oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER:
9545.00-6
Lt*
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Evaluation Guide
APPROVAL DATE: 12/01/84
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12/01/34
ORIGINATING OFFICE:
FINAL
osw
D DRAFT
STATUS:
I ]
t ]
[ ]
REFERENCE (other documents)
A- Pending OMB approval
B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
C- For review fir/or comment
D- In development or circulatinj
headquarters
OSWER OSWER OSWER
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington. DC 20460 -
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
1. Directive Number
9545.00-6
2. Originator Information
Name of Contact Person
State Programs Branch
Mail Code
Office
osw
Telephone Code
382-2210
3. Title
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Evaluation Guide
(FY 1985 Edition)
4. Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
Guides Regions in conducting oversight of quality criteria and related
policies.
5. Keywords
Evaluation, Oversight, QA/QC
6a. Does This Directive Supersede Previous Directive(s)?
b. Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)?
No
No
Yes What directive (number, title)
Yes What directive (number, title)
7. Draft Level
A - Signed by AA/DAA
8 - Signed by.Office Director
C - For Review & Comment
D - In Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters?
Yes
A
T—\
No
This Request Meets OSWER Directives System Format Standards. !
9. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
10. Name and Title of Approving Official
Date
Date
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5-87) Previous editions are obsolete.
OSWER OSWER OSWER O
VE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
United States Office of Solia Waste EPA/530-SW-014
Environmental Protection
-------
9 S ! ;>
Preface
The FY 1985 e-liMon of the *CRA Evaluation Guide gives EPA and the States a
useful tool to incorporate the program quality criteria (and related policies)
into their oversight activities. It provides both a valuable reference point
for implementing national requirements and a complete protocol for conducting
program reviews. I expect the Evaluation Guide to be the centerpiece of the
RCRA oversight program. My plans are to use the Guide as a "living document,"
with updates issued periodically as policies change.
The Guide is issued in notebook form to allow additions and deletions as
deemed appropriate to the individual Region/State situations. The value of
this document is in its specificity, but its use must be tailored to the
performance expectations and requirements agreed to in the program grant and
authorization MOA. Like the RCRA program quality document that preceded it,
the use of the Guide will evolve over time as we gain greater experience in
implementing RCRA under State authorization.
The development of the Guide was a joint EPA/State effort under the direction
of the Task Force on RCRA Program Quality, headed by Carl Reeverts. A small
workgroup comprised of Carl, Elaine Fitzback, Elizabeth Cotsworth, George
Faison, and Susan Absher compiled the Guide based on active participation of
the Regions, the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials (ASTSWMO), and several State Directors. A workshop in August
brought together seven Regions, ASTSWMO, and all affected Headquarters offices
to assist in the further development of the Guide.
I strongly urge all RCRA managers to use the Guide to develop your evaluation
protocols for FY 1985. My office will make extensive use of the Guide during
this coming year. We plan to review both the Guide and the quality criteria
document following our initial experiences in FY 1985. Feedback on your use
of the guide would be greatly appreciated.
Lee
As^stant Administrator for;
Solid Waste and Emergency Response
-------
o.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PREFACE ' . . . i
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION TO EVALUATION GUIDE
Purpose of the Guide 1-1
Requirements Affecting FY 1985 Management and Oversight 1-1
The RCRA Oversight Process 1-3
Use of the Guide for Developing FY 1985 Oversight Approaches. . . 1-6
SECTION 2 SUMMARY OF NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
AFFECTING FY 1985 PLANNING
Purpose of Section 2-1
Description of Summary Chart 2-1
Summary of National RCRA Program Requirements 2-3
SECTION 3 INCORPORATING NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
INTO GRANT WORK PROGRAM
Purpose of Section 3-1
Special Grant Conditions 3-1
Program Narrative 3-2
Grant Work Program 3-2
SECTION 4 EVALUATION PROTOCOLS TO TRACK
PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
Purpose of Section 4-1
Program Review Procedures 4-1
Use of Oversight Tools 4-3
Format of the Evaluation Checklists 4-6
SECTION 4A Compliance and Enforcement Evaluation Checklists. . . 4A-1
SECTION 48 Permitting Evaluation Checklists 4B-1
SECTION 4C Management Evaluation Checklists 4C-1
SECTION 5 HWDMS REPORTS TO MONITOR QUALITATIVE CRITERIA
Purpose of Section 5-1
Description of Reports 5-1
Format of Section 5-2
Reports 5-3
SECTION 6 GUIDELINES FOR EPA RESPONSE TO STATE PERFORMANCE
Purpose of Section 6-1
Response Principles 6-1
11
-------
9545 . f)0-S
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION TO EVALUATION GUIDE
-------
Siction 1
Introduction to Evaluation Guide
PURPOSE OF GUIDE
The Guide was developed to aid EPA and the States in incorporating the RCRA
program quality criteria and related management policies into program
oversight activities for FY 1985. It provides detailed guidance and examples
on how to include national requirements in the Region/State grant agreements,
program reviews, and other oversight activities. The evaluation guide
reflects existing policies, and neither adds nor expands on requirements
contained in these policies.
The requirements summarized in the Guide apply equally to the EPA Regions and
States. The Guide may be used both to oversee States with RCRA program
grants—whether under cooperative arrangements or interim or final
authorization—and to evaluate the Regions (where States are not authorized).
The Guide will be supplemented as necessary to reflect emerging program
priorities and new policies identified in the "Agency Operating Guidance" and
the "RCRA Implementation Plan."* It may also be revised periodically as
experience is gained in its use. The Guide is issued in notebook form so that
it may be easily updated to incorporate new program directions.
REQUIREMENTS AFFECTING FY 1985 MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT
Regional and State planning and management for FY 1985 is based on a number of
new policy documents issued this year. The principal sources for national
RCRA program direction to supplement the Agency Operating Guidance for FY 1985
are:
• The FY 1985 RCRA Implementation Plan, issued on July 3,
1984.This document provides a checklist-type summary of
the program priorities, reporting requirements and forms,
and targets for Region/State grants management in FY 1985.
It cross-references virtually all the related documents
affecting FY 1985 planning and oversight.
*This version of the Guide does not reflect the program changes to incorporate
the 1984 RCRA Amendments. CFamjes affecting FY 1985 operations will be
issued as a supplement to this Guide.
1-1
-------
• The Interim National Criteria for a Quality RCRA Program.
issued on May 15, 1984. This document defines the key
questions and performance expectations for managing and
evaluating the RCRA program under existing regulations and
policies. It is multi-year in scope. The quality criteria
form the basis for the grant work program, program element
format, and program reviews and other oversight tools.
• FY 1985 Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS).
issued on October 15, 1984.This document defines the RCRA
measures, commitments, and reports that the Deputy Adminis-
trator and senior Agency management will use to evaluate
progress in overall program implementation. It establishes
quarterly reporting requirements for EPA program offices and
the Regions.
t National Permits Strategy, issued in August, 1984. This
document provides national direction for developing indi-
vidual Region and State multi-year strategies for addressing
the permit workload. These multi-year strategies will guide
EPA and State permit activities for FY 1985 and later years.
The individual strategies are due on December 31.
• Guidance on Developing RCRA Compliance/Enforcement Strategy,
issued on June 12, 1984.This document provides national
direction for developing individual Region and State multi-
year strategies for compliance monitoring and enforcement.
The individual strategies are due on December 31.
t Agency Policy Framework for State/Federal Enforcement Agree-
ment, issued June 26. 1984.This document provides Agency-
wide requirements for developing enforcement agreements and
overseeing authorized enforcement programs. The Region/
State enforcement agreements must be in place by the begin-
ning of FY 1985.
• RCRA Enforcement Response Policy, issued in October, 1984.
This document defines a classification scheme for identi-
fying and reporting violations, describes timely and appro-
priate responses for each violation type, and outlines
various levels of program response to bring violators back
into compliance.
• State Capability Assessment Guidance, issued on June 25,
1984.thisdocumentprovidesimplementing guidance,
including checklists, for completing the capability assess-
ment required as part of the State final authorization
process. It defines the format for determining the joint
Region/State actions to build and sustain program quality
over time, which must be addressed in the yearly grant work
program.
1-2
-------
THE RCRA OVERSIGHT PROCESS
Oversight of the RCRA program is a three-part process: Oversight Planning;
Monitoring and Evaluation; and Feedback/Follow-up Response.
Oversight Planning
As depicted in Figure 1.1, the process formally begins with the issuance of
the "Agency Operating Guidance," and its supplement, the "Strategic Planning
and Management System" (SPMS). The operating guidance sets out broad goals
and objectives for all EPA programs, while SPMS details specific accounta-
bility measures. The "Criteria for a Quality RCRA Program" first enters the
planning process by reference in the "Agency Operating Guidance."
FIGURE 1.1 RCRA PUNNING AND OVERSIGHT DRIVING DOCUMENTS
AGENCY OPERATING GUIDANCE
(Annual)
• Sets broad goal* and objectives for
measurement of environmental programs
• Describes aajor policies for the
coming year
• SPKS measures
NATIOHAl RCRA IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (KIP)
(Annual)
• RCRA's plan of action to tuple
Agency operating guidance
ent
• Basis for HQ evaluation of Regional
performance
* State grant allotments
• Regional targets
REGIONAL CONDIMENTS
(Annual)
• Establishes quarterly
Regional commitment!
under SPMS
• Key document against
•hied performance Is
evaluated by Head-
quarters
STATE GRANT GUIDANCE
jAnnual)
• Regional plin for State
implementation of RIP and
Agency operating guidance
t Incorporate by reference other
requirements In the authorization
HOA, State enforcement agreement.
letter cf intent, -tc.
* Regional guidance for State wort
program carcaitaeits
STATE GRANT WORK PROGRAM
(Annual)
Establishes quarterly State
comml u*nts/perf omance
expectations in each of the areas
specified In the Region/State RIP
Describes all projects and
activities beitg undertaken by
State
• Key document against which State
performance Is evaluated by Region
1-3
-------
In response to these documents, the RCRA national program issues the annual
"RCRA Implementation Plan" (RIP), which describes the national program's
strategy for implementing the Agency's operating guidance. This is the basis
for both Regional development of its own commitments under SPMS and the
guidance it provides to the State for program grant planning.
Based on the Regional grant guidance to the States, each State begins
developing its annual State grant work program. This document, which
establishes annual State commitments and performance expectations, should
reflect the grant guidance, the MOA, as well as the quality criteria. The
State grant work program that results from this process then serves as the
basis against which performance will be evaluated throughout the fiscal year.
The oversight planning process is completed upon preparation of evaluation
protocols that establish the procedures for Regional conduct of monit^ing,
inspection, and review activities. These protocols also include the lines of
inquiry to be used in reviewing and evaluating program performance against the
objectives and measures agreed upon in the grant work program. Protocols are
developed as needed to specifically address each State's program.
Monitoring and Evaluation
The RCRA monitoring and evaluation activities, as displayed in Figure 1.2,
include monthly monitoring through use of HWDMS and other reports, quarterly
mid-year, and end-of-year program performance reviews. Throughout the year,
oversight inspections and record reviews are also conducted, as are permit
reviews and ongoing/informal monitoring and evaluation.
Feedback and Follow-Up Response
The third and final part of the RCRA oversight process involves feedback to
program performance. It is critical that feedback be a two-way street, with
the objective being to improve future performance by both the Region and
State. Figure 1.2 diagrams these activities.
Regional feedback to the States occurs informally throughout the year, but
also formally through the program review reports that the Regions prepare to
describe the findings of the program evaluations.
When program performance has been exemplary, the Regional response should
include publicity for State accomplishments, less frequent audits or
evaluation, and technical or financial assistance for special State projects.
When program performance shows need for improvement, Regional responses may
range from increasing level of monitoring and evaluation to providing
technical assistance, changing grant pay-out procedures, or (in the most
extreme cases) initiating withdrawal of authorization.
1-4
-------
FIGURE 1.2
RCRA OVERSIGHT PROCESS FLOW CHART
OVERSIGHT
PLANNING
Program Goals
Established
» MUA
* KIP
• Grunt Guidance
Negotiation of
Coomi tments
• State Grant
Work Program
• Regional SPMS
Connitrents
Issue
Perl onrtdhce-
Grant
hosed
Ulil ll|nl|.
GriinL I unds
Development
1 va 1 ue^pl]ry
Perfom-ance
State Response
• Explanations
• Corrective Actions
• Feedback on
Regional Performance
EPA
ACTION
u
For Areas
Needing
Improvement
• Publicize State Program and Accomplishments
• Transfer Good Ideas to States
• Less Frequent Evaluation or Audits
• Technical and Financial Assistance for
State Special or Innovative Projects
Suggest Minor Change in State or Regional Procedure
Provide Technical Assistance
Increase Reporting Frequency/Level of Oversight
Raise Performance Issue to Higher Level Management
Revise Future Work Program
Greatly Increase Oversight
Revoke Letter of Credit/Institute Reimbursable Grant
Postpone Release of Funds, or Oeobllgate
Withdraw Authorization
^Throughout the year, various review mechanisms are utilized for monitoring and evaluating program performance
In addition to the periodic tools listed. These include oversight Inspections and record reviews, permit reviews.
and on-going Informal monitoring and evaluation.
Later uevu«s
and
Future lear
PIennt"3
-------
USE OF THE GUIDE FOR DEVELOPING FT 1985
OVERSIGHT APPROACHES
The evaluation guide provides a fairly complete starting point for Region and
State oversight planning. The guide provides a common basis (both in format
and content) for planning and overseeing the program in FY 1985. The format
is based on the set of key questions in the RCRA quality criteria document.
The key questions provide a "common denominator" to categorize all program
requirements found in the various policy and guidance documents issued for FY
1985. The guide can be used both as a reference point for national require-
ments and as a complete checklist for conducting program reviews.
It is important to note, however, that EPA and the Regions are not required to
follow the protocols exactly as contained in this evaluation guide. The
protocols are intended as guidance for developing protocols tailored to the
indivudal Region/State relationship and the status and characteristics of the
State programs.
The protocols are meant to encourage consistent expectations of both the
States and the Regions responsible for program implementation. Thus, the
guide:
• Provides a summary of national requirements derived from
various policy issuances to use as a reference for FY 1985
grant planning and development of Evaluation protocols
(SECTION 2);
• Illustrates how the quality criteria and related policies
can be incorporated into the grant work program (SECTION 3);
• Presents full models of FY 1985 evaluation protocols that
incorporate the quality criteria and related requirements
(SECTION 4);
• Present a series of HWOMS reports to track performance
against the quality criteria and to meet the quantitative
information needs to support the evaluation protocols.
(SECTION 5); and
• Outlines an approach to determining EPA response to State
performance, based on the seriousness of the problem in the
case of poor performance, and positive reinforcement when a
State has successfully met its commitments. (SECTION 6).
1-6
-------
9 5 4 5 * 0 0 - r>
SECTION 2
SUMMARY OF NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
AFFECTING FY 1985 PLANNING
-------
Section 2
Summary of National Requirements Affecting FY 1985 Planning
PURPOSE OF SECTION
This section presents a summary of national RCRA program requirements affect-
ing FY 1985 planning and oversight. It should provide a common frame of
reference for all Regions and States for program grant planning, preparing for
program reviews, and other oversight activities. Sections 3,4, and 5 or the
Evaluation Guide are based on the requirements set out in this summary.
The requirements summary compiles all the quantitative and qualitative
measures from key national documents under common program elements and objec-
tives. The objectives are based on the "Key Questions" used in the "Interim
National Criteria for a Quality RCRA Program." The program elements (program
development, enforcement, permitting, management support and oversight) are
taken from the "FY 1985 RCRA Implementation Plan" (RIP) and the "Interim
National Criteria for a Quality RCRA Program." All national requirements fit
into this basic structure.
DESCRIPTION OF SUMMARY
The requirements summary for each program element is divided into three parts:
• Objective—The common performance theme for the quantitative
and qualitative requirements.
• Quantitative Measures—The commitments and reporting items,
including which are to be pre-negotiated, the frequency of
reporting, and the source document of the requirement.
• Qualitative Requirements—The management policy directions
and expectations which are to be followed in FY 1985 program
planning and management, with the specific source document
noted for each statement.
