conducted
on the date in Block 5.
The DATE entered should be the date the
evaluation actually began. For inspections
it is the date the inspection of the
handler actually started onsite; for
record reviews it should reflect the date
the review, which included a particular
document, began.
EXCEPTION: When conducting a "record
review" of a Part B, the evaluation date
should be the end date of the review,
since these evaluations are typically lengthy.
Write the appropriate code in the box to
indicate whether the evaluation was conducted
by the State, by EPA (EPA-lead ((Code
E)) or oversight ((Code X)), or by a State
-------
-2-
6. TYPE OF
EVALUATION
COVERED BY
THIS REPORT:
or EPA contractor. Any evaluation conducted
by EPA for oversight purposes, i.e. to
evaluate the quality of a State's compliance
and enforcement program, is considered
to be an oversight inspection. EPA-lead
evaluations include those inspections of
federal, State, and local facilities as
well as any other non-oversight evaluation
EPA conducts. When both EPA and the State
participate in (attend) an inspection,
each must complete a CMEL.
Write the appropriate code (1,3,4,5,11,and 12)
in the box to indicate the type of evaluation.
States and Regions MUST report the following
types of evaluations at a minimum:
Type Description
(1) Compliance Evaluation Inspections(CEI)
(3) Record Reviews
(4) Comprehensive Groundwater Monitoring
Evaluations(CME)
(5) Compliance Schedule Evaluation(CSE)
(11) Case Development Inspections
(12) Operation and Maintenance Evaluation
Regions and States have the option of indicating
"Other" types of evaluations (Codes 6-10).
Only one type of evaluation can be selected
per form. When multiple evaluations occur
during a single visit to a facility, additional
logs must be used to enter each type of evaluation.
A description of each type of evaluation is
provided below.
To be considered as evaluation type 1,3,4,or
12, all applicable checklists must be filled out.
For example, if a handler is a generator and a TSD,
all activities at the handler must be evaluated and
the checklists for generators and TSDs must be
filled out.
-------
-3-
Compliance_Evaluation Inspection (CEI)
(Type 1) is an on-site evaluation of a handler's
compliance with RCRA regulations, closure
plans and permits to gather information necessary
to determine compliance and support enforcement
actions. The inspection includes a characteriza-
tion of the handler's activities, identifying
types of hazardous wastes on site including
all appropriate wastes subject to effective
land disposal restrictions and the identification
of any units which generate, treat, store
or dispose of hazardous solid wastes. The
inspector examines RCRA required records
and reports including, but not limited
to, manifests, waste analysis plans, sampling
and analysis plans, land disposal restriction
regulation requirements, well system sampling
data to determine whether assessment monitoring
should have been triggered, assessment monitoring
plans, incinerater operating and emission
records, contingency plans, and closure/post
closure plans. Corrective Action schedules of
compliance may also be reviewed. This inspection
can result in the identification of the need for a
more intensive inspection such as a Case Development
Inspection.
A CEI may be conducted at permitted TSD facilities.
In this case violations are reported in Block 8 in
the same manner they are reported for non-permitted
facilities. Also, CEIs can be conducted at generator-
only facilities using checklists'^appropriate for
generator inspections. All generator-only CEIs must
include the Land-Ban checklist.
A typical CEI for a non-commercial TSD is expected
to require about 7 work-days of effort; commercial
sites, permitted land-disposal, and permitted
incinerators about 15, and permitted treatment-
storage about 10 workdays.
Sampling_Inspection (Type 2) is an inspection
in which samples are collected for laboratory
analysis. A sampling inspection may be conducted
in conjunction with a Compliance Evaluation
Inspection (or any other inspection except
GDI's or CME's). This type of inspection may
be used to evaluate a handler's compliance
with waste analysis plans, land disposal
restrictions, etc. If both a CEI and a sampling
inspection are performed, a log must be completed
for each inspection to reflect that both were
done.
-------
-4-
Record Review (Type 3) is a detailed review of
reports, documents, and site-plans required for
compliance with RCRA regulations including:
closure/postclosure plans and cost estimates,
financial assurance documents, ground-water
monitoring waivers, assessment monitoring
plans, Part B applications, contingency
plans, waste analysis plans, and preparedness
and prevention plans. These are conducted in
the Agency office; they do not occur on-site.