Most of the requirements for FY 1985 were included in three documents: the
"FY 1985 RCRA Implementation Plan" (RIP), the "Interim National Criteria for a
Quality RCRA Program", and SPMS. All other documents are cross-referenced in
the RIP. The summary does not include the detailed instructions for
developing the enforcement and permitting strategies which are contained in
the relevant source documents. Where requirements are in conflict, the RIP is
the appropriate document to follow.
2-1
-------
SOURCE OF RCRA PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS-FINAL
DOCUMENTS IMPORTANT FOR FY 1985 PLANNING
1. FY 1985 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) (Memo, Lee Thomas to Regional
Administrators, dated July 3, 1984)
2. Interim National Criteria for a Quality RCRA Program (Joint
Thomas/Lazarchik issuance, dated May 15, 1984)
3. FY 1985 Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS) (Memo, Aim to
Agency Senior Management, October 15, 1984)
4. State Compliance/Enforcement Strategies (Memo, Lee Thomas to Regional
Administrators, dated June 12, 1984)
5. State/Federal Enforcement "Agreements" (Memo, Al Aim to Agency Assistant
Administrators and Regional Administrators, dated June 26, 1984)
6. National Permits Strategy (issued in August, 1984)
7. National RCRA Enforcement Response Policy (issued in October, 1984)
8. State Capability Assessment Guidance (Memo, Lee Thomas to Regional
Administrators, dated June 26, 1984)
2-2
-------
PROGRAM ELEMENT-PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT (Page 1 of 1)
OBJECTIVE 1: Obtain Final Authorization
MEASURES/REQUIREMENTS
ADVANCE /REPORTING*
COMMITMENT/ FREQUENCY
SOURCE OF
REQUIREMENT
Quantitative Measure!
1. Date for submission of draft application, final.
application, and final EPA decision for State
final authorization
2. Number of State RCRA Program Reversions
Yes/Quarterly
No/End of 2nd and 4th
Quarters
RIP (p.5), SPMS (R/C-1)
SPMS (R/C-2)
Qualitative Requirements
I. Include In grant work program:
e Any deficiencies addressed as result of the
capability assessments and specific actions
agreed to by EPA and State to enhance Statt
capabilities
e The specific measures to ensure smooth trans-
fer of permit activities to the States
2. For States where reversion of Interim authorizi-i
tlon seems likely, the Regions and States must
implement transition strategies in FY 1985
RIP (P-5.7)
RIP (p.6). National
Permits Strategy (p.20)
RIP (p.S)
•In some cases, this Information is derived by EPA from a variety of sources, rather than discretely reported by
States at the specified intervals
2-3
-------
PROGRAM EIDCNT"ENFORCE>€NT (Page 1 of 6)
OBJECTIVE 1: Develop and Maintain Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Strategy Consistent with tht National Enforcement Strategy
rCASUAES/REQUIRDCNTS
ADVANCE /REPORTim
COMMITMENT/ FREQUENCY
SOURCE OF
REOU1REM£MT
Quantitative Measures
1. Date for submission of State canpMance/wforce-
ment strategy
2. Oati the State/Federal enforcement agreement 1s
1n place for each State
No/End of 1st Quarter*
No/Beginning of 1st
Quarter
RIP (p.2). Quality
Criteria Document (p.5),
Compllance/Enforcement
.Memo (p.2)
RIP (p.9), Enforcement
Agreement Memo (p.2)
Qualitative Requirements
1. Tht compliance/enforcement strategy, submitted
1n written form by December 31, 1984, Is updated
annually and Includes:
• A compliance monitoring strategy responding
to Issues raised 1n compliance/enforcement
memo and tht quality criteria document
t An enforcement strategy responding to Issues
raised 1n compliance/enforcement memo and tht
quality criteria document
RIP (p.2)
Compllance/Enforcement
Memo (p.II-1-5), Quality
Criteria Document (p.5-6)
Compliance/Enforcement
Memo (p.II-5-13). Quality
Criteria Document (p.7-9)
2. Tht State/Federal enforcement 1s to be In place
(either as separate document or as part of HOA,
program grant, etc.) by tht beginning of FT 1985
and 1s to Include:
• Clear oversight criteria, specified 1n
advance (no surprises)-;
t Clear criteria for direct Federal enforcement
In authorized States; and
• Adequate State reporting
RIP (p.91, Enforcement
Agreement Policy Frame-
work (p.l)
• Tht orlglMl December 31 date for submission of the compliance/enforcement strategy may be changed because
of the MM requirement* contained In the 1984 RCRA Amendments.
2-4
-------
RDeffT--ENFORCE>C*T (toft t of 6)
OBJECTIVE 2: CondBCt Inspect***! Md Record tevlewt 1« Accordanct
-It* Uw Compliance Monitoring StraUfly
MEASURES/REQUIREMENTS
ADVANCE /REPORTING
COMMITMENT/ FREQUEMCT
SOURCE Of
REQUIREMENT
Quantitative Measures
1. Number of completed record reviews for Subpart
GSH. for EPA and Stjte
2. Number of Inspections of irajor and non-major
handlers, for EPA and State
3. Number of major Federal facilities with com-
pleted record reviews for Subpart G4H
4. Number of major Federal facilities with com-
pleted inspections
5. Number of CME, CHI, and sampling inspections-
6. Number and percentage of Regional oversight
inspections
7. Number and percentage of Regional oversight
record reviews
res/Quarterly**
Yes/Quarterly
No/ Quarterly
Yes/Quarterly
No/Quarterly
Yes/Quarterly
Yes/Quarterly
RIP (p.2). SPMS (R/E 9)
SPHS (R/E 8)
SPMS (R/E 12)
RIP (A-5)
RIP (p.3. Appendix A)
RIP (p.3. Appendix A)
Qualitative Requirement*
1. Inspections, Including Federal facilities, will
cover:
All majors, including CHE or CEI for Subpart
F facilities
251 of non-major ISO
7X of non-major generators or transporters
1002 of closed facilities not Inspected at
certification and/or subject to post-closure
requirements
1001 of facilities Issued permits
1001 of facilities called in
1001 of facilities to support enforcement
100S of facilities closing in current year
2. Record reviews will cover
• 1001 of major TSDFS not reviewed earlier
• 331 of non-major TSDFS
3. Selection of CMEs for Subpart F:
• All facilities receiving wastes from
Superfund sites
t All facilities which a Part B request
received
• All facilities seeking closure or waiver
• All facilities in assessment or detection
Bonltoring where Part B requested
4. Th« Region will conduct oversight Inspections
and record reviews on at least 101 of the total
authorized State inspections or record reviews
RIP (pp. 2-3). Quality
Criteria Document (p.6)
RIP (p.3). Quality
Criteria Document (p.6)
RIP (A-4)
RIP (p.3)
**Here. as In other cases, the official SPMS reporting of performance against commitments Is flathered quarterly
fro* the monthly compliance and enforcement log.
2-5
-------
MOGRAM aDCIT-EIFORCEMEMT (Page 3 of f)
OBJECTIVE J: Hrform Thorough Inspections and tecord Reviews that arc Proper I/ Documented
ADVANCE /REPORTI« SOURCE OF
MEASURES/REQUIRE**!* COMMITfCNT/ FREQUENCY REQUIREMENT
Quantitative Measures
(NONE)
Qualitative Requirements
1. Inspection checklists are completed accurately Quality Criteria Document
IP-6}
2. Files are maintained and readily accessible; Quality Criteria Document
violations are well documented (p.6)
3. Sampling quality assurance/quality control pro- Quality Criteria Document
cedures have been followed (P-6)
4. Class I violations at inspected handlers have Quality Criteria Document
been identified (p.6)
2-6
-------
ELE«JfT--£MFC#:t?tin' (Page < of »)
OBJECTIVE 4: Take Enforcement Actions in < T1«e1y and Appropr1
-------
PROGRAM ELEMEKT--ENFORCEMEIT (Ngt f »f ()
OTJECTIrt S: Report Enforcement Actions to the Public
-------
PROGRAM ELEMEHT-ENFORCEMEHT (Pagt 6 of 6)
OBJECTIVE 6: Report Progress toward Bringing Non-Compilers Into Compliance
MEASURES/REQUIREMENTS
ADVANCE /REPORTIN6
COMMITMENT/ FREQUENCY
SOURCE OF
REQUIREMENT
Quantitative Measure*
1. Compliance rat* reporting:
• Number of major and non-major handlers regu-
lated by EPA and authorized States
e Number of major and non-major handlers with
Class I violations
• Percent of handlers evaluated that have
current Class I violations on Oct. 1, April I
2. Significant non-compliance reporting (fixed
unlverst)
e Number of major handlers In significant non-
compliance at beginning of year, Including
those on compliance schedule
e Number of handlers in significant non-
coBptlance at beginning of the year returned
to compliance
No/End of 1st quarter
No/Quarterly
No/Semi-annual1y
No/End of 1st quarter
Yes/Quarterly
SPMS (R/E 1)
SPMS (R/E 2)
quality Criteria Document
(Appendix B)
SPMS (R/E 3), Quality
Criteria Document
(Appendix B)
SPMS (R/E 4). Quality
Criteria Document
(Appendlxe B)
3. Significant non-compliance reporting (dynamic
universe):
e Number of major handlers In significant non-
compliance newly Identified each quarter
e Nu*ber of newly Identified violators returned
to compliance 1n each successive quarter
4. Federal facility non-compliance reporting:
e Number of major Federal facilities at start
of year
e Number of major Federal facilities 1n signi-
ficant non-compliance at the beginning or
year (fixed base)
e Number of major Federal facilities In signi-
ficant non-compliance at beginning of year
returned to compliance
e Number of major Federal facilities In signi-
ficant non-compliance newly identified each
quarter
e Number of newly Identified Federal facility
violators returned to compliance
No/Quarterly
No/Quarterly
No/End of 1st quarter
No/End of 1st quarter
Yes/Quarterly
No/Quarterly
No/Quarterly
SPMS (R/E 5), Quality
Criteria Document
(Appendix 8)
SPMS (R/E 7). Quality
Criteria Document
(Appendix B)
SPMS (R/E 12)
SPMS (R/E 12)
SPMS (R/E 12)
SPMS (R/E 12)
SPMS (R/E 12)
2-9
-------
P9Q«!WM EL0CMT--PERMITTIN6
1 of 5)
J.'velsp ins Maintain a Hulti-jear Permit Strategy
Consistent with the National Permit Strategy
>€ASURES/REQUIREMENTS
quantitative ."eajures
1.
Date for iuknisjion of multi-year permit
strategy for every State authorized by the en,
of ft 1985 ami the Region in non-authorized
States
ADVANCE /REPuirriHS
COMMITMENT/ FREQUENCY
SOURCE OF
REQUIREMENT
No/End of 1st quarter7
RIP (p.2). Quality
Criteria Document (p.10).
National Permit Strategy
(p.24)
Qualitative Requirements
1. The permit strategy Is submitted in written form
by December 31, 1984, is updated annually, and
Includes an action plan to:
• Accelerate requests for permitting applica-
tions, with priority attention given to land
disposal and incineration
• Assign high priority to processing closure
plans for land disposal facilities
• Coordinate compliance Inspections and permit
writing
• Expand public involvement activities earlier
in process for environmentally significant
facilities
• Implement a comprehensive management approach
(See national permits strategy and quality criteria
document for performance expectations to bt
contained in the strategy)
National Permits Strategy
(PP. 5-18)
2. The multiyear strategy will address a 3-5 year
planning framework to include:
• Scheduled milestones leading to achievement
of strategy objectives
• Resource commitments
• Staff and resource development plans to
ensure program capability
• Deviations from national timelines for permit
processing
• Agreement between Region and State for TA
3. The grant work program will contain a commitment
by the State to complete a multl year strategy,
including unique circumstances that require a
deviation from national strategy objectives
National Permits Strategy
(PP. 23-24)
National Permit Strategy
(p.20)
T)M original 0*ce«6«r 31 dati for submission of the permit strategy My bt changed because of the new
rvqulroMiits contained in the 1984 RCRA Amendments.
2-10
-------
W06RAK ELEMENT-PERMITTING (Page 7 Of 5)
OBJECTIVE 2: Request Permit Applications and Make Oeter*inat1c
1* Accordance with the Pcrait Strategy
MEASURE S/ REQU I REHENTS
ADVANCE /REPORTIN6
COMMITMENT/ FREQUEMCT
SOURCE OF
REQUIREMENT
Quantitative .^aasurei
1. Number of storage facilities No/Quarterly
• Applications requested
• Completeness determinations made
• Draft permits Issued
• Final determinations made
2. Number of Incineration facilities: Yes/Quarterly
• Applications requested
• Completeness determinations made
• Public notices issued
• Final determinations made
3. Number of land disposal facilities: Yes/Quarterly
• Applications requested
• Completeness determinations made
• Public notices issued
• Final determinations made
4. Percent of Part B applications requested to date No/Quarterly
against total to be requested
S. Percent of Part 8 determinations made to date No/Quarterly
against total Part 8s expected
Qualitative Requirements
1. The grant work program will Include:
• Quarterly commitments to request a specific
number of permit applications
• Quarterly commitments for public notices and
final determinations
• A commitment to conduct coordinated Inspec-
tions and permit writer visits within 90 days
of the permit application request
• A commitment to complete all land disposal
and incineration requests during FY 1985
unless deviation is justified
SPMS (R/C 3)
SPMS (R/C 3), RIP {p.5)
SPMS (R/C 3), RIP (p.5)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.ll)
Quality Criteria Document
(p.ll)
National Permits Strategy
fp.20), RIP (pp. 5 and
4-3)
2-11
-------
[?»yt 3 of 5)
>n «i.j Joce *1t> Processing Schedule*
ADVANCE /REPORTItt SOURCE OF
MEASURES/REQUIREMENTS COMMITMENT/ FREQUENCY REQUIREMENT
Quantitative '-'-gasji-jj
(NONtj
Qualitative Requirements
1. Best achievable processing time for permit Quality Criteria Document
applications are within the following ranges: (P-12)
• 15 to 18 months for storage and treatment.
• 17 to 24 months for incineration (including
trial burn), and
• 23-30 months for land disposal
2. Decision schedules are established and tracked Quality Criteria Document
for each permit for: (P-12)
The receipt of the application.
Completeness check,
Notice of deficiency,
Completeness determination,
Public notice of draft permit.
End of the public comment period,
Final decisions on permit
3. If permit deficiencies are not resolved within Quality Criteria Document
60 days of Notice of Deficiency (NOD), referral (p.12)
is made for enforcement action or permit denial
1s initiated, as appropriate (unless an alterna-
tive schedule is agreed upon).
4. Closure/post-closure plans reviewed and final Quality Criteria Document
determinations made within timeframes specified (P-12)
in Federal or authorized State program regula-
tions.
2-12
-------
MOGRA* ELEMENT--PERM1TTIN6 (ftgt -4 Of 5)
OBJECTIVE 4: Make PervU Determinations that are Consistent with Per «1t Regulation*
MEASURES/REQUIREMENTS
ADVANCE /REPORTING
COMMITMENT/ FREQUENCY
SOURCE OF
REQUIREMENT
Quantitative Measures
(NONE)
Qualitative Requirements
1. Lead permitting agency makes determinations that
are consistent with the authorized State or
Federal permit program
2. Permit determinations are enforceable
3. Permit conditions are clear, understandable and
properly documented
4. Conditions based upon permit writers' technical
judgments/interpretations are documented to show
how they meet the intent of the regulations
regarding level of control, containment, clean-
up or protection
5. Comments arising from permit reviews by over-
sight agency are resolved before the next stage
of permit processing 1s completed
6. Permit determinations are upheld on technical,
legal and procedural grounds
7. Requirements and frequencies for facilities'
•on1 toring. reporting. Inspection and analyses
•fter penult issuance are defined and described
Quality Criteria Document
(P.13)
Quality Criteria Document
(p.13)
Quality Criteria Document
(p.13)
Quality Criteria Document
(P-13)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.13)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.13)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.13)
2-13
-------
PROGRAM ELEMENT-PERMITTING (Page 5 of 5)
OBJECTIVE 5: Provide for Adequate Public Participation 1n Penelt Progri
ADVANCE /REPORTING SOURCE OF
MEASURES/REQUIREMENTS COMMITMENT/ FREQUENCY REQUIREMENT
Quantitative Measures
(NONE)
Qualitative Requirements
1. Prepare public participation plan for everjr RIP {p.5), National
'environmentally significant" application Permits Strategy (p.19)
requested or In process.
2. Facilities are encouraged to communicate infor- Quality Criteria Document
mat ion and plans about how they Intend to comply (p>14)
with permit standards and operate under a permit
directly to local governments, public interest
groups and the community at large.
3. Final permits reflect all significant public Quality Criteria Document
comments on the draft permit. (p-14)
4. Informational public notices and meetings are Quality Criteria Document
provided during processing of permit appllca- (P-14)
tions for environmentally or publicly signifi-
cant facilities.
2-14
-------
PROGRAM ELEMENT-MANAGEMENT SUPPORT (Page 1 of 4)
OBJECTIVE 1: Use Resources According to PlM
MEASURES/REQUIREMENTS
ADVANCE /REPORTING
COMMITMENT/
SOURCE Of
REQUIREMENT
Quantitative Measures
1. Number of workyears for each key program element
in grant work program (plan and actual)
Yes/Plan at grant
award/quarterly
RIP (p.7). Ou«11ty
Criteria Document (p.IS)
Qualitative Requirements
1. Number of workyears match grant agreement allo-
cation
2. Resource allocations:
• Program Development--2-4 workyears
• Permitting--50-60X of remainder
• Compliance/Enforcement--30-40X of remainder
t Management--10-20I of remainder
3. Funds not to be used for non-RCRA State activi-
ties
4. Funds used for "more stringent* State require-
ments only after all priority activities are
funded for all States in Region
S. Funds used for State ground water strategy only
after all other priorities are adequately
addressed
RIP (p.7). Quality
Criteria Document (p.IS)
RIP (P.7)
RIP (p.8)
RIP (P-7)
6. The State grant will be consistent with the
following:
• Grant to be performance-based
• Grant provided for adjustment based on rever-
sion and bonuses
• Funds not to be used for CERCLA
• Funds not to be used for activities that are
broader in scope
• Regions must address in grant work program
instances where State FY 84 commitments not
met
• Grants not used by the States are to be
reprogrammed into RCRA Implementation
Contract
• States should coordinate their RCRA grant
work programs with the ground water work
programs
RIP (P.7)
RIP (p.8)
RIP (p.8)
RIP (P-7)
RIP (P.9)
RIP (p.8)
RIP (p.8)
2-15
-------
PROGRAM ELEMENT—MANAGEMENT SUPPORT (Page 2 of 4)
OBJECTIVE 2: Provide Staff Training in Accordance with an Annual Plan
ADVANCE /REPORTING SOURCE OF
MEASURES/REQUIREMENTS COMMITMENT/ FREQUENCT REQUIREMENT
Quantitative Measures
(NONE)
Qualitative Requirements
1. Staff are trained 1n accordance with an annual Quality Criteria Document
training plan that identifies permit and (P-15)
enforcement training needs and specifies how
these needs will be met.
2-16
-------
PROGRAM ELEMENT—MANAGEMENT SUPPORT (Page } of 4)
OBJECTIVE 3: Develop a/td Maintain an Information System
that Effectively Supports Program Management
MEASURES/REQUIREMENTS
ADVANCE /REPORTINfi
COMMITMEMT/ FREQUENCY
SOURCE OF
REQUIREMENT
Quantitative Measures
(NONE)
Qualitative Requirements
1. States must commit In their grant work programs
to submit reports by 20th calendar day of month;
State and Regional Info to be coded 1n HWDMS
within 5 working days after 20th
2. Designation of major handlers for FT85 must be
coded in HWOMS only during November 1-15, 1984
3. States must provide Regions with ID Info on new
handlers within 10 days of decision to accept
info
4. Data system (automated or manual) tracks key
program elements and provides data to meet EPA
and State reporting requirements
5. Data base accurately Identifies regulated comu-
nlty covered by the authorized program
6. Management tracking system provides up-to-date
and accurate permit and enforcement status
information
7. Management at various levels within the Agency
uses the Information system
RIP (p.10)
RIP (p.10)
RIP (p.10)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.15)
Qualify Criteria Document
(P-15)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.15)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.15)
2-17
-------
PROGRAM ELEMErr—KAXASEMEKT SUPP08T {Page 4 of 4)
OBJECTIVE 4: Maintain an Equivalent Prograa under Authorization, Consistent with the NOA
MEASUR£S/R£QUIRD*KTS
ADYAKCE /REPORTING
COWUTKENT/ FREQUENCY
SOURCE OF
REQUIRE**!
Quantitative Measures
(NONE)
Qualitative Requlrenents
1. State Informs EPA In advance of action of
potential waivers, variances, delistings and
changes to State statutes and regulations
2. After final authorization State adopts changes
made in Federal requirements within the speci-
fied time period
3. State adequately addresses EPA comments on
waivers, delistings, variances and regulation
changes
Quality Criteria Document
(p.16)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.16)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.16)
2-18
-------
PROGRAM ELEMENT-OVERSIGHT (Pig* 1 of 3)
OBJECTIVE 1: Administer State Program trants la Accordance with Part 35. Subpart A
ADVANCE /REPORTING SOURCE OF
tCASURES/REQUIREMENTS COMWT>€NT/ FREQUENCY REQUIROCMT
Quantitative Measures
(NONE)
Qualitative Requirements
1. Regional program guidance to each State contains Quality Criteria Document
EPA's national objectives and priorities, the (P-17)
State's funding allocations, the program
elements EPA uses for budget justification and
management outputs and special conditions or
limitations relevant to the State
2. Regional program guidance to States 1s provided Quality Criteria Document
at least 60 days prior to application deadline (P-17)
3. All complete applications are approved, condi- Quality Criteria Document
tionally approved, or disapproved within 30 days (P-17)
of receipt
2-19
-------
PROGRAM ELEMERT--OVERSICKT (Page 2 of 3)'
OBJECTIVE 2: Oversee State Programs to Improve BCRA Progrj
MEASURES/REQUIREMENTS
ADVANCE /REPORTING
CWtllTKHT/ FREQUEMCT
SOURCE OF
REQU1REMEKT
Quantitative Measures
1. Number of EPA Oversight Inspections and record
reviews
Ye- 'Monthly
Quality Criteria Document
(P.17)
Qualitative Requirements
1.
2.
3.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Work program is basis of oversight; work proaram
must reflect the national performance criteria
unless the State and Region agree to alternative
criteria specified in grant work program
State performance to be monitored through (a)
face-to-face meetings, (b) review of State RtRA
permits, (c) oversight inspections, and (d)
analysis of routine reports
Response actions in an authorized State must be
based on the oversight authorities explicitly
agreed to in the MOA or grant
4. Region is reponsible for developing a consistent
oversight approach that provides a rational mix
of incentives and sanctions
5.
6.
Regions conduct State file and program reviews
according to schedules specified in grant assis-
tance agreements
Reviews address the key questions and perfor-
mance measures specified ir this policy
Review findings are provided to the State with-
in 45 days of completing the review. If the
evaluation reveals problem areas, negotiations
are conducted to reach an agreement for resolv-
ing them
EPA and State take corrective actions in
accordance with negotiated agreements
EPA performs oversight inspections of key
handlers (e.g., majors, chronic violators)
EPA oversight inspection reports completed and
transmitted to the State within 30 days of
inspection
EPA reviews and comments on permits agreed upon
by the Region and State. Comments include a
statement of the reason for the comment and the
actions that should be taken by the State
RIP {p.9), Quality
Criteria Document
(pp.20-22)
RIP (p.9)
Quality Criteria Document
(p.19)
Quality Criteria Document
(P. 20)
Quality Criteria Document
(p.17)
Quality Criteria Document
(p.17)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.17)
Quality Criteria Document
(p.17)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.17)
Quality Criteria Document
(P.18)
Quality Criteria Document
(p.18)
2-20
-------
PtKRAN ELEMENT-OVERSHOT (Page S of 3)
OBJECTIVE 3: Provide Culdance and Assistance Which Strengthens
Progra* lapleacntatiM Capabilities
ADVANCE /REPORTING SOURCE OF
nsuREs/R£ouiK«irr$ coMtincirr/ FREQUEMCT REQUIREMENT
Qy«nt1tit1»e
(NONE)
Requirements
1. Training and technical assistance needs 1dent1- Quality Criteria Document
fltd (P. 18)
2. National technical and policy guidance provided Quality Criteria Document
to all Regions In accordance with schedules (P-18)
outlined in annual agency operating guidance
2-21
-------
9545*00-3
SECTION 3
INCORPORATING NATIONAL REQUIREMENTS
INTO GRANT WORK PROGRAM
-------
Section 3
Incorporating National Requirements Into Grant Work Program
PURPOSE OF SECTION
As described in the EPA oversight policy, annual negotiated agreements between
EPA and the States form the basis for program evaluation by establishing
priorities, measures of program success, and formal commitments from each
respective party. These agreements, especially the State grant work program,
are the ideal tools for the acknowledgement and implementation of national
requirements (outlined in Section 2), including the program's quality
criteria.
In FY 1985 all RCRA State grant work programs will be performance-based. This
approach can improve the accountability of the State program by expressing
commitments on a quarterly basis, and by explicitly identifying the resources
associated with those commitments. The emphasis on funding and commitments
also aids the States in the management of their program by encouraging close
supervision of resources and the tracking of outputs.
The purpose of this section is to describe those areas of the annual RCRA
grant agreement that can best serve as a vehicle to: (a) implement the
national requirements in a context that is performance-based and (b) that
incorporates the quality criteria. Those areas include special grant condi-
tions, the program narrative, and the grant work program. Each of these is
discussed below.
SPECIAL GRANT CONDITIONS
Special grant conditions are established to define critical performance expec-
tations. Most grant agreements utilize these conditions to outline procedures
for grant reporting requirements or applicable grant regulations. However, by
delineating priority activities and the resources associated with those acti-
vities, special grant conditions could be used as an effective tool in
establishing performance-based grants. These conditions can also serve as the
basis for any grant sanctions that may be imposed as a result of non-
performance. Special conditions focus on:
• High priority activities for the coming year,
• Areas of poor performance during the preceding year,
• Activities mandated by the State capability assessment,
• Procedures* for release of grant funds and adjustments to
funding in the event of non-performance.
Use of special grant conditions will not serve to lessen the impact of grant
outputs not designated as special conditions since they are also funded and
are expected to be produced.
3-1
-------
Two examples of special grant conditions are presented as Exhibit 3.1. The
first outlines procedures for a quarterly release of grant funds, and the
second highlights critical activities and the resources assigned to those
activities for the coming year.
PROGRAM NARRATIVE
The program narrative and the grant work program are the key components for
incorporating the quality criteria into the grant agreement and implementing
the requirements found in Section 2. The narrative section of the grant work
program is particularly important in outlining the "qualitative" measures of
the quality criteria and the national requirements as they relate to the State
program. A sample outline of a program narrative is found in Exhibit 3.2.
The program elements and objectives listed in the outline are those goals and
key questions outlined in the quality criteria document. In an actual grant
agreement, the following items could be discussed under each objective:
• Priority activities/commitments (Section 2 requirements)--
special grant conditions;
• New activities/commitments for the coming year;
• Continuing activities for the coming year;
• Qualitative criteria--"continuing" time frames for a number
of activities; for example, issuance of AO's within 30 days,
completeness determinations within 35 days etc.; the docu-
ment requiring the activity/commitment; referencing any
specific procedures/format for the activity; and
• Specific activities/commitments that address program defi-
•ciencies, i.e., missed commitments from previous year.
GRANT WORK PROGRAM
The grant work program summarizes the activities the Region and State agree
should be performed by the State during the fiscal year for which the grant is
awarded. It also indicates the level of grant resources to be devoted to each
of the various activities. As such, it is an excelUrt tool for establishing
and documenting how a State will incorporate progran priorities and guidance
into their operations, and how the Region will support such activities.
Exhibit 3.3 contains a sample format for a grant work program. Each page of
the work program lists "quantitative" State commitments, including those
national requirements listed in Section 2 of the evaluation guide, for each
goal and objective outlined in the narrative (the sample includes four of
these objectives). For each activity, a due date or quarterly schedule and
pricing factors for calculating the cost of the activity can be included. The
last column specifies any corresponding .EPA activities that is necessary for
the State to complete the commitment.
3-2
-------
EXHIBIT 3.1 SAMPLE SPECIAL GRANT CONDITIONS
MM1HAL COMOITIOMt
TtM recipient covenant. end apm* thai II will espedltioualy Initiate end tuaely cocplaie the project work fot
which ...letance bit been awarded undtr thli e|re*ment. In accordance with til applicable provi.lon* of 40 CFR
Chapter I. Subpaft B. Theieeiplent w.rt.nt., represent.. and afreet thai It. and Ita contractora, aubcontiactot*
raployeci and representative.. will comply with: (1) all applicable provisions of 40 CFR Chapter I. Subchsotar 1
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO Ik* provUione of Appendix A to 40 CFP Part 30, and (2) any apeclal
conditione ael fort hi In thli aaalatance agreement or any aaaistance amendment pursuant to 40 CFR 10.425.
CONDITIONS:
m-«»«»ii uuaiui i mn
a. BiMiHAL CONDITIONS
j
CO
'i,
(Far cooperative afreeneitfe include idtntilicmlion or aummariiarion of EPA reaponaieifitiea th*l reflect or
eon/riant* to auosfaniiaf invorVeawnf./'
1. The recipient agrees that grant funds will be released by
EPA utilizing the Letter of Credit payment method on the
following basis:
a. 251 of the approved Federal amount will be
released upon receipt by EPA of the signed
Assistance Agreement.
b. The remaining funds will be released based on
EPA's evaluation of the recipient's performance
of planned objectives as stated in the work plan
and special conditions of this award.
c. For the purpose of releasing the remaining funds,
an evaluation of the State's performance against
the planned program objectives will be made at
quarterly Intervals after EPA's receipt artd
review of all required reports for the previous
quarter.
Failure on the part of the recipient to show adequate
progress will make the recipient subject to the provisions
of 40 CFR, Section 30.900 for non-compliance with the
conditions of this award.
2. The key performance activities listed in this coopera-
tive agreement constitute the activities of highest prio-
rity, and shall be met according to the dates shown.
Failure on the part of the recipient to show adequate
progress in completing these activities will make the
recipient subject to the provisions of 40 CFR Section
30.430 for noncompl iance with the conditions of this
award. EPA assistance may be adjusted according
to the performance amounts shown, depending on the
level of resources assigned.
T»e recipient covenants and ape*, that It wilt eipedlUou.Iy Initiate nn4 finely complete the .«!,
which aa.iuance haa been awarded under this agreement. In accordance with all appllceble provi,
Chapter I, Subvert B. The recipient warrants, represent., and «i.<-.i (hat It. end Ita contract!**
•aployees and repreaentatlvea, will comply wtih: (1) all applicable provl.lons of 40 CFR O o,"
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO the provisions of Append!. A tc <0 CFP Part 30. end '2 U. .o«i.r
condillon. ael forth, la this euliUnce afeeaent or any aailslenc* t^endaunt purauent to «o CFR 30 4JS
• tP«CI«L CONDITION!
(Ta» cooperalrve •|reemera
-------
K XI IB IT 3.2 SAMPLE PROGRAM NARRATIVE OUTLINE
u>
Program Element I - Program Development ( workyears)
• Objective: Obtain final authorization
Program Element II - Compliance and Enforcement: Operate an Enforcement
Progran which Achieves an Improving Level of Conpllance to Protect Human
Health and the Environment ( uorkyeara)
• Objective: Develop and maintain compliance monitoring and
enforcement strategy consistent with the National Enforcement
Strategy.
• Objective: Conduct Inspections and record reviews In
accordance with the Compliance Monitoring Strategy.
• Objective: Perform thorough Inspections and record reviews
that are properly documented.
• Objective: Take enforcement actions In • timely and
appropriate manner.
• Objective: Report enforcement actions to the public and the
regulated community to promote compliance.
• Objective: Report progress toward bringing non-compilers into
compliance.
Program Element III - Permitting: Use the Permit Process
to Increase Regulatory Control of TSDFs to Protect Hunan
Health and the Environment ( workyears)
• Objective: Develop and maintain a multi-year permit strategy
consistent with the National Permits Strategy.
• Objective: Request permit applications and make determinations
In accordance with the permit strategy.
• Objective: Hake permit determinations In accordance with
processing schedules.
• Objective: Hake permit determinations that are consistent with
permit regulations.
• Objective: Provide for adequate public participation In penait
prog ran.