The type of document reviewed can be indicated by
noting violations or compliance in the appropriate
cell in Block 8. Review of any ground water
monitoring documents may be indicated by
noting "X" "Z","S"f or "0" in the GWM cell of
Block 8. Review of closure/post-closure
plans and cost estimates may be indicated by
noting "X", "Z", "S", or "0" in the C/PC cell
of Block 8. The average Record Review is
expected to take about 3 work-days of effort.
Comprehensive_(Groundwater) Monitoring Evaluation
(CME) (Type 4) is a detailed evaluation of the
adequacy of the design and operation of a
facility's ground-water monitoring system.
Evaluation of the ground-water monitoring system
design should be conducted by a hydrogeologist
and includes the review of the owner/operator's
(o/o's) characterization of the hydrogeology
beneath hazardous waste management units;
monitoring well placement/depth/spacing; and
well design and construction. It is essential
that the CME ensure that the o/o has designed an
adequate ground-water monitoring system. In
addition, an integral part of the CME is the
review of the operation of the ground-water
monitoring system through an evaluation of
the o/o's sampling and analysis plan and its
implementation. CME's should be scheduled,
to the maximum extent possible, to coincide
with o/o sampling events to permit the field
evaluation of sampling techniques. Inspectors
should collect splits or conduct EPA/State
sampling as a random check of groundwater
quality data and at any wells which may indicate
releases to support enforcement for corrective
action. A comparison of EPA/State and o/o
analytical results can be used to assess
laboratory accuracy and establish the reliability
of o/o submitted data. The CME must evaluate
whether a facility operating under detection
monitoring should be in assessment/compliance
monitoring. If determined necessary, the
-------
-5-
inspector should develop the scope of a (follow-
up) case development inspection which could
include additional sampling. CME's at assess
ment/compliance monitoring facilities include,
in addition to the aforementioned evaluations,
a detailed examination of the owner/operator's
assessment monitoring plan and field implementa-
tion of the plan. A typical CME is expected to
take about 40 work-days of effort.
Compliance Schedule Evaluation (Type 5)
(Formerly a "Follow-Up Evaluation") is an
on-site inspection or other re-evaluation
conducted to verify compliance with enforcement
actions resulting from a previous evaluation,
to verify compliance with a Corrective Action
schedule in an order or permit, or to
review deficiencies noted in a previous
inspection. It may be a re-review of the
adequacy of documents such as closure
plans or financial instruments previously
found to be incomplete or deficient for which
no enforcement action had been taken.
Only verification of compliance with a
prior (informal or formal) enforcement
action's compliance dates (interim or
final, regulatory or Corrective Action)
is reported (using a Compliance Schedule
Violation area block ) on a Compliance
Schedule Evaluation log. If new, i.e.
additional, violations (other than compliance
schedule violations) are found during a
CSE, an additional log needs to be submitted
for those new violations. The additional
log would usually indicate one or two
possible types of evaluations:
- An Compliance Evaluation Inspection
(CEI) if the full checklists are
covered in addition to the CSE.
- An "Other-General" Evaluation (Code 10)
would be indicated if the new violations
are found but a full set of checklists
are not completed.
Note in particular that for reviews of
corrective action compliance schedules,
the Compliance Schedule Evaluation should
be used.
-------
-6-
Case Development_Inspection (Type 11) The
objective of this intensive investigation is
to gather sufficient information to support
an enforcement action. It should be emphasized
that this is a resource intensive investigation
(typically 25 person-days of effort). Limited
document searches and grab samples will not
be extensive enough to be reported as this
type of evaluation. The scope of the investiga-
tion will depend upon the enforcement needs.
It may include sampling (all media), extensive
documentation of recordkeeping violations, or
the initiation of exploratory techniques such
as geophysical investigations and bore hole
installation. This inspection can be used to
supplement or strengthen the necessary enforce-
ment action identified through CEI's, CME's or
Record Reviews.
Operation and Maintenance Inspection(O&M - Type 12)
The Operation and Maintenance Inspection (O&M)
is a periodic inspection of how well a groundwater
monitoring system continues to function once
it is considered well designed. The inspection
focuses on the condition of wells and sampling
devices. Evolution of well recovery notes,
turbidity of water, total depth, depth to water,
etc. should be made and compared to historic
data. Sampling devices should be tested and
if necessary pulled and visually inspected.
The findings of an O&M inspection will indicate
whether case development is warranted and/or
will serve to focus future CMEs. The inspector
should be experienced in evaluation of groundwater
monitoring systems e.g. hydrogeologist. This
inspection can include sampling. However, if
a great deal of sampling is. conducted, a
separate log should be filled out as well
for Sampling Inspection (See Evaluation Type 2).
The average level of effort allocated for
O&M inspections is 25 work-days.
'Other * Evaluation is an on-site inspection
of a handler which does not meet any other
definition. If Regions or States choose to
track evaluations in greater detail, they
may indicate more specific types of other
evaluations as follows:
Type 06: Inspection done in response to a citizen
complaint,
Type 07; Part B Call-In Inspection within 90 days
of call-in
Type 08; Part A withdrawal (Confirm request via
-------
-7-
the inspection)
Type 09; Inspection of closed facility or units.
Type 10t Other - General inspection. If an
'Other' evaluation results in the discovery
of Class I violations, violations and
related enforcement actions must be noted
on the log in the appropriate sections.
Use Type 10 when reporting a Land-Ban-only
inspection at a generator-only facility.
In this case, be sure to indicate a *0'
under Land-Ban Violation area if no
Land—ban violations are discovered.
7. DATE OF
EVALUATION
COVERED BY
THIS REPORT: Enter a date in this block only when the log
is being used to report a subsequent evaluation.
In- addition, the date of the initial evaluation
MUST be reported in Block 5.
When a facility is re-visited after the initial
evaluation has occurred (e.g., to check on com-
pliance with enforcement actions taken as a result
of a violation discovered during the initial eval-
uation) , enter the date of the subsequent visit in
Block 7. The date of the initial evaluation must
also be entered in Block 5 to serve as a reference
for data entry.
7a. EVAL. COMMENTS: Enter comments in this section regarding any of
the above evaluation information. Limit to 80
characters per comment-line. Up to 99 comment-
lines possible.
8. CLASS and This section includes information on compliance
VIOLATION violation areas.
Class I and II violations are defined in OSWER's
"Enforcement Response Policy", October 1, 1988 as:
Class I - "Deviations from regulations, or
provisions of compliance orders,
consent agreements, consent decrees,
or permit conditions which could result
in a failure to:
(a) Assure that hazardous waste is
destined for and delivered to
authorized treatment, storage, or
disposal facilities (TSDFs); or
-------
-8-
(b) Prevent releases of hazardous waste
or constituents, both during the
active and any applicable post-
closure periods of the facility
operation where appropriate; or
(c) Assure early detection of such
releases; or
(d) Perform emergency clean-up operation
or other corrective action for
releases.
Class II - Any violation of a RCRA requirement
that does not meet the criteria above
for Class I violations".
The log divides violations into two CLASSES
and seven AREAS. The following briefly
describes the areas:
Ground-water_Monitoring - For compliance
evaluation purposes, this involves requirements
analogous to Subpart F of the federal Part
264, 270, or 265 regulations. GW violations
are signified by an 'X1. (See below
for details on codes).
Closure/Post-Closure - Plans and related
requirements analogous to Subpart G of the
federal Part 264 and 265 regulations, other
process-specific Subparts on closure and
closure/post-closure cost estimates. C/PC
violations are signified by an 'X'. (See
below for details on codes).
Financial_Responsibility - Requirements for
financial assurance and insurance analogous
to Subpart H of the federal Part 264 or 265
regulations. Inability to procure insurance
for closed and closing facilities is signified
by an 'I1, other financial violations by an
'X1, and inability to procure insurance
(closed and closing) and other financial
violations is signified by a 'B'. (See
below for details on codes).
Part_B_Process - Requirements related to permit
processing, i.e., Part 270 permit process
requirements. Violations in this area are
signified by an 'X'. (See below for details
on codes).
-------
-9-
Coropliance_Schedule - Compliance with date(s)
set out in enforcement actions or permits.
Note specific compliance schedule violations
in comment field 8a. Corrective Action
compliance schedule violations are signified
by a 'C1, other compliance schedule violations
by an 'X', and both Corrective Action and
other compliance schedule violations by a 'B1.
(see below for details on codes).
Manifest - Requirements for the manifest system
analogous to federal Part 262 and 263 including
those violations discovered from exception/
discrepancy reports. Violations in this area
are signified by an 'X'. (See below for
details on codes).