Program Elemeat IT — Management: Provide Management Support VMoh
Facilitate* achievement of Pr'ogrmm Coal a and Sustains a High Quality
Program Ov«r Ttm« ( workyeara)
• Objective: Use resources according to plan.
• Objective: Provide staff training In accordance with an annual
plan.
• Objective: Develop and maintain an Information system that
effectively supports program management.
• Objective: Maintain an equivalent program under authorization,
consistent with the MOA.
-------
By incorporating the requirements for a performance-based grant and the
quality criteria, these formats should be a handy tool for the Region to track
State activity, and for the State to focus on resources associated with their
commitments. Regions I, IV, V, and VI have already adopted similar formats
for their FY 1985 grant work programs. The format also encourages both the
Region and the State to concentrate not just on completion of quarterly
commitments, but progress toward attainment of the goals and objectives of a
quality RCRA program.
3-5
-------
EXHIBIT 3.3 SAMPLE RCRA GRANT WORK PLAN
FY 85
RCRA SUBTITLE C WORK PLAN
PROGRAM ELEMENT I: Program Development
STATE:_
AGENCY
OBJECTIVE: Obtain Final Authorization
FUNDING ALLOCATION: FEDERAL: $130,000 STATE: $40,000
WKYRS:
4.25
Act ivi ty
Pricing
Factor*
Number of
Actions
Total
Resources*
Quarterly
Schedule
EPA
Action
CO
CT>
•Propose for public comment
and hearing equivlanot regula-
tions (including uniform
manifest regulations)
required for final authoriza-
tion by January 25, 1985.
•Submit official application
final authorizaton application
to EPA.
•Revise final authorization
application based on EPA's
and the public'c comments
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.25
2.0
0.25
July 30
September 30
Provide comments
on applications
within 30 days
Provide comments
on applications
within 30 days
*In Workyears
-------
EXHIBIT 3.3 SAMPLE RCRA GRANT WORK PLAN
FY 85
RCRA SUBTITLE C WORK PLAN
PROGRAM ELEMENT II: Use of the Permit Process to Increase Regulatory Control
of TS.DFs to Protect Human Health and the Environment
OBJECTIVE: Permit application, requests and determinations are pro-
ceeding according to processing schedules.
FUNDING ALLOCATION: FEDERAL; $480.000 STATE; $160.000 WKYRS; 16
STATE:
AGENCY
Activity
•Call in Part B applications:
-land disposal
-incinerators
-storage
•Perform technical completeness
determintions
•Prepare draft permits
•Issue permits
Pricing
Factor
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.2
0.5
0.5
Number of
Actions
4
6
6
10
10
10
Total
Resources*
1.0
1.5
1.5
2.0
V
5.C
5.0
Ouarterly
Schedule
2/1/1/0
0/0/3/3
0/0/3/3
1/1/4/4
2/2/3/3
2/2/3/3
EPA
Action
Provide comments
on applications
within 30 days
*In Workyears
-------
EXHIBIT 3.3 SAMPLE RCRA GRANT WORK PLAN
FY 85
RCRA SUBTITLE C WORK PLAN
PROGRAM ELEMENT III: Operate an Enforcement Program Which Achieves an Improving Level
of Compliance to Protect Human Health and the Environment
STATE:
OBJECTIVE: Multi-Year CompTiance Monitoring Strategy is Consistent
with the National Enforcement Strategy
FUNDING ALLOCATION: FEDERAL: $30,000 STATE: $10,000 WKYRS: 1
AGENCY:
Activity
1Pricing|Number of|Total
Factor Actions Resources*
Quarterly"
Schedule
EPA
Action
to
I
CO
•Develop a draft Compliance
and Enforcement Sirategy
•Submit a final
Monitoring and
Strategy
Compliance
Enforcement
0.75
0.25
0.75
0.25
November 1,
1984
December 30,
1984
Provide comments
on strategy
within 15 days
-------
EXHIBIT 3.3 SAMPLE RCRA GRANT WORK PLAN
FY 85
RCRA SUBTITLE C WORK PLAN
PROGRAM ELEMENT IV: Provide Management Support Which Facilitates Achievement of Program
.. -._ Goals and Sustains a High Quality Program Over Time
OBJECTIVE: Provide and Maintain Staff Training '
STATE:
AGENCY:
FUNDING ALLOCATION: FEDERAL; $12.000 STATE; $10.000 WKYRS: <3
CO
1
vo
Activity
• Report of training completed
from 10/1/84 through
3/31/85
• Develop employee training
plan
* Report of training completed
from 4/1/84 - 9/30/84
Pricing
Factor *
0.05
0.20
0.05
Number of
Actions
Total
Resources*
0.05
0.20
0.05
Quarterly
Schedule
December 1 ,
1984
April 15,
1985
October 15,
1984
EPA
Action
*Workyears
-------
9545- 00-S
SECTION 4
EVALUATION PROTOCOLS
TO TRACK PROGRAM PERFORMANCE
-------
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
Evaluation Checklists
INTRODUCTION TO COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT CHECKLISTS
The compliance and enforcement checklists provide a recommended series of
questions to assess program performance against the national program
expectations outlined in Section 2. The checklists are subdivided into six
key evaluation questions:
1. Is the multi-year compliance/enforcement strategy consistent
with the national enforcement strategy?
2. Is the State conducting inspections and record reviews in
accordance with its strategy and with its State grant work
program?
3. Are inspections and record reviews thorough and properly
documented?
4. Are enforcement actions timely and appropriate?
5. Is the State reporting enforcement actions to the public or
the regulated community to promote compliance?
6. What is the compliance rate of the regulated community in
the State?
The major tools the Region will use to oversee a State's compliance monitoring
and enforcement program are analysis of HWDMS data, file reviews, record
reviews, and oversight inspections. The Region will generally use data from
these sources in summary form during mid- and end-of-year reviews, unless
findings from a specific file review, oversight inspection or record review
warrant more immediate attention (e.g., failure to detect all Class I
violations at an inspection EPA oversees).
FORMAT OF CHECKLISTS
The attached checklists are in a format convenient for immediate use. The
checklists for compliance and enforcement include:
• Program Review Protocols. This is the main checklist for
use duringthe formal evaluation of program performance.
All questions answered through use of all oversight tools
are included here. The column "Information Source,"
identifies the information source the Region should review
before the program review to answer each question.
4A-1
-------
• File Review Protocol. This is a recommended checklist for
deriving individual handler information for use in assessing
State performance. The Region should complete one for each
file review and summarize information from all the file
reviews for the overall program review protocol checklist.
The file review protocol is divided into three sections:
pre-file review data sheet, file review form, and file
review for closing facility.
• RCRA Inspections Oversight Form. This is a recommended
checklistto completeduring or after an oversight
inspection to determine the quality and completeness of the
State inspection. It supplements the material necessary to
actually conduct an inspection. The Region should complete
the form for each oversight inspection and summarize
information from these forms for the overall program review
checklist.
4A-2
-------
• On-Site Evaluation
1. Conduct staff interviews to fill in the gaps in the
checklist and to verify information collected in advance
of the visit.
2. Hold round-table discussions of the management .ssues
and' information found on all the checklists, with the
focus on confirming answers and developing corrective
actions.
3. Draft technical reports while on-site, addressing all
the subjects raised during the review.
4. Hold a de-briefing session with senior staff at the
State and Region to present and discuss the issues and
proposed recommendations.
• Follow-up Actions
1. Prepare a draft report describing performance against
the major categories in the checklist, outlining both
Region and State problem areas and corrective actions
necessary to improve future performance.
2. Solicit written response from the State on the draft
report, correcting any factual errors and clarifying
issues and recommendations for follow-up actions.
3. Publish final report for general distribution, with
agreement on necessary follow-up actions highlighted and
State comments included where appropriate.
4. Establish tracking system to ensure that all recommended
actions are completed on schedule.
5. Prepare to take an escalated response action (according
to predetermined guidelines) if recommendations are not
followed (see Section 6).
USE OF OVERSIGHT TOOLS
The success of the program review process is directly related to how effec-
tively the Regions use the mix of oversight tools available to them. The
oversight tools may be used throughout the year to collect information and
assess program performance. Their use should be linked through a set of
procedures established during the grant negotiations process that ensures
coordinated, non-redundant, and timely data collection. The major oversight
tools supporting the program are outlined below.
4-3
-------
HWDMS Reports
HWDMS reports are produced periodically (i.e., monthly, quarterly, annually)
as part of routine program monitoring procedures. As indicated in the compli-
ance and enforcement and permitting checklists, they are an important source
of required quantitative information for the program review. A number of
recently issued reports are presented in Section 5 of this guide. The Region
should inform its States of the date on which it will pull the HWDMS reports
that will be used during the evaluation. The Region should subsequently
ensure that its States have copies of the same reports it is using during the
evaluation. This will reduce the amount of program review time spent in
disputes over the numbers, and allow more time for the important performance
issues.
File Reviews
The Region should conduct a review of State files on a regular basis (e.g.,
quarterly), and should ensure that file reviews are completed and summarized
prior to on-site evaluations so that their results may be used during the
program review.
File reviews should be conducted for all aspects of the authorized program:
compliance and enforcement, permitting, and management. File reviews are used
to:
t Assess the completeness and accuracy of the inspection,
enforcement, and permitting information,
t Determine on a sample basis whether the State is following
the permitting strategy and compliance monitoring strategy,
and
• Check the quality of the information provided on the Major
Facility Status Sheet, Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Log, Permitting Status Sheet, and other State reporting
forms.
The percentage of file reviews conducted and the selection of files should be
based on criteria established during the grant negotiation process. The
extent of file review coverage is based on Regional office needs for effective
oversight and may vary annually.
A large number of checklist questions for compliance and enforcement, permitt-
ing, and management require information obtained through file reviews. A
special compliance and enforcement file review protocol is included on pages
4A-25 to 4A-34. File review protocols for permitting and management evalua-
tions will be included in later versions of the Guide.
4-4
-------
Permit Reviews
EPA reviews all major permit actions in authorized States, based on the condi-
tions outlined in the individual memoranda of agreement. Permit reviews, in
summary orm, should be used as an information source when completing the
program review checklist. These reviews are especially useful in evaluating
the qualitative aspects of the State permitting effort. For purposes of the
program review, permit reviews are used to:
• Allow for an assessment of the consistency of State permits,
t Assess on a sample basis the technical judgment of permit
writers,
t Review the clarity and reasonableness of permit conditions
and public participation, provisions, and
• Assess the potential enforceability of the permit.
A permit review protocol will be included in later versions of the Guide.
Oversight Inspections
Oversight inspections are conducted throughout the year based on an agreement
reached during the grant negotiations process. Information gathered during
the oversight inspections is useful in summary form to detect systemic
problems related to the quality of the compliance monitoring program. The
purpose of oversight inspections is to determine if the State is:
• Following its inspection and compliance monitoring
procedures
t Detecting all Class I violations
• Providing adequate training to its RCRA inspection staff
The frequency of oversight inspections and the selection of which facilities
to oversee is based on Regional need and past experience. The frequency and
selection criteria should be included in the grant negotiation process and be
known to the State prior to the beginning of the year. For FY 1985, all
Regions must conduct oversight inspections for 1% of the major facilities
inspected by the State.
A checklist for assessing performance of the inspection program is included on
pages 4A-35 to 4A-38.
Oversight Record Reviews
Oversight record reviews are conducted throughout the year. A summary of
these reviews are useful to determine patterns of State performance for the
4-5
-------
program-level review process. The purpose of oversight record reviews is to
determine if the State is adequately reviewing closure and post-closure plans
and cost estimates, financial assurances and, liability coverage.
The number of EPA oversight record reviews is based on Regional need and past
performance. The number and type of reviews should be included in the grant
negotiation process and be known to the State prior to the beginning of the
year. For FY 1985, the oversight record reviews will be 10% of the number of
record reviews the State has committed to perform for the fiscal year.
FORMAT OF THE EVALUATION CHECKLISTS
Sections 4A, 4B, and 4C that follow contain the detailed checklists for
conducting the program review in each of the three main RCRA program areas.
These checklists have been designed so that they may be used as worksheets for
collecting and recording information both before and during the on-site
evaluation.
The evaluation checklists are far too extensive to be effectively completed
during the on-site visit. Consequently, the Region should attempt to collect
and record as much data as possible prior to the on-site meeting. Maximum use
must be made of HWDMS reports, file reviews, permit reviews, and oversight
inspections to complete the checklists before the actual meeting.
The format of the checklists include the information source(s) for each item
and space for the response to the question and the evaluator's comments. The
information source denotes information that should be available during pre-
meeting preparation in advance of the on-site visit. Interviews and meetings
conducted during the on-site visit are not separately identified as an "Infor-
mation Source."
The "Response" column should contain only the verifiable, objective informa-
tion collected before or during the review, plus any State response to the
questions or the data that have been collected. The "Evaluator's Comments"
column provides space to draw conclusions and synthesize the information
collected for each area.
When completed, these evaluation forms should serve as a summary of the
program review, and should be useful in preparing the formal program review
report.
4-6
-------
9545.00-6
SECTION 4A
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT CHECKLISTS
-------
Compliance and Enforcement
Evaluation Checklists
INTRODUCTION TO COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT CHECKLISTS
The compliance and enforcement checklists provide a recommended series of
questions to assess program performance against the national program
expectancy outlined in Section 2. The checklists are subdivided into six key
evaluation questions:
1. Is the multi-year compliance/enforcement strategy consistent
with the national enforcement strategy?
2. Is the State conducting inspections and record reviews in
accordance with its strategy and with its State grant work
program?
3. Are inspections and record reviews thorough and properly
documented?
4. Are enforcement actions timely and appropriate?
5. Is the State reporting enforcement actions to the public or
the regulated community to promote compliance?
6. What is the compliance rate of the regulated community in
the State?
The major tools the Region will use to oversee a State's compliance monitoring
and enforcement program are analysis of HWDMS data, file reviews, record
reviews, and oversight inspections. The Region will generally use data from
these sources in summary form during mid- and end-of-year reviews, unless
findings from a specific file review, oversight inspection or record review
warrant more immediate attention (e.g., failure to detect all Class I
violations at an inspection EPA oversees).
FORMAT OF CHECKLISTS
The attached checklists are in a format convenient for immediate use. The
checklists for compliance and enforcement include:
• Program Review Protocols. This is the main checklist for
use during the formal evaluation of program performance.
All questions answered through use of all oversight tools
are included here. The column "Information Source,"
identifies the likely oversight tool to use in answering
each question.
4A-1
-------
• File Review Protocol. This is a recommended checklist for
deriving individual handler information for use in assessing
State performance. The Region should be completed for each
file reviewed and summarized for use in the overall program
review protocol checklist. 'The file review protocol is
divided into three sections: pre-file review data sheet,
file review form, and file review for closing facility.
• RCRA Inspections Oversight Form. This is a recommended
checklist to complete during or after an oversight
inspection to determine the quality and completeness of the
State inspection. It supplements the material necessary to
actually conduct an inspection. The Region should complete
the form for each oversight inspection and summarized for
use in the overall program review checklist.
4A-2
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 1: Is the multi-year compliance/enforcement strategy consistent with the national enforcement strategy?
Item
I I
Information
Source
Response
Evaluation's
Comments
A. Date the State submitted
Its compliance/enforcement
strategy. Did the State submit
this before Dec. 31, 19847*
State
strategy
CO
Has the State updated Us
strategy annually, If necessary?
If so. describe the updates.
State
strategy
C. How does the State's strategy
describe the following elements?
1. Agencies, divisions, etc.,
Involved In compliance and
enforcement and their roles
State
strategy
2. An Inspection strategy that
is congruent with the
national strategy/KIP
3. Inspection procedures
*The original December 31 date for submission of the compliance/enforcement strategy may be changed because of the new
requirements contained in the 1984 RCRA Amendments.
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 1: Is the multi-year compliance/enforcement strategy consistent with the national enforcement strategy?
Item
Information |
Source I
Response
Ev'aluator's
Comments
4. Enforcement mechanisms and
processes for major and minor
violations
5. Classification of violations
State
strategy
6. Penalty policy
State
strategy
7. Relationship between prr-
mitting and enforcement
(NOOs)
State
strategy
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 2: Is the State conducting inspections and record reviews In accordance with Us strategy and with Us Gra
Work Program?
Item
Information
Source
Response
^valuator's
Comments
A. How effectively is the State
following its compliance and
enforcement strategy?