Land-Ban - Requirements for the land disposal
restrictions. (Part 268 requirements and
; related Part 264/265 requirements).
Violations in this area are signified by an
'X'. (See below for details on codes).
Other - This includes violations not specifically
cited in the preceeding categories. For Class I
violations only, note area of violation by its
general features (e.g., generator accumulation,
contingency plan, incompatible wastes, etc.)
in comment field 8a. violations in this
area are signified by an 'X1. (See below
for details on codes). ^
For permitted facilities, the appropriate
violation areas should be noted as discussed
in more detail below. In addition, permitted
facilities may be cited for Compliance Schedule
violations (ie schedules in the permit).
For all other facilities, violation areas
should be noted as explained below.
Where a violation may not have occurred but
the Region or State takes an enforcement
action such as a Section 3013 or 7003 order
(formerly called "problem-area"), enter a zero
on the Class I line under the "Other" area
and enter the particulars of the Order in
Block 9 as usual.
-------
-10-
The following values are acceptable for all eight
Violation areas in Block 8:
'X.1- Indicates that RCRA violations and no
specialty violations were discovered
during the evaluation. (See below
for a description of 'specialty'
violations). If no Class I
violations were discovered, but
Class II violations were discovered,
indicate '0' in the appropriate cell on
the 'Class I' row and 'X' in the appropriate
cell on the 'Class II' row.
'B'- Indicates that both a violation and a
'specialty' (see below for details) were
reported during the evaluation.
'S'- Indicates that all violations and specialties
detected in the current evaluation
had been detected in a prior evaluation
and are therefore recorded in another
CMEL ('S' = 'same violation1). Since
'S' means that the violation/specialty
has been noted in a prior Log, and
that: therefore it will be addressed
by an enforcement action, no enforcement
action is needed to "close out" the
violation/specialty as currently
reported.
[Note that if both violatidns/specialties-
detected-in -a-prior-inspection and
new-violations/specialties are detected
in the current evaluation, then 'X'
or a specialty code (see below) must
be used]. For oversight inspections,
'S1 may be used by EPA to refer to
violations recorded as 'X1 by the
state.
'S1 should be used only if no other letter
('X1,'B1,'Z', or '0') is appropriate.
'Z1- If there is a delay between the time an
evaluation is conducted and the time a
determination is made that violations
are or are not present, use 'Z' in
the appropriate cell in Block S to
provide information on the area
evaluated until a determination is
made. Upon determination of a violation
-------
-11-
or compliance, an updated log should be
submitted wherein the "Z" is changed to
another value as appropriate.
"0"- Indicates that the area was evaluated
and no violations or specialties were
discovered during the evaluation. Note
that a_blank indicates_that an_area was
not_evaluated_during_the evaluation. A
blank, therefore, does not equal a zero.
Note in particular that when conducting
inspections involving Land-Ban, be sure
to enter '0* when the facility was
inspected for Land-Ban and no Land-Ban
violations were discovered.
Likewise, when conducting inspections involving
Corrective Action compliance schedules.
be sure to enter '0* when no C/A compliance
schedule violations or non-C/A compliance
schedules violations were found.
In addition to the above general codes, some
violation areas have additional 'specialty1
violation that are subsets of the area. In the
'Acceptable codes' section of Block 8 all violations/re
allowed in each area are listed. The following
describes the specialty codes:
"I"- It has been determined that^the closing
facility is not in compliant with liability
requirements but is in compliance with all
other financial responsibility requirements.
Note that before 'I' can be used, all financial
responsibility requirements must have been
evaluated.
A "closing facility" is defined for the
purposes here as a land disposal facility
which lost interm status on November 8,
1985 and has submitted (or should have
submitted) a closure plan for at least all
of its land disposal units and is not
putting any waste (neither hazardous
nor non-hazardous) into any of its land
disposal units.
"C"- It is determined that the handler is
not on schedule with a Corrective
Action Compliance Schedule in an
order or permit.
-------
-12-
"H11- When used in a violation area of
Box 8, "H" means that the handler is
considered a High Priority Violator (HPV)
because of violations detected at the
evaluation and possibly because of other
violations discovered in prior evaluations.
The Enforcement Response Policy (effective
October, 1988) provides guidance on HPVs.
It is acknowledged that the start of HPV
status is not triggered by any particular
type of violation. Moreover, a pattern
of 'bad actorship1 may be the primary
cause for HPV designation. In this case,
it is recognized that some violation (even
if relatively insignificant) may have
prompted the classification. The Timely and
Appropriate time-frame begins with the
date this decision is made. "H1 can be
entered on the Class I or Class II line.
The Timely and Appropriate time-frame
ends with issuance of a formal action.
It is assumed that all formal actions
addressing violations designated with
an "H" contain adequate measures to
address all problems which caused the
facility to be designated an HPV.
Special attention should be given to
ensuring that "H" is used in the 'Land-
Ban' area of Box 8 in cases^where inspections
are conducted at generator-only handlers
and a decision is made to label the
generator an HPV as a result of a Land-Ban
inspection.
As a guide to deciding what value is appropriate
in each violation box, the following questions,
if answered in the order listed, may be helpful:
(1) If the area was not evaluated, leave
the box blank and continue to the next area
of violation.
(2) If the area was evaluated and no violations
were discovered, code the box with a zero
('0') and continue to the next area of
violation.
(3) If the area was evaluated but a complete
determination of violation status cannot
be made until further information (eg
sample reports, legal clarification, etc)
-------
-13-
continue to the next area of violation.
(4) If the area was evaluated but only the same
violation as discovered in a prior evaluation
are reported, (or where an oversight inspection
is conducted and the State is expected to
conduct the enforcement), code the box
with an 'S1 and continue to the next area
of violation.
(5) If the area was evaluated and only an
applicable 'specialty1 was reported, then
code the box with the code for the
specialty and continue to the next area
of violation.
(6) If the area was evaluated and only non-
specialty violations were reported, then
code the box with an 'X1 and continue to
the next area of violation.
(7) If the area was evaluated and both
specialty and non-specialty violations
were reported, then code the box with a
•B' and continue to the next area of violation.
VIOL. COMMENT: Enter a comment in this section regarding
violations only. Limit to 80 characters.
Included in this comment field should be any
specifics on Class I 'Other1 violations
reported and any Compliance Schedule violations
noted on the log.
ENFORCEMENT The data in Block 9 are required for enforcement
ACTIONS: actions taken related to Class I violations.
Regions and States track enforcement actions
taken in response to Class I violations by
indicating the appropriate Class in the column
under 'Class1*. Class II reporting is optional
for the Regions and States.
Make one entry for each enforcement action
taken. The action may address more than one
class or area of violation. If an enforcement
action must be escalated to a higher level
before compliance occurs, make a separate entry
for each enforcement action taken until the
handler is returned to compliance. Each
report must include the date of the initial
evaluation at Block 5. Use of this reference
date allows the related events to be tied
together in the database.
-------
-14-
CLASS: Indicate '!' or '2' appropriately. If the
action covers Class I or both Class I and II
violations, use a '!'. If the action covers
Class II violations only, and the Region or
State tracks them, use a '2'.
AREA: Indicate the Area of the violation
addressed by the enforcement action.
The areas are the categories appearing in
Block 8. Where High Priority Violator (HPV)
status is indicated in one or more violation
areas in Box 8, one of those areas must be used.
(This is necessary in order to enable SPMS
to accurately reflect when all "dynamic"
SNCs have been addressed. In FY89 dynamic TSD
SNCs are equivalent to HPVs). Otherwise, if
there are any GWM, Financial Responsibility,
or Closure/Post-Closure violations addressed
by the action and the facility is a BOY SNC,
at least one of these areas must be entered
here. (This is necessary in order to
allow SPMS to accurately reflect where all
significant non-compliance has been addressed
for BOY SNCs. In FY89 BOY SNCs are defined
as they were in FY88. The differing definitions
for BOY and dynamic SNCs is necessary to
make a smooth transition from the old FY88
SNC definition to the new FY89 SNC definition).
The areas are abbreviated as follows:
*f
GW = Groundwater or Releases to 'any media
giving rise to corrective action
CP = Closure/Post-Closure
FR = Financial Responsibility
PB = Part B
CS = Compliance Schedule
MA - Manifest
LB =» Land-Ban
OT =• Other
AA - "All the above"
If the action covers all areas indicated in
Block 8, use code 'AA1 ("all of the above").