£
en
I. Inspections
- Compliance evaluation
inspection
- Comprehensive ground-water
monitoring evaluation
- Field sampling
- Closing facilities
- Facilities in post-closure
care
- Permit applicants
- Permitted facilities
If not, briefly describe
deviations.
oversight
inspections,
file reviews
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 2: Is the State conducting inspections and record reviews in accordance with its strategy and with its Grant
Work Program?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaludtor's
Conine (its
o>
2. Record reviews
- Closure
- Post-closure
- Financial assurance
- Liability (sudden and
non-sudden)
If not, briefly describe
deviations.
oversight
record
reviews,
file reviews
3. Enforcement
- Classifying violations
- Enforcement for major
violations
- Enforcement for minor
violations
- Enforcement for late and
incomplete Part B
applications
If not. briefly describe
deviations.
oversight
record
reviews.
file reviews
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 2: Is the State conducting Inspections and record reviews In accordance with Its strategy and with Its Gran
Work Program?
Item
B. Is the State meeting Its Inspec-
tion and record review commit-
ments?
1. What Is performance to date?
2. In what areas Is there a
shortfall? What are the
reasons for the shortfall?
3. Will the commitments be met
by the end of the FY?
If not. explain.
Information
Source
State grant
work program.
HUDMS (SPMS
Reports)*
Response
IWXCIIM • «JH 1*11.11111 |M l|
it ttu <• hi* kkiiM* nt ft k»uai
•*•!••
KM*
l«.l
mncuoa • «joi IIMUI ixuiiiu i«/t m
•••«*•
t4M<
l«.l
•fam MMIM • WJOi HUtUW |*M *l
•«•••
tt«*
„.,.
•
Evaludtor's
Connients
£
-si
* National HUDMS reports are currently being developed to track perfonnace against SPMS and
RIP commitments. They were not complete at the time of publication of this evaluation guide.
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 2: Is the State conducting Inspections and record reviews In accordance with Us strategy and with Us Gran
Work Program?
Item
C. Is the State covering handlers in
Its compliance monitoring program
as outlined In Us strategy?
1. What l(%) of the State's
universe of handlers have been
inspected at least once?
2 What i(%) of facilities subject
to the following requirements
have had their records reviewed
for adequacy?
Information
Source
HUOMS
(Criteria
Report 1)*
HWOHS
(Criteria
Report 2)**
- • • • • • • — i
Response
hater of HandUrt '"jPtctf* T«>r-to-D«tf
Handlfrq jtjtf (fn total j
Major;
Generators
Transporters
Facilities
Mon -Major;
Generators
Transporters
Facilities
not. 10 OAK IN CMPt.REC.MVi 1 of Facll.
ftcllUIn SukJ. CoipY«(«f Co^iUtwl Ultk Coa^l
to C • H friar to »r. Vr.to D*t§ ««c. •*»(•<«
"Ujon:
iut>p«rt 6
Subpart M
%>n-mjor:
iubptrt 6
Subptrt H
Evaluator's
Comments
00
* See Section 5 for a description and example of Criteria Ueport II.
** Criteria Report 12 is described in Section 5, but the report was not completed
he time the Guide was published.
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AMD ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 2: Is the State conducting Inspections and record reviews In accordance with Its strategy and with Its Gri
Work Program?
Item
D. What is the status of the State
ground-water monitoring Inspection
program?
Information
Source
HUGHS*, file
reviews
Response
I of facilities subject
to Subpart F
I that have received at least
one inspection (compliance
evaluation inspection or
comprehensive ground-water
monitoring evaluation)
I that have received a
comprehensive ground-water
monitoring evaluation (CHE)
I that have received a
sampling Inspection for
ground-water monitoring
I that have sent all required
parameter data to the State
I (%) of these for which
the State has reviewed
parameter data to
determine adequacy
I of facilities in assessment
I of assessment monitoring
plans the State has received
f of assessment monitoring
plans the State has reviewed
Evaluator's
Comments
* All the information is available in HWDMS. No national report had been completed
at the time the Evaluation Guide was published.
-------
PROGRAM REVIEU PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 3: Are Inspections and record reviews thorough and properly docunented?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluate-.-*
Comments
Are inspection checklists and
record review checklists com-
pleted accurately?
1. I of oversight inspections
with checklists Inaccurately
completed/ I of oversight
inspections (by type of
handler)
oversight
Inspections
I of record review checklists
inaccurately completed/1 of
oversight record reviews (by
type of record review)
oversight
record
reviews
I of files with apparently
inaccurate inspection check-
lists/1 of files reviewed
file reviews
4. For inaccurate files, what is
the nature of the inaccuracies?
Is there any pattern?
file reviews,
oversight
inspections,
oversight
record
reviews
5. Is the State taking any action
to correct the problem? If so,
describe.
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 3: Are Inspections and record reviews thorough and properly documented?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluation's
Comments
B. Are files maintained and readily
accessible? If not, explain.
1. Where are the enforcement
files kept? Are they in one
location?
file reviews
2. Do they appear to be well-
organized? If not, explain.
file reviews
3. Are they complete? If not,
explain.
file reviews
4. Do the files document the ade-
quacy of Subpart F, G and H
documents when they have been
evaluated? If not, explain.
file reviews
5. Is there a procedure for
checking out files?
file reviews
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 3: Are inspections and record reviews thorough and properly documented;
Item
Information
Source
Response
tvaluato
Coninen,
6. Are there proper procedures
to ensure confidentiality when
necessary?
file reviews
C. Are violations well documented?
1. * of handlers whose violations
were not well documented/ f of
handlers the Region evaluated
file reviews,
oversight
inspections,
oversight
record
reviews
2. When the State did not document
violations adequately, what was
the nature of the problem?
Is there any pattern?
file reviews,
oversight
inspections.
oversight
record
reviews
3. Is the State taking action
to correct any problems?
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 3: Are Inspections and record reviews thorough and properly documented?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaludtor's
Comments
0. Is the State following sampling
quality assurance/quality control
procedures?
1. I of sampling Inspections where
State is following its proce-
dures/I of sampling Inspections
for which the Region has Infor-
mation
file reviews,
oversight
Inspections
2. Describe any deviations from
the sampling quality assurance/
quality control procedure.
E. Did the State Identify all
Class I violations at handlers
it inspected and performed
record reviews?
1. I of handlers for which the
State did not identify Class 1
violations/1 of handlers for
whom the Region has this
information (i.e., through
oversight inspections, Its
own inspections, file reviews,
record reviews).
file reviews,
oversight
inspections,
oversight
record
reviews
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 3: Are inspections and record reviews thorough and properly documented?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluation's
Comments
2. I of Class I violations the
State missed
file reviews.
oversight
Inspections.
oversight
record
reviews .
3. Is there any pattern to the
violations that State did not
find? If so. what are they?
I
>—•
-£»
file reviews,
oversight
inspections,
oversight
record
reviews
4. Is the State's Inspection
checklist adequate to pick up
these violations? It not,
explain.
file reviews,
oversight
inspection
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 4: Are enforcement actions timely and appropriate?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator's
Comments
A. Are enforcement actions timely?*
1. For high priority violators:
a. 1(1) high priority vio-
lators to whom the State
Issued an AO within 90 days
of violation discovery.
**
b. In States without adminis-
trative penalty authority,
1(1) of cases of high
priority violators referred
to the State's judicial
authority within 90 days of
violation discovery.
|(X) cases referred to
judicial authority within
90 days after the decision
is made to escalate action
from the AO.
d. id) of cases filed within
60 days of referral.
*These criteria are based upon the "RCRA Interim Quality Criteria". The actual time frames to which a State
will be held are those the State and EPA agree upon in the MOA, grant work program, or other agreement.
**The identification of high priority violators and the tracking of enforcement actions is based on individual
Region and State procedures. No single national information source is available.
-------
PROGRAM REVIEU PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 4: Are enforcement actions timely and appropriate?
Item
Information
Source
Response
^valuator's
Comments
2. For other Class I violations:**
a. 1(1) of Initial enforcement
actions taken within 30
days of violation
discovery.***
HWDMS
(Criteria
Reports 3,
4. 5)*
b. #(%) of handlers with no
compliance schedule or
hearing date scheduled to
whom the State Issued an
AO within 180 days of vio-
lation discovery or (In
States without AO author-
ity) I for whom the States
referred cases to the
judicial authority within
210 days of violation
discovery.
c. I of cases referred to
judicial authority.
* See Section 5 for descriptions and examples of Criteria Reports 3, 4, and 5.
** For States with Administrative Order authority, answer all items. For States without this authority.
answer 2a. 2b. 2c, 2e.
***
number excludes those cases in which the State cr
directly to an AU or judicial referral
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 4: Are enforcement actions timely and appropriate?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaludior's
Comments
*(%) of these cases
referred to the judicial
authority within 180 days
of issuance of an Initial
AO.
I
•—•
^J
e. i(%) of these cases filed
within 60 days of referral
3. For handlers on compliance
schedules:
a. I of handlers that have
violated compliance
schedules
HUDMS
(Criteria
Reports 3,
4. 5)*
I and types of enforce-
ment actions taken
within 30 days of dis-
covery of this viola-
tion
c. Did the State take
action against all of
these violators within
30 days? If not. what
were the reasons for
not taking action?
* See Section 5 for descriptions and examples of Criteria Reports 3, 4, and 5.
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 4: Are enforcement actions timely and appropriate?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator's
Comments
4. Does the State's performance
in this area represent an
improvement from previous
years? Explain.
l
i—•
00
B. Are enforcement actions
appropriate?
1. Does the State respond to
every instance of known non-
compliance? If not, explain.
2. Does the State issue penal-
ties to all high priority
violators? If not explain.
3. I of high priority violators
to whom the State issued
penalties/I of high priority
violators.
4.
Are penalties commensurate
with violations? If not,
explain.
HWDMS
(Criteria
Report 6),*
file reviews
ke Section 5 for a description ami example of C
Keport 6.
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 4: Are enforcement actions timely and appropriate?
Item
Information
Source
Response
tvaluat.
Commei.
5. Average amount/range of
penalties assessed/collected
(by area of violation).
HWDMS
(Criteria
Report 6)*
i—»
10
Do all State enforcement
actions contain appropriate
items (e.g.. cite authority,
clearly state what the vio-
lations are. list all viola-
tions, require a date for
compliance, require certi-
fication of compliance, note
that the State will escalate
action if the handler does
not come into compliance,
etc.). If not, describe the
number and types of enforce-
ment actions without appro-
priate Items. Is there any
pattern?
file reviews
I of handlers whose files
have been reviewed that did
did not have appropriate
enforcement actions/1 of
handlers reviewed that had
enforcement actions taken
file reviews
1
* See Section 5 for a description and example of Criteria Report 6.
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESriON 5: Is the State reporting enforcement actions to the public or the regulated community to promote compliance?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator's
Comments
A. Does the compliance strategy
contain procedures for publi-
cizing precedent-setting or
other important violations?
State
strategy
ro
o
Does the State publicize viola-
tions in accordance with the
strategy?
State
strategy
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 6: What Is the compliance rate of the regulated community In the State?
ro
Item
A.
Is the State successful in
bringing handlers into
compliance?
1. Class 1 violations
10/1
**
12/31
3/31
6/30
Information
Source
HWDMS
(Criteria
Report 7)*
Response
Date of Report
B C
Evaluate,
Comne. .
* See Section 5 for a description and example of Criteria Report 7.
** Handlers with Class I violations on 10/1 include all handlers with Class I violations on that date.
All other dates refer to handlers with Class I violations detected that quarter.
+ A I of handlers w/Class I violations detected that quarter.
B I of these handlers in physical compliance.
C I of these handlers on agreed upon compliance schedules.
0 I of these handlers w/no schedule or behind schedule.
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 6: Uhat Is the compliance rate of the regulated community In the State?
Item
2. Significant non-compilers
10/1
12/31
3/31
6/30
3. Major Federal facilities
10/1
12/31
3/31
6/30
Information
Source
HUOMS
(Criteria)
Report 7)*
HUDMS
(Criteria
Report 7)*
A
Response
Date of Report
BCD
i.
Date of Report
£ valuator's
Comments
I
ro
ro
ction 5 for a description and example o,c Criteri jort 7.
-------
PROGRAH REVIEU PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT .
KEY QUESTION 6: What Is the compliance rate of the regulated community In the State?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator's
Comments
B. What Is the compliance rate
for various types of handlers?**
1. I (») of handlers with Class I
violations
HUDHS
(Criteria
Report 18)*
£
IV>
CJ
I (I) of handlers with Class I
ground-water monitoring
violations
I (I) of handlers with Class I
closure/post-closure
violations
4. I (%) of handlers with Class I
financial assurance
violations
S. I (%) of handlers with other
Class 1 violations
6. I (X) of major Federal facili-
ties in significant non-
compliance
* See Section 5 for a description and example of Criteria Report 8.
** Of lidiidlers evaluated during this fiscal year.
-------
Region/State
Date of Review
£
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
KEY QUESTION 6: Wh^t U the compliance rate of the regulated community in the Stater
Item
C. If the State's rate of noncom-
pllance has increased since the
last program review, what are the
possible reasons behind this
increase?
State is performing more
in-depth evaluation and is
finding more Class I viola-
tions
Information
Source
Response
1
I tvaluatu.
I Commeti
State is performing more
evaluations
3. State is not taking timely
enforcement action
-------
PRE-FILE REVIEW DATA SHEET
-------
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
ID #
PRE-FILE REVIEW DATA SHEET
DATE
REVIEWER
Handler Name
Address
Type of handler:
TSD:
landfill
tank
waste pile
major
_ land treatment
_ container
incinerator
non-major
surface impoundment
Generator
Transporter
Information frorr the Major Facility Status Sheet
Ground-water Monitoring
Type of system
Wells evaluated?
Adequate?
S &.A evaluated?
Adequate?
Records evaluated?
Adequate?
Triggered into
assessment?
Closure and Post-closure
Closure plan evaluated?
Adequate?
Closure cost estimates evaluated?
Adequate?
Closure financial assurance:
- submitted?
- evaluated?
• adequate?
4A-25
-------
PRE-FILE REVIEW DATA SHEET (page 2)
ID #
Facility Name
Post-closure plan evaluated?
Adequate?
Post-closure cost estimates evaluated?
Adequate?
Post-closure financial assurance
- submitted?
- evaluated?
- adequate?
If the facility is closing/has closed:
- receipt of certification of closure?
- release of facility owner/operator
from closure assurance?
- release of facility owner/operator
from post-closure assurance?
- receipt of survey plat/recor'd of
waste?
- release of facility owner/operator
from post-closure assurance
requi rement?
Liability coverage:
Sudden
- submitted?
- evaluated?
- adequate?
Non-Sudden
- submitted?
- evaluated?
- adequate?
Comments
4A-26
-------
PRE-FILE REVIEW DATA SHEET (page 3)
ID *
Facility Name
Information from the Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log
Dates and types of inspections/
record reviews
For latest instances of non-compliance
or for any outstanding instances of
non-compliance, provide the following
information:
Class and types of violations
Date and type of initial enforcement
a ct i on
Date(s) compliance scheduled
Date and types of escalated actions
Date(s) compliance achieved
Penalty assessed:
Penalty collected:
Comments
4A-27
-------
OSWES FCLiCY bmcoliVE KG.
9545, 0 0 - ft •**
FILE REVIEW FORM
-------
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
FILE REVIEW FORM
ID I
Facility Name
Address
Name of Reviewer
Position
File review date
Phone *
ITEM"
RESPONSE
Dates of any inspections/
record reviews
PRWIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION
FOR THE LATEST INSPECTIONS/REVIEWS
Inspector
Date of inspection report
Type of documentation completed
(i.e., trip report, checklist)
Was the documentation complete?
If not, describe what portions
were incomplete.
Is the documentation adequate
enough to allow one to make
a clear determination of
a violation? If not, explain.
Was the handler in compliance?
If not, describe the Class and
nature of the violations,
detailing Class I and providing
brief descriptions of Class III
violations.
Did the State fail to
recognize any apparently
significant violations?
If yes, describe.
4A-28
-------
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
FILE REVIEW FORM (page 2)
Provide the following information for the latest instances of noncompliance
uncovered.
ITEM
RESPONSE
Date and Type of'initial
enforcement actions
Did the initial enforcement
action:
- cite authority
- clearly state what the
violations are
- list al 1 violations
- require a date for compliance
- reqt're certification of compliance
- note that the State would escalate
action if the handler did not
come into compliance
- assess a penalty, if appropriate?