-------
-15-
Types of Enter the code of the type of enforcement
actions: action taken. At a minimum, enforcement
actions of the following types must be reported:
Type Description
(10) Informals
(03) Warning Letters/Notices of Violation
(04) Administrative Complaint (initial order) or
State Unilateral Order
(05) Final Administrative Order or Effective Order
(18) Civil Referral
(11) Filed Civil Action
(19) Final Judicial Order
(12) Filed Criminal Action
(15) Corrective Action Initial Admin Order
(16) Corrective Action Final Admin Order
(21) Notice of Non-compliance (NON)
(22) Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (FFCA)
(23) Fed. Fac. Referral to HQ
Codes for additional types of actions are
provided for those Regions and States that
wish to keep specific, detailed information
on other enforcement actions. States may use
different terms than EPA uses to identify
various enforcement actions. The definitions
outlined below serve as a guide to classify
the required types of enforcement actions for
entry on this form regardless of^-the formal
terms used by the State. Any questions should
be addressed to EPA Regional Office staff.
Informal (Type 10) A response to a violation
. by written or verbal means which does not
meet the criteria of a warning letter or
notice of violation set forth below. Informal
actions include meetings with the handler or
owner, telephone calls, or other informal
exchanges of information regarding violations
and compliance requirements.
WL/NOV (Warning Letter/Notice of Violation!
(Type 03) The action must be a written document
which notifies the handler that he/she is in
violation and specifies a date when the violator
must return to compliance. Warning Letters
and Notices of Violation may precede a formal
administrative enforcement action. These actions
may be required in the State's statutory
enforcement provisions, or may constitute
actions which are used to resolve minor violations
without issuing an administrative order.
-------
-16-
it (Type 041
This is a RCRA 3008(a) administrative complaint
or an equivalent State unilateral order which
may propose a penalty or threaten the imposition
of a penalty for non-compliance. The complaint
cites violations and seeks compliance. The
complaint may also provide opportunity for a
hearing to discuss the violation, the proposed
remedy and possibly the proposed penalty.
AO (Final Administrative Order)(Type 051 These
are legally binding orders equivalent to the
RCRA 3008(a) Final Compliance Order. These
orders, which may be issued "on consent", are
issued under statutory enforcement provisions
which require compliance with EPA/State statute
or regulations. They may or may not assess
penalties. They are final actions issued by
EPA/State agency without going to court.
They are enforceable documents which, if
violated, can be enforced through further
administrative or judicial action.
Civil_Referral (Type 181 EPA/State hazardous
waste agency officially requests the filing
of a civil action in court by the U.S. Department
of Justice/ State Attorney General or other
legal entity with authority to file the court
action.
Filed_Civil_Action_(Type_ll) Tftese are cases
filed by the U.S. Department of Justice or
State Attorney General (or other legal entity
with authority to file the action) in which
the State seeks correction of a violation
through the judicial system. The State may
or may not seek penalties through this action.
EPA/State hazardous waste agency need not be
the agency actually filing the action, e.g.,
the State Attorney General's Office or other
legal entity may actually file the case on
behalf of the State hazardous waste agency.
Final Judicial Order fTvpe 191 The judicial
order includes judicial approval of a settlement
agreement between the defendant and the Federal
or State agency (consent decree) or a judicially
imposed judgment.
Filed Criminal Action (Tvoe 121 These enforcement
cases normally involve the knowing violation of
an EPA/State statute or regulation. As with
filed Civil Actions, this enforcement action
is indicated when the State's legal entity
-------
-17-
brings a criminal action, e.g. indictment, on
behalf of the State hazardous waste agency.
Corrective Action Initial Administrative Order
(Tvoe 15) This is a RCRA section 3008(h) initial
administrative order or state equivalent where
the initial order addresses both compliance and
Corrective Action (3008(h) or state equivalent).
Note: C/A 3008(h) orders addressing only C/A
should be entered into CARS, not HWDMS.
Corrective Action Final Administrative Order
fTvoe 16) This is a RCRA section 3008(h) final
order or state equivalent where a final order
addresses both compliance and Corrective Action
(3008(h) or state equivalent).
Note: C/A 3008(h) orders addressing only C/A
should be entered into CARS, not HWDMS.