Amt. of penalty assessed/Is the
penalty adequate for the violations
according to the State's penalty
policy or more than de mi mi mis
if there is no State penalty
policy? Explain.
Date compli ance expected
Date and way in which the State
checked to see if the handler
came into compliance
Did the handler come into compliance
or come onto a compliance schedule
as a result of this action?
4A-29
-------
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
FILE REVIEW FORM (page 3)
| ITEM
If the handler did not come into
compliance, 1s not on a compliance
schedule or missed a schedule date,
provide the date and type of next
enforcement action.
Did this action:
- cite authority
- clearly state what the
violations are
- list al 1 violations
- require a date for compliance
- require certification of compliance
- the State would escalate action if
handler did not come into
compliance
- contain a penalty assessment, if
appropriate (amount assessed)
Did the handler come into
compliance or come onto a
compliance schedule as a
result of this action?
If penalty assessed,
amount collected.
If the handler did not
come into compliance as
a result of this action,
did the State escalate
action. How? On what date?
If relevant, on what date did the State
agency refer the case to the appropriate
judicial authority? Was this within
90 days of the decision to escalate or
within 180 days of issuance of the AO?
RESPONSE
4A-30
-------
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
FILE REVIEW FORM (page 4)
ID #
Name of Handler
Revi ewer
Date Revi ewed
FILE SUMMARY
Did the State submit
MFSS and CMEL data as necessary?
If not, explain gaps.
Did the State take timely
enforcement action?
If not, explain.
Did the State take appropriate
enforcement action? If
not, explain.
Is there any reason Tor EPA to
intervene in this case? If yes,
describe.
COMMENTS
4A-31
-------
9545
FILE REVIEW FORM
CLOSING FACILITY
-------
ID I
Facility Name
Address
COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT
FILE REVIEW FORM
CLOSING FACILITY
Reviewer
Date
ITEM
RESPONSE
1. Notification of closure received
2. Plan received
3. Plan review complete
4. Was the plan adequate?
5. If inadequate, describe dates
and type of communication with
the facility to upgrade the plan.
6. Public Notice issued
7. Hearing held
8. Did the State respond to
public comments? In what form?
9. Did the State require the facility
to amend its plan as a result of
public comment?
Date
NA
NA
NA
Day
0
NA
NA
NA
Comments
4A-32
-------
FILE REVIEW
CLOSING FACILITY (page 2)
ITEM
10. Closure initiated
11. Closure Milestones
Date I Day'
Comments
12. State actions during closure
13. Certification Received
- by owner
- by P.E.
14. Certification was that facility had
closed according to approved plan
not just certification of how .the
facility closed
lb. Types of State action after
closure certification received
16. If the facility is subject to post-
closure, did the owner/operator
submit the survey plat/record of
waste?
17. If appropriate, did the State
release the facility owner/operator
from closure assurance and liability
requirements?
18. If appropriate, did the State re-
lease the facility owner/operator
from post-closure assurance
requirements?
NA
NA
4A-33
-------
FILE REVIEW
CLOSING FACILITY (page 3)
ID |
Name of Handler
Reviewer
Date Reviewed
FILE REVIEW SUMMARY
Did the State follow its
approved procedures for
ensuring proper closure?
If no, explain any deviations,
Did the State take
appropriate enforcement
action, if necessary?
Did the facility close
according to its approved
plan?
Did the State complete
the relevant MFSS and CMEL
information? If not,
explain.
Is there any reason for
EPA to intervene in this
case? If yes, explain.
COMMENTS
4A-34
-------
RCRA INSPECTION OVERSIGHT FORM
-------
RCRA INSPECTION OVERSIGHT FORM
I. Handler:
EPA ID I
Check Either:
Handler Activities:
Authorized States:
II. State Inspector:
Organization:
Telephone:
Major
Non-Major
Generator
Transporter
Treatment/Storage/Disposal Faci1ity
Yes No
III. Evaluator:
Organization:
Telephone:
IV. Date of Inspection:
Time: (from)
(to)
V. Inspection Evaluation
A) Pre-inspection Evaluation:
1) Did the inspector have
a complete set of RCRA
regulations with him?
2) Did the inspector review
the Part A application or
effective permit before
beginning the inspection?
3) Did the Inspector have
the appropriate personal
safety equipment?
Yes
No
Remarks
4A-35
-------
RCRA .NSPECTION OVERSIGHT FORM Page 2
Yes No Remarks
B) Owner/Operator Interview
1) Did the inspector present
an identity document
showing the authority to
perform RCRA inspections?
2) Did the inspector advise
the owner/operator oper-
ator of the purpose of
the inspection and briefly
describe the agenda?
3) Was the inspector helpful
to the owner/operator by
giving explanations and
guidance?
C) Document Inspection
1) Did the inspector review
all relevant documents.
a) Part A application
or permit
b) Operator inspection
log and schedule
c) Personnel training
record
d) Operating record
e) Contingency plan
f) Waste analysis plan
g) Closure and post-
closure plan
h) Financial instruments
i) Liability document
j) Manifests
k) Ground-water moni-
toring reports
1) Other __
4A-.36
-------
RCRA INSPECTION OVERSIGHT FORM Page 3
Yes No Remarks
2) Did the inspector copy
relevant documents for
later desktop review?
D) Facility Inspection
1) Did the inspector observe
all required items and
correctly record the
observations?
2) Did the inspector ask
pertinent questions
regarding the processes
and wastes management
practices used at the
facilities?
3) Did the inspector iden-
tify any activities that
are regulated but not on
the Part A or Permit?
E) Knowledge ot the regulations
1) Was the inspector knowl-
edgeable of RCRA.regula-
tions applicable to the
facility?
2) Was the inspector aware
of recent amendments to
the regulations that may
affect the conduct of
this inspection?
3) Was the inspector able
to answer questions
accurately?
4) Did the inspector com-
mit to get answers to
questions that couldn't
be answered during the
inspection?
4A-37
-------
RCRA INSPECT ION OVERSIGHT FORM Page 4
Yes No Remarks
F) Completion of inspection forms
1) Did the inspector fully
complete the inspection
forms-?
2) Does the inspector's
report accurately
reflect your observa-
tions at the facility?
Did the inspector find
all apparent violations'
3) Did the inspector miss
any Class I violations?
G) Remarks
1) What is your overall assessment of the inspection and the inspection
report?
2) What, if anything, would you recommend that the inspector do
differently? Does this inspector need any additional training?
3) Additional remarks from other sections:
4A-38
-------
OSWER PCliGY DIRECTIVE NO.
SECTION 4B
PERMITTING CHECKLISTS
-------
Permitting
Evaluation Checklists
INTRODUCTION TO PERMITTING CHECKLISTS
The permitting checklists provide a recommended series of questions to assess
program performance against the national program expectations outlined in
Section 2. All the questions are oriented toward success in meeting the goals
of the National Permits Strategy. The checklist is subdivided into five key
evaluation questions:
1. Has the State developed and maintained a multi-year permit strategy
consistent with the national permits strategy?
2. Are permit call-ins and determinations made in accordance with the permits
strategy?
3. Are permit determinations made in accordance with processing schedules?
4. Are permit determinations technically sound and consistent with permit
regulations?
5. Are provisions made for adequate public participation in the permit
program?
The major tools the Region will use to oversee a State's permitting program
are analysis of HWOMS data, file reviews and individual permit application and
public notice reviews as agreed to in the MOA. The Region will generally use
data from these sources in summary form during the mid- and end-of-year
reviews. Individual permit reviews may prompt more immediate feedback on an
individual facility basis prior to the final permit determination.
FORMAT OF CHECKLISTS
The attached checklist is in a format for immediate use. All questions
related to program-level performance answered through the use of all oversight
tools (i.e., HWOMS, permit reviews, file reviews, on-site evaluations) are
included in this checklist. The column, "Information Source," identifies the
likely oversight tool to use in answering each question.
This version of the evaluation guide does not include a checklist for a file
review or permit review. The program review checklist indicates use of these
two oversight tools to answer many questions, particularly related to quality
of the State permitting program. Future versions of the evaluation guide
will include recommended file review and permit review checklists.
4B-1
-------
00
Region/State
Date of Review
(Page 1 of 6)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING
Key Question II: Has the State Developed and Maintained a Multi-Year
Permits Strategy Consistent with the National Peraits Strategy?
Item
Permit Strategy
A. Did the State submit a permit strategy
by December 31?*
1. Does the strategy have provi-
sions for annual updating?
B. Does the strategy require calling
in all Part Bs from existing
facilities by the following dates:
1. Land disposal by the end of
FY'85?
2. Incineration by the end ut
FY'SS?
3. Storage/treatment by the end
of FY'87?
If there are any deviations from
these (National Permits Strategy)
targets, why? How will these
deviations affect the final
determination schedule?
Information
Source
State
permits
strategy
State
permits
strategy
State
permits
strategy
Response
[valuator1 s
ComenU
Facilities
Called-in Facilities to be called in during:
Pre-'85 FY'85 FY'86 FY'87 FY'88 FY'89
LD)
I)
S/T)
iginal December 31 date for submission of th
,84 RCRA Amendments.
By may be changed because of the new requiremen^
tdined in
-------
(Page 2 of 6)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question II: Has the State Developed and Maintained a Multi-Year
Permits Strategy Consistent with the National Permits Strategy?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator* s
Comments
C. Does the strategy Include the follow-
ing priorities for requesting Part
B applications from existing facili-
ties?
1. Facilities which receive wastes
from CERCLA sites?
State
permits
strategy
CD
I
CO
2. Facilities which are known or
suspected as possible sources
of ground or surface water
contamination or air pollution?
3. Facilities which have caused
environmental damage, violated
environmental standards or dis-
regarded RCRA regulations?
State
permits
strategy
State
permits
strategy
4. Facilities which pose significant
environmental risk? (What is
the basis for this determination?)
State
permits
strategy
5. Are any other criteria used as
criteria for calling in Part Bs?
State
permits
strategy
-------
(Page 3 of 6)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question II: Has the State Developed and Maintained a Multi-Year
Permits Strategy Consistent with the National Permits Strategy?
Information
Source
Item
Response
Evaluator's
Garments
0. Does the strategy require final
determinations for existing facil-
ities by the following dates:
1. Land disposal b> the end of FY'88?
2. Incineration by the end of FY'88?
3. Storage/treatment by the end of
FY'89?
CO
I
State
permits
strategy
Final Final Determinations planned in
determin-
ations
Pre-'85 FY'85 FY'86 FY'87 FY'88 FY'89
LD)
I)
S/T)
4. If any facilities have later final
determination dates, what are they
and why?
State
permits
strategy
E. How does the strategy address process-
Ing emergency permits and new facility
Part Bs?
State
permits
strategy,
F. Does the strategy assign a high
priority to processing closure plans?
State
permits
strategy,
-------
(Page 4 of 6)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question II: Has the State Developed and Maintained a Multi-Year
Permits Strategy Consistent with the National Permits Strategy?
Iteni
Information
Source
Response
L/dluator's
Comments
CO
I
01
Does the State have intermediate
milestones?* How do these compare
with national benchmarks for each
of the following items? Are they
more or less restrictive? Why?
1. Initial completeness check
finished, NODs issued
2. Part B determined complete,
technical review begins
3. Part B determined technically
adequate, permit drafting begins
4. Public notice of draft permit
decision
5. Final determination after close
of public comment
6. Total length of time from Part B
submission to final determination
State
permits
strategy
National Benchmarks
(I of days)
>/T I LD
i!
State Strategy
of days)
I LD
Consistent with grant conditions and State regulations?
-------
(Page 5 of 6)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question II: Has the State Developed and Maintained a Multi-Year
Permits Strategy Consistent with the National Permits Strategy?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator's
Garments
H. Are there Intermediate milestones
for processing closure plans?
State
permits
strategy
at
How does the strategy address the
coordination of permitting and
enforcement?
1. Does the strategy provide for a
joint site visit by the permit
writer and enforcement personnel
within 90 days of the Part B
call-in?
State
permits
strategy
2. Does the strategy provide for the
use of enforcement penalties vrfien
applicants fail to improve Part 8
quality within the given response
time? Are other enforcement
strategies used? If so, what are
they?
State
permits
strategy
J. How does the strategy address:
1. improving Part B quality?
State
permits
strategy
-------
(Page 6 of 6)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question II: Has the State Developed and Maintained a Multi-Year
Permits Strategy Consistent with the National Permits Strategy?
Information
Source
Item
Response
Evaluator's
Comments
2. securing adequate groundwater
monitoring data for timely per-
mit processing?
State
permits
strategy
3. ensuring public participation, in-
cluding a public participation
plan for all environmentally
significant facilities?
State
permits
strategy
4*
CO
-------
(Page 1 of 2)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING
Key Question 12: Are Permit Call-Ins and Determinations Made In Accordance With the Permits Strategy?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator" s
Comments
Progress to Date Against Strategy
A. Are Part B call-Ins, permit process-
Ing milestones and final determina-
tion dates proceeding In accordance
with the State grant work program
and overall State strategy?
.1. What percent of the annual Part B
call-In, permit processing mile-
stones, and final determination
targets/commitments were met
through quarter?
CO
i
oo
HWOMS
(SPMS
Reports)*
Quarter (Cum)
Requests PUnned Actu.l Per.
To Pile To tote Achieved
S/T
I
LD
Total
Completeness
Reviews
S/T
I
LD
Total
Public
Notice
S/T
I
LO
Total
Final Deter-
minations
S/T
I
LD
Total
Total
P)»nn*d Percent
for F»
•Nationa1 HWDMS reports are currently being developed to track performance against SPMS and RIP commitments. They we. e not
t the time the Guide was published.
-------
(Page 2 of 2)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question 12: Are Permit Call-Ins and Determinations Made In Accordance With the Permits Strategy?
Item
Information
Source
Response
tvaiuator's
Comments
2. If commitments cannot be met,
what can be done to meet them?
(Schedule changes, more resources,
new milestones, trade-offs, etc.)
CD
I
MS
B. What 1s the extent of coverage of
the permitting program to date?
1. Progress to date,
Active Part B Final
Facilities Applications Determinations
As of Requested Made
HWDMS
(Criteria
Report 19)*
S/T
I
LD
2. Is the schedule for completing
all permit actions consistent
with the final determination
deadlines laid out in the permit
strategy?
*Cr1teria Report 19 is described in Section 5, but the report was not completed at the time the Evaluation Guide was
published.
-------
(Page I of 4)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question 13: Are Permit Determinations Hade 1n Accordance With Processing Schedules?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator" s
Comments
A. What Is the State's system of track-
ing milestones In permit processing?
1 How often is the data updated?
How?
File reviews,
authorization
applications
2. How does the State respond when the
data system shows a Part B mile-'
stone is being missed?
oo
Is the length of time from the Part
B request to the decision to issue
or deny a permit within the ranges
established in the permit strategy?
1. Progress to date.
HWDMS (Cri-
teria Reports,
Is 10, 11.
12).*
Experience Through
No. of Ptnulli I lesi I Greater I Within B.nge In
l»u*a/0enled I Inn tttnqe Ihtn Kjnqe Hinge ilrntqi
S/T
I
LO
2. Why are they outside the range?
(Facility specific analysis)
*See Section 5 foi descriptions and examples of Criteria Reports 110, 11, and 12.
-------
(Page 2 of 4)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERM ITTIMG (Continued)
Key Question 13: Are Penult Determinations Made in Accordance With Processing Schedules?
Item
Information
Source
Response
.valuator's
Comments
3. Has the time period for permit
Issuance improved for permits
issued this year versus prior
years?
C. What has been the experience to
date In meeting permit processing
milestones?
1. What is the status of current
permits in process?
HUGHS
(Criteria
Report 110)*
2. How does this experience match
against the intermediate mile-
stones established in tin'
permit strategy?
3. Has the experience this year
improved from prior years'
experience?
*See Section 5 for a description and example of Criteria Report 110.
-------
(Page 3 of 4)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question 13: Are Permit Determinations Made 1n Accordance With Processing Schedules?
Item
nformation
Source
Response
"^valuator's
Gormen ts
0. For facilities closed (or closing):
I. What Is the average length of time
between submission of the closure
plan and approval?
Mle reviews
2. Is Lite State n ?ting its regula-
tory milestones for processing
the closure plans? If not, why
not? How does the State plan to
improve performance (if necessary)?
-------
(Page 4 of 4)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question 13: Are Permit Determinations Made 1n Accordance With Processing Schedules?
I tan
Information
Source
Response
bvaluator"*
Comments
E. Based on the Part Bs submitted thus
far:
1. How many have required NOOs?
file
reviews
co
i—
U)
2. How many have had deficiencies
that were unresolved within 60
days of the NODs?
3. Has the State used the Late and
Incomplete Part B policy to deal
with these deficient applications?
Has 1t been effective?
4. Has the State used any other means
to deal with deficient applications?
If so, what are they? Have they
been effective?
-------
(Page 1 of o)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING
Key Question 14: Are Permit Determinations Technically Sound and Consistent with Permit Regulations?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Tvaluator's
Comments
Permit Quality
A. Is the State following the procedures
1n Its permitting regulations for
the following actions:
1. the Initial completeness check?
file
reviews
2. Issuing NOOs?
file
reviews
3. technical reviews?
file
reviews
4. Issuing draft permits?
file
reviews
-------
(Page 2 of 6)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question 14: Are Permit Determinations Technically Sound and Consistent with Permit Regulations?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator's
Comments
en
5. approving closure plans?
file
reviews
6. holding public meetings and re-
sponding to public comment?
file
reviews
7. Issuing final permit decisions?
file
rev i ews
-------
OO
I
(Page J of 6)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question 14: Are Permit Determinations Technically Sound and Consistent with Permit Regulations?
Item
B. What'is the quality of Part B
applications?
1. What are the major weak areas?
Major strong areas?
2. What assistance or guidance does
the State provide to permit
applicants? Manuals? Training
sessions?
3. What kind of guidance do super-
visors give to permit writers?
Does this incluik- nt|iil.ir inert imjs
to discuss issues and shore infor-
mation and the use of EPA-issued
or other guidance manuals?
4. Are permit files complete? Do
they include all copies of re-
levant correspondence, permit
writer's calculations, and all
other materials necessary for the
administrative record?
Thformat ion
Source
State permit
reviews,
file reviews
State
permit
strategy,
file reviews,
guidance
documents,
manuals
file reviews
Response
Evaluate. '
Comnten t •>
-------
(Page H of 6)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question 14: Are Permit Determinations Technically Sound and Consistent with Permit Regulations?
Item
Information
Source
Response
tvaiuator's
Comments
C. What Is the quality of State permits?
1. Are permit conditions clear
and understandable?
file reviews,
permit
reviews
OB
2. Is the basis for all permit
conditions properly documented
in the administrative record?
file reviews,
permit
reviews
3. Are requirements and frequencies
for facility monitoring, report-
ing inspection and analysis after
permit issuance defined .iml
described?
-------
(Page 5 or 6)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Cohtlnued)
Key Question 14: Are Permit Determinations Technically Sound and Consistent with Permit Regulations?
Item
Information
Source
Response
ivaluator s
Comments
Are comments by EPA permit re-
viewers resolved before the
permit is Issued? Do final
permits reflect all significant
public comments?
file reviews,
permit
writer
interviews
00
i
»-•
00
5. Are permit conditions consistent
with the State/Federal regula-
tions? Do they meet the require-
ments of these regulations?
file reviews,
permit
reviews
6. Have any permits been appealed
administratively or judicially?
7. Have any permits or permit condi-
tions been overturned on either
administrative or judicial appeal?
Which ones? Why?
-------
(Page 6 of 6)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question 14: Are Permit Determinations Technically Sound and Consistent with Permit Regulations?
Item
Information
Source
Response
tvaiuator's
Comments
How 1s quality assurance of the
permit program provided?
1. Does the State use experts from
outside the permitting group
1n reviewing permits? If so,
what procedures are followed?
Has the State had any difficulty
getting timely reviews from these
reviewers?
State
permit
file reviews,
MOA.
interviews,
State work
program
description
co
t~f
uo
2. Are NOOS and draft permits
reviewed by supervisors?
State permit
file reviews,
interviews
3. What Is the extent of Involvement
by State legal experts in permit
development?
State permit
file reviews,
interviews
-------
(Page 1 of
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING
Key Question 15: Are Provisions Made for Adequate Public Participation 1n the Permit Progran'
Item
A. Were public participation plans
prepared for environmentally signi
flcant facilities consistent with
the permit strategy?
1. How many public participation
plans have been prepared?
Information
Source
file reviews
Response
~Eva Iudtor's
f. •-H
* of
Plans
2. Are field assessments conducted
for use 1n the development of
these plans?
3. How many field assessments have
been prepared?
file reviews
f of
Assessments
4. When will the remaining field
assessments be prepared?
-------
(Page 2 of 2 )
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: PERMITTING (Continued)
Key Question 15: Are Provisions Made for Adequate Public Participation 1n the Permit Program?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evalualor's
Comments
B. Are the public participation plans
being implemented?
1. If not, why? What problems are
being encountered?
file reviews
Are facilities encouraged to communi-
cate information and plans about how
they will comply with the State or
RCRA standards and operate under
permit conditions directly to local
governments, public interest groups,
and the public at large? How are they
encouraged?
State
permits
strategy
Are Informational public notices
and meetings provided during pro-
cessing of permit applications
for environmentally or publicly
significant facilities?
permit
rev 1ews,
file reviews
-------
9545 .00-*
SECTION 4C
MANAGEMENT CHECKLISTS
-------
Management
Evaluation Checklists
INTRODUCTION TO MANAGEMENT CHECKLISTS
The management checklists that follow reflect requirements for State programs
found in the management portion of the Interim National Criteria for a Quality
RCRA Program and in the FY 1985 RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP). (See Section
2|. While some protocol questions are permits or enforcement specific, they
also address the broader range of concerns associated with five key evaluation
questions:
1. Are resources used in accordance with the annual plan?
2. Are staff adequately trained?
3. Does the data system provide information to support effective
management?
4. Is the State continuing to operate an equivalent program
under authorization.
5. Did the State and Region meet other commitments contained in
their program grant, MOA, and State capability letter of
intent?
Most of the management information is available from State and Regional files,
which should be reviewed and evaluated prior to conducting the formal mid-year
review. It may be necessary for certain Regional staff to visit the State
prior to the formal mid-year (or end-of-year) review for the data gathering
needed to evaluate these files. At the formal review, additional information
about utilization of the data management system should be obtained by
interviewing State managers.
FORMAT OF CHECKLISTS
The following pages contain management-related evaluation questions and
detailed lines of inquiry. They are presented in a worksheet-type format that
includes a listing of information sources to be used for gathering data needed
to answer the evaluation questions, space for entering quantitative results
and State responses, and a column for noting the evaluator's comments,
assessments, and recommendations. When completed, these evaluation forms
should serve as a summary of the program review, and should be useful in
preparing the formal mid-year review report.
4C-1
-------
Region/State
Date of Review
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT
(Page 1 of 3 )
Key Question II: Are Resources Used In Accordance With the Annual State Grant and Regional Resource Allocation?
information
Source
Item
Response
Evaluator1s
Garments
A. Do the workyears used match the RCRA
allocation?
1. No. of WY and/or Dollars utilized
for Program Development
o
i
ro
State
financial
status
reports
Annual Expended
Allocation as of
¥7 F~
WY
Percent Used
to Date
TJ7J 1~
Program Development
Permitting
Compliance and Enforcement
Management and Other
K.al
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Key Question II: Are Resources Used 1n Accordance With the Annual State Grant and Regional Resource Allocation?
(Page 2 of 3)
Item
B. Are RCRA grant funds allocated
to agencies/groups other than the
grantee 1n accordance with the
grant work program; e.g., AG office,
labs, transportation dept.?
1. What is the division of funds
agreed to in the grant work
program?
*» 2. How does the State lead Agency
i control fund use among the
w various State Agencies?
C. What are the reasons for any deficien-
cies/deviations from the allocation?
t Diversion to other eligible activitie
• Shifting workload not foreseen
• Funds used for more stringent State
requirements before prior activities
completed
• Vacancies (high turnover rate?)
t Failure to follow staffing plan
nformation
Source
Response
EvaTuator* s
Comments
-------
(Page 3 of 3)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Key Question II: Are Resources Used In Accordance With the Annual State Grant and Regional Resource Allocation?
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator's
Comments
0. Is there an Indication that grant
funds have been diverted to other
programs (Superfund, Subtitle D,
etc.)?
E. What corrective actions are planned?
o
i
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT
Key Question 12: Are Staff Adequately Trained?
(Page 1 of
Item
A. Is the State taking the necessary
measures to ensure that staff
training needs are met?
1. Does State have training plan?
How does State evaluate staff
skills and training needs annually
and update training plan in the
following areas? (plan should be
employee-specific where feasible):
a. identify specific skills areas
needing improvement (laboratory,
technical, computer, etc.).
considering the State's regu-
lated community and how well
the current skill mix relates
to that community
Information
Source
letter of intent
Response
"•• 'iFlor' s
.on»,,.;. is
specify which RCRA activities
[permits, enforcement (includ-
ing AG's office)] will benefit
from training, with special
attention to financial respon-
sibility, closure and post-
closure, and ground water
monitoring/hydrology.
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Key Question 12: Are Staff Adequately Trained?
(Page 2 of 2)
Information
Source
Item
Response
EvaTuator's
Comments
c. specify how training will be
conducted (private, university,
government courses, etc.)
Ok
3. Are staff trained in accordance
with the plan?
a. If not, why not?
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT
Key Question 13: Does the Data System Provide Information to Support Effective Management of the Program?
(Page 1 of 4)
Item
A. Does the system track key program ele-
ments and provide data to meet EPA
and State reporting requirements?
1. Does system support State's ability
to meet all reporting requirements
in grant; including:
Information
Source
file reviews
Response
Evaluator1s
Comments
a. compliance monitoring and en-
forcement logs?
b. permit status sheets?
c. major facility status sheets?
d. administrative reports, in-
cluding: employee training
plan, quarterly cash trans-
action report, final
financial status report,
inventory list, and equipment
list?
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Key Question 13: Does the Data System Provide Information to Support Effective Management of the Program?
(Page 2 uf 4)
Item
B. Does the system provide up-to-date
and accurate permit and enforce-
ment information?
1. Does system provide up-to-date
(monthly) activity and excep-
tion reports for permitting and
compliance and enforcement
activities?
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator's
Comments
I
00
a. If not, describe any de-
ficiencies
2. For States with automated sys-
tems, has the State established
and Implemented a data quality
assurance program which includes:
a. Identification of program staff
that completes and verifies
source documents and coding
forms?
file reviews,
quality
assurance
plan
b. identification of computer
center staff that make ADP
data entry from source docu-
ments and coding forms?
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Key Question *3: Does the Data System Provide Information to Support Effective Management of the Program
(Page 3 of 4)
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator1s
Comments
identification of computer
center and program staff for
editing EPA generated turn-
around document and account-
Ing for all source documents
and coding forms? and
file reviews,
quality
assurance
plan
d. time frame for State's editing
of turnaround document and
making revisions to data base?
o
I
VO
C. Does the data base accurately identi-
fy the regulated community?
file reviews
1. Describe any problems
0. Is Information on facility status
changes (new handlers and those
amending Part A's) provided to EPA
within 10 days of receipt of new
information?
file reviews
-------
(Page 4 of 4)
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Key Question 13: Does the Data System Provide Information to Support Effective Management of tht Program?
Item
nformation
Source
Response
Evaluator's
Comments
1. Describe any problems?
o
h-»
O
E. Does program management use the
information system?
1. Does management use the informa-
tion system to track and follow-
up on key program elements: in-
spections, enforcement, permit
development, program develop-
ment?
a. If not, how does management
track these elements? Is
the approach used adequate?
-------
Key Question 14;
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT
Is the State Continuing to Operate an Equivalent Federal Program?
(Page 1 of 3)
Information
Source
Item
Response
^valuator1s
Comments
A. Has the State adopted changes in
Federal requirements within speci-
fied time period?
1. What changes have occurred that
State must adopt?
EPA/State
regulatory
or statutory
changes,
State waivers,
variances, and
delistings
o
Were any changes not made within
time frames of 40 CFR Sec. 271.
21(e) as amended (one year for
regulatory, two for statutory;
with 6-month extension possible)?
a. If yes, why were they not
made within the specified
time frames?
EPA/State
regulatory
or statutory
changes,
State waivers,
variances, and
delistings
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Key Question 14: Is the State Continuing to Operate an Equivalent Federal Program?
(Page 2 of 3)
Information
Source
Item
Old the State Inform EPA In advance
of potential waivers, variances,
delistings and changes to State
statutes, regulations and agency
responsibilities.
1. What actions of this type have
occurred in the State?
EPA/State
regulatory
or statutory
changes,
State waivers,
variances, and
delistings
Response
Evaluator's
Comments
o
i
i—•
ro
Describe any problems with ad-
vance notification (e.g., State
legislature acted without know-
ledge of State staff, or State
knew of pending changes but
failed to inform EPA).
C. Old the State adequately address
EPA comments on waivers, delistings,
variances and regulation changes?
1. What comments did EPA make
that were not adequately
addressed by the State?
EPA/State
regulatory
or statutory
changes,
State waivers,
variances, and
delistings
2. How did the State address them?
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT (Continued)
Key Question 14: Is the State Continuing to Operate an Equivalent Federal Program?
(Page 3 of 3)
Item'
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator's
Comments
D. Did the State take corrective
actions in accordance with
negotiated agreements?
1. What corrective actions did
State agree to in MOA, letter
of intent or grant agreement?
MOA, letter
of intent,
grant agree-
ment, and
revisions
thereto
2. Did State follow-through on
both the substance and timing
of these?
a. If not, what revisions did
the State agree to?
b. Did the State perform
according to the revised
agreements?
-------
PROGRAM REVIEW PROTOCOLS: MANAGEMENT
Key Question 15: Old the State Satisfy Any Additional Management Conditions 1n the State Grant?
(Page 1 to 1)
Item
Information
Source
Response
Evaluator s
Comments
Were there any additional management
conditions in the State grant stem-
ming from the letter of intent
(capability assessment), or authori-
zation MO A?
1. If so, what were they?
State grant,
letter of
intent, MOA
o
I
B. Did State meet these conditions?
If not, why not?
-------
9 5 4
- -
SECTION 5
HWDMS REPORTS TO MONITOR
QUALITATIVE CRITERIA
-------
Section 5
HWDMS Reports to Monitor RCRA Quality Criteria
PURPOSE OF'IECTION
This section presents a series of recommended HWDMS reports to track
performance against the quality criteria. The reports will provide the basic
quantitative information to answer the "quality criteria" questions contained
in the evaluation checklists presented In Section 4. These HWOMS criteria
reports are a critical component of the pre-meeting preparation aspects of the
program review protocols.
This section does not contain other HWDMS reports now under development to
track performance against work program commitments defined in the Agency's
Strategic Planning and Management System (SPMS). However, the evaluation
checklists in Section 4 reference both the recently issued HWOMS criteria
reports and the needed SPMS reports.
At the time of publication of the Guide, 10 of the 12 HWOMS criteria -sports
had been completed, tested in Region 2 and Region 10, and were under review by
the Regional Program Officers (RPOs) in the remaining Regions. Release of the
reports for use by Headquarters and the Regions 1s tentatively scheduled for
the first quarter of FY 1985. A description of each report and detailed
specifications (including select logic) will be available from the Office of
Solid Waste upon their release.
DESCRIPTION OF REPORTS
The 12 criteria reports described in this section provide the quantitative
information to answer and support seven of the key questions contained in the
evaluation checklists.
Compliance and Enforcement (Section 4A)
• Key Question 2C: Is the State covering handlers in its
compliance monitoring program as outlined in its strategy?
(Criteria Reports II and 2*)
• Key Question 4: Are enforcement actions timely and
appropriate? (Criteria Reports #3, 4, 5, and 6)
• .Key Question 6A: Is the State successful in bringing
handlers into compliance? (Criteria Report #7)
Criteria Report #2 and #9 has not been programmed as of the time of
publication of the Guide because of unresolved definitional
problems.
5-1
-------
t Key Question 68: What is the compliance rate for various
types of handlers? (Criteria Report #8)
Permitting (Section 48)
• Key Question 28: What is the extent of coverage of the
permitting program to date? (Criteria Report #9*)
• Key Question 38: Has the length of time from the Part B
request to the decision to issue or deny a permit fallen
within the ranges established in the permit strategy?