Notice of Non-Compliance (type 21) The Notice
of Non-Compliance ("NON") is the initial written
notification to a Federal Facility of the existence
of RCRA High Priority violations at that facility.
The issuance of an NON at a Federal Facility is*
parallel to the issuance of a RCRA Section 3008(a)
administrative complaint to a private facility,
and must conform with the 3008(a) complaint in
content and format.
&
Federal Facility Compliance Agreement (Type 22)
The Federal Facility Compliance Agreement ("FFCA")
is the final negotiated document between EPA and
a Federal Agency resolving compliance violations
at that facility. This agreement is parallel to
the issuance of a 3008(a) final administrative
order to a private facility. It should contain
those provisions described in the memorandum
entitled "Enforcement Actions Under RCRA/CERCLA
at Federal Facilities" (Winston Porter to
Regional Administrators, January 25, 1988).
Fed. Fac. Referral To HQ (Type 23) This referral
occurs when the Region determines that the joint EPA/
Federal Facility negotiations will .not result in the
settlement of a Federal Facility Compliance Agreement
within the 120 day prescribed timeframe, and submits a
referral package to EPA Headquarters. Referral
procedures are outlined in the memorandum entitled
"Elevation Process for Achieving Federal Facility
Compliance Under RCRA." (Winston Porter to
Regional Administrators, March 24, 1988).
-------
-18-
DATE ACTION
TAKEN:
SCHEDULED
COMPLIANCE
DATE:
ACTUAL
COMPLIANCE
DATE:
Other enforcement action codes available
for use are:
Type 01; Interim Status Compliance Letter
Type 02; 3007 Information Request
Type 06; 3013 Administrative Order (initial)
or State equivalent
Type 07; 3013 Administrative Order (final) or
State equivalent
Type 08: 7003 Administrative Order or State equivalent
Tvoe 13; NOV to State (Violations referred by EPA
to a State for action as a result
of an EPA evaluation.)
Tvoe 14t NOV to EPA (Violations referred by a
State to EPA for action as a result
of a State evaluation).
Type 17: CERCLA 106 administrative order
(EPA only)
Type 20; CERCLA 104 fund-financed activity
(Although this is not an enforcement
action, it is reported to indicate
an alternative to enforcement to
address the hazard at the facility.)
States should consult with EPA regional staff
before using any additional codes.
Enter the date of the enforcement action. For
all actions involving written documents, this
date should be the date the document is executed
(signed). States should determine how to
assign a date to informal actions which do
not involve signed written documents, e.g.,
date of telephone call. For filed civil and
criminal actions, the date the case is filed
is the Date Action Taken.
jr
Enter the date the handler is scheduled to come
into compliance with all provisions of the
enforcement action. If a number of activities
arc to be performed according to a compliance
schedule with more than one date, enter the
date of the last known action to be taken by
the handler to return to compliance. For
civil referrals (Type 18), filed civil actions
(Type 11), filed criminal actions (Type 12)
or other actions without specified compliance
dates, no scheduled compliance date is to be
entered.
Enter the date the handler actually comes into
compliance with all requirements addressed in
the enforcement action. This is the date the State/
EPA determines that the handler came into
-------
-19-
physical compliance (the date compliance was
verified). The handler will continue to be
considered out of compliance until the
actual compliance date is provided. Actual
(physical) compliance does not necessarily
mean that any final penalty assessed has been
satisfactorily paid.
Handlers that are issued Final Administrative
Orders (Type 05) only for the purpose of assessing
penalties, however, are not returned to compliance
until all penalties have been paid.
PENALTY When reporting a 3008(a) Administrative Compliance
ASSESSED: Complaint (04) or its equivalent, enter the
dollar amount of the proposed assessment.
When reporting a 3008(a) Final Administrative
Order (05), final judicial order (19), or
other final order with penalties enter the
dollar amount of the final assessment.
PENALTY Enter the dollar amount of penalty actually
COLLECTED; collected from the handler. Enter cumulative
partial payments as they occur for a handler
who is subject to a payment schedule in the
enforcement action.
RESPONSIBLE Enter the code for the agency taking the
AGENCY: enforcement action. Any enforcement action
taken by EPA in an authorized state is an
'X*. (Guidance on the use of 'X* will be
forthcoming).
ENFORCE. Use this block to clarify data for the
COMMENT: enforcement action only. Use up to 80 characters.
------- |