(Criteria Report 112)
• Key Question 3C: What has been the experience to date in
processing permits? 'Criteria Reports #10 and 11)
The reports give various levels of detail based on the needs of the users:
statistical reports for overall program evaluation of national, Regional, and
State performance; and facility listings for status and exceptions reporting.
Reports 15 and #12 are general purpose exception reports that provide handler
listings that correspond to the summary numbers contained in the other
reports.
FORMAT OF SECTION
The following pages provide a summary of each report (including the purpose,
data source, and status) and a full example (using Region 2 data) of the
report. All the reports use currently required HWDMS data elements. The data
for HWOMS comes from the Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log or the
Permit Status Sheet, both of which are required to be submitted monthly for
all actions in the Regions and States.
* Criteria Report #2 and #9 has not been programmed as of the time of
publication of the Guide because of unresolved definitional problems
5-2
-------
REPORT tl - INSPECTION PROGRESS AGAINST STRATEGY
Purpose
This report tracks the number and percentage of the total active handlers that
have been inspected by either the State or EPA during the current fiscal year.
Its purpose is to determine which handlers have been covered by inspections,
broken out by major and non-major handler and type of handler. Multiple
inspections of the same handlers during the current fiscal year are not
relevant to determining inspection coverage. It is impwrLant to nots that
record reviews are not factored into this report.
The performance expectation (based on the quality criteria document) is to
inspect all major handlers, 25% of the non-major facilities, and 10% of the
non-major generators and transporters each year.
Source of Data •
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log
Status of Report
Under final review by national program.
FY 1985.
Report Example
Release expected first quarter,
REGION 2
INSPECTION
THRU
PROGRESS AGAINST
AUGUST 30. 1984
NO. HANDLERS
STRATEGY
HANDLERS
STATE
MAJOR HANDLERS
GENERATORS
TRANSPORTERS
FACILITIES
(STORAGE)
(INCINERATORS)
(DISPOSAL)
NQN.MAJOR HANDLERS
GENERATORS
TRANSPORTERS
FACILITIES
(STORAGE)
(INCINERATORS)
(DISPOSAL)
TOTAL HANDLERS
GENERATORS
TRANSPORTERS
FACILITIES
(STORAGE)
(INCINERATORS)
(DISPOSAL)
.391
S2«
154
2S4
ISO
sa
97
11055
3785
1444
574
493
IS
b«
11447
9109
1598
833
622
45
166
227
192
7t
l«4
75
19
50
J9«
J36
91
94
80
3
11
625
528
170
238
155
22
61
EPA
38
32
17
33
1»
3
16
73
55
1»
19
15
1
3
111
87
35
52
29
4
19
STATE
INJECTED
TOTAL
253
215
90
164
85
21
58
474
39Z
110
113
93
4
16
727
607
200
277
178
25
74
NJ
I
64
6*
58
63
65
65
5'
4
4
7
19
18
30
23
6
6
12
33
28
55
44
5-3
-------
REPORT tl - RECORD REVIEW PROGRESS AGAINST STRATEGY
Purpose
This report tracks the number of record reviews completed to date against the
total record reviews required, to determine compliance with Subparts G and H.
Its purpose is to illustrate the progress that has been made in completing the
initial compliance reviews for closure/post closure and financial assurance.
The report breaks out the information by major and non-major facilities and
the type of record review completed.
The performance expectation (based on the quality criteria document) is to
complete record reviews for all facilities subject to Subpart G and H
requirements by the end of FY 1985.
Source of Data
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log
Status of Report
Report not yet completed because of definitional problems.
Report Example
MUTM PMQU53 ACMMT
>urch 1W
Itagicn V
SUM ALL
(It
suaiocr TO
3LIBPART5 C «*€>
r«CILITTB;
Clo«ure/T>3»c-Cla»ur» PUrv
PLin*
Firvuvul
r«cii.mni;
Clcmir.-/?a«t-<:la»ur» PUnB '
Flrurtlil
*7TE:
(1) (4) (S)
MUMS* TO QATE IN OUVLETTtC HBCTHD RCVTDflt
RtQOro' A^/ivl*t«* «n«n ill records reldcod to «ocn r*l«vanc rag. vac t Ion (e.g., Subparc
G.H) njv« a»m r«vievud: rokut-d r*v\Mcn «r* pfrfomd on h«ndl«r*
wfUMtf records for <&icpjrt r. anj H rxau* alcuily Oa«n c«vtw«d by ch* aiChorlMd SCJta.
TTW OKcrd r*v«i«« to o» counted ar» only Cor cho*« Out -«r« not cooplcud pcl°r to cA
of uw y«ir. (S«« coltnn 2)
5-4
-------
RF.PCRT 13 - STATUS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS BY AGE OF VIOLATION
Purpose
This report tracks, in summary form, the progress to date in taking
enforcement actions against handlers with unresolved violations, grouped by
time since the violation was detected. This will illustrate at a glance
whather escalating enforcement actions are being taken as unreso' ed
violations get older. It also will highlight the number of violations that
have not received timely and appr /Mate enforcement actions, based on the
expectations contained in the national criteria document.
It is important to note that this report focuses on the number of evaluations
completed, not the number of handlers with unresolved Class I violations. It
is expected that the number of evaluations where violations are found will
exceed the number of handlers. For comparison purposes, the total number of
handlers involved is recorded on the report.
Source of Data
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log
Status of Report
Under final review by national program. Release expected first quarter,
FY 1985.
Report Example
STATUS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS 9T A6E OF VIOLATION STAT^A
DM AMUST 11. 1M* • SIMIt *.
EVALUATIONS »:TH UNRESOLVED LATEST ENFORCEMENT ACTION
CLASS I VIOLATIONS INFORMAL WL/NOV AO CIV REF CHI* REF
HANDLERS AFFECTED 136
1
OTHER/NONE
DAYS SINCE VIOLATION
0 TO 30
31 TO 120
121 TO 180
181 TO 270
271 TO 330
OVER 330
TOTAL
1 - 0 0100
20 0 5 2 1 0
26 0 4 14 0 0
IS 0 5 5 0 0
11 03310
ao 3 5 71 o o
153 3 22 101 2 0
0
12
3
5
4
1
29
5-5
-------
REPORT 14 - AVERAGE EMFORCEHENT RESPONSE TIME 3Y TYPE OF ACTION
Purpose
This report summarizes the timeliness of enforcement actions taken for any
given State, Region, or the national program. For each enforcement action
type, the report summarizes the number of actions, the average time it took to
complete the action from the date the violation was detected, and the longest
time taken. Its purpose is to provide a broad look at the program experience
in taking enforcement actions, in order that program performance may be
compared on an aggregate basis with the performance expectations outlined in
the quality criteria document.
The performance expectations for a Class I violation is 30 days for a warning
letter, 180 days for a final administrative order and 270 days for a civil
action.
Source of Data
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log
Status of Report
Report completed and tested with Region 2 and Region 10 data. Review by RPOs
was scheduled to begin at the time of issuance of the Guide.
Report Example
AVERAGE ENFORCEMENT RESPONSE TIME BY TYPE OF ACTION REGION 2
THRU SEPT. 30. 1984 STATE ACL
NO. ACTIONS AVetUCC HIGHEST
(BAYS) (DAYS)
WARNING uemR 277 sz »<*
COMPLAINT - 42 52 !••
3006 OfOCH 5 157 Z82
INFORMAL 3« * >t«
CIVIL ACTION 2 J« ?B
TOTAL ENfORCEMCNT ACTIONS 364
5-6
-------
REPORT #5 - HANDLERS WITH UNRESOLVED CLASS I VIOLATIONS
Purpose
This report lists all handlers with unresolved violations that have received
an administrative order within 180 days of the violation discovery date. It
provides the detail to augment the statistical summary of enforcement actions
provided for in Report 13. The information included for each unresolved
violator includes the type of handler, area of violation, days since the
evaluation, and the date and type of the listed enforcement action.
Note: This is a general purpose exception report that can be easily modified
to (a) use any time period threshold from the date of the evaluation and (b)
track the elapsed time to any enforcement action. It will provide the
facility listing to support the summary numbers in Report #3.
Source of Data
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log
Status of Report
Under final review by national program.
FY 1985.
Report Example
Release expected first quarter,
NtNAUM «|TN UNtCIOkVCO Clltl f VIOllflONt
wo rt«*h u*ac* oi juBiciik ACTION »M«IN in am
THW AUBBT 11. IM4
xANOkt* ««•*.
otifvom eo.
Ofl»0»4N 'IINT CO,
CL"!«« CMf(j"C H.AT
•tmcNtkB UNICONBUCTOI
SIM oik COHPOMTIOW
HAlA*OO1l| KilTl ...-.
HH auicuCNtus", INC.
• •Oik AIIOCIAfCt
•AZOTIC "CAvlit* eo
Nonm «••>.
0.", HUlMkk t IONI
OA« iMrcifAii G«OU' INC
INC
OA« *lTe*I4k*
0AM CO*N(*I i
••»rT » i
•vt cMfNieik i"co»r;
NINOIC* IB TT*t or
UN r*« rtc
NYfl|«|l*HT|
»Y6«*OUT«T1
NY001*»4I*II
•YOKM21M*
NTB07I1I11I1
NvOOlTTTIIO* I I
»YO«JTO»4I12 t I
NY(o**cTto« lutkisrirtei i* •*Bi«ito7i$t
iNouir»i>k CON'*OL or •* INC •»B««OI«IIO«
>c<*t.c i eo
CO«»0»«T10I«
ll/IO/IJ
oT/JI/tl
01/11/11
0|/27/lt
90/94/12
11/19/11
9*/«>/tl
07/11/11
05/95/12
II/2I/I1
0«/II/IS
91/01/11
01/02/IJ
01/24/1*
ll/2«/ll
05/14/12
II/I7/IJ
Ol/t«/l*
07/0«/ll
OI/ll/IJ
OI/2*/ll
01/11/11
01/11/11
Ol/IVIt
01/11/11
12/11/11
Ot/94/12
01/11/11
II/2V/I1
9I/7I/K
01/25/1*
OI/2«/ll
11/10/11
04/15/02
11/14/01
07/21/11
771
1TI
**r
2«f
10*1
• 11
04*
277
)«»
1**
1*«
229
2'k
lit
21*
221
!!«»
571
}4I
57*
171
2*1
171
ITf
274
211
21*
271
lit
21*
«tr
it it it ot it it
i
I I* It 01 It I
I
01 It 01 91 Ot 01
I It 01 90 Ot Ot t
I
I
II I
I
I
> I
I *
mm t
SWTt JJi
uttir
BATE C.VU CV*r TIM M Ck it •• 1C •» OT
tm
lilt
UK* Cu"*ki|Nt
111* CU**X/«1/
01/2*/
Ol/O'/l
oi oi ot it oi
Ot I Ot 01 Ot It 01
II I
It I 01 Ot Ot Ot Ot
I
It > Ot 01 Ot Ot Ot
I
loot
1001
loot
loot
1001
not
1901
not
lit*
lilt
lit*
111*
111*
lit*
COP'l'lNt
dJ»»kAINt
eo«»k»«NT
CU»'kAINf
eu»»k»iNr
CO»k«lN»
CO"»XMNr
CU»*l*INT
ei)H«lAINt
CO"»V«INf
01/11/12
Ol/ll/'l
11/10/11
01/2*'l<
10/07/01
07/I*'I2
0«/I2/I1
or/ii/i*
or/n/u
12/21/11
01/27/11
02/07/M
01/2*/l«
12/11/12
5-7
-------
REPORT #6 - PENALTIES ASSESSED/COLLECTED FOR CLASS I VIOLATIONS
Purpose
This report lists all the handlers with violations that have had a penalty
assessed against them. It provides for each listed handler (a) type of
handler, (b) area of violation, (c) type of enforcement action, (d) scheduled
and actual compliance date, and (e) amount of penalty assessed and collected.
The report provides a detailed look at consistent application of penalty
criteria.
Source of Data
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log
Status of Report
Under final review by national program.
FY 1985.
Report Example
Release expected first quarter,
N4NQLC* Nt»C
ei"t«»L INITKUMCNTI COM,
SCU*C( A, *OI|NtON 1 CU"»*N»
CMC • N4N4JISON *AOtATO*J
H4NCAI |* MN AM
M4NCA* IT VAN A«
M4l.U««41T(
MV OUAOCNIU3M, INC.
II(OU|T*t4L OIL T4NK i LI»l •
II'IN HCAtUllNg TOOL COM'ANT
JIT CtNTt* »*N AM
JO»N MAtaAL, INC
JOSLVN M?6 i SU'^LT COMPANY
IA«*INCC •!»»« CO., INC.
ICA 90N4L INC
Lt°f«H LA80»4TOIIU9/4t0>
"KLI* Mt'INS CO. CONTAIN!*
X41MUA COMOMTION INOUITHI*
NATIONAL •!'€ COMPANY;
1t« YOU! CITT T*4NI|T AUTMO*
"(J*t,ITf COM.
0.*. HUHBCLL » SONi
OAK M4TCII1AL3 C*OUP INC
04*.H|TJU|, INC.
01«t CO*N(*9 SALVANItINC CO
•ITTON'I auir act oi3»oi*L •
*Ct*LfSI ^MOTO P*OOUCT| INC
"lie* INC.
•lYKOUTM 7U*f
•01 Y Ml INOUJTHICI INC
'(ATT 1 LA»ICNT
•*IO( 10LV(NT« AND CNfMIClL*
•Yt CHCN|CAL INCOM. (N(N Y«
».'e.' JCOTT
tOTM »»OS J»tLrlMC COM
9CMCNCCT40T C"e"ICAL) INC
3IMION03 PltCIlION CwClNC 3*
SOLID 'One* COMO**TION
touTHCO INC
IFAULOINC fie*e co INC
•tNALTtei Aitinc»/c(n.L(CTco ro> CLA<« i »ioLAtio»a sTAT?H3
TMU AUGUST 31. LM4 —
«4Noifi io iin of NINALI* TT*( or viox*noN cx'o'ct'fT ACTION CU»*XIANCC DATII ••«
a(N T** MC SN CL l» •» »C M» OT ICHCOULCtl 4C1U*L 4
XYOOT147551* II 1 lOOt rll»L U»OI* 12/25/1) OI/15/**
XYOOIJ0454** 1 II 1000 CO»*LAI«T 04/10/0*
*TOI*2Ze*!»7 II 1 1001 'i»»t OIOC* 07/l?/l*
1100 CQOLAINT 01/21/1*
Nvottil 2*142
NY087275571*
Nro«te»**t««-
MY005777910*
NY000222*))*
XYOO»5577]4I
«Y0002042*T1
XY00727545I)
»Y00020*5*17
Nvnooiii OTI •
NYno»«T102««
XY0001J25441
HY001*0*5«0*
NY00020AJII1
MyO| | ))25)2f*
NYOtll»002)»
NYO*toTT*5*A
NTOOOOIO*]]!
NTOO**t2*5**
Ny0002212*5T
Nro*to***il)
.NVOoto****39
NYOO*t*l450*
NYO** 12*1 All
*YOO*0*»02I1
NY0047495712
NYD0005I4I**
NY00020**! )*
NYOOO 117*21 •
NYn«T*ooia*t
NYnoOOtlITT)
NyOOOftTOt 1 21
NYOtfTTJZJSt
NYO«I85141«0
NyOoTI *4I2*2
XVOOO**TTOI*
NY00020T01 1 t
NVO 00221*5*1
"Y0041210111
NY00022C«011
XYQ002104***
I I 0
. X
I
I I *
I
1 1
I
1 1
I
1
1
I 0
113
I )
-I 1
1
110
I I
I 3
1
I
1 1
X 0
I
1
x
I
I
X I
X
I I
1
X I
X
1
1
110
I
00 Ot 0* tt
i
i
i
i
i
X
I
X
I
g
I
1
I
I
X
I Ot 9* Ot
I
0* tt Ot tt
I
I
X
I
I
I
X
I
X I
X
I
I
I
1
1
tt t* 1
1
1
1
1
*
1
I
ot x
I
t* t*
I X
I
1 I
1000
1000
1100
!IO«
loot
loot
loot
loot
loot
loot
loot
loot
loot
1000
loot
1000
1001
loot
loot
loot
loot
1001
loot
1001
loot
loot
loot
loot
loot
loot
loot
• 4*N
1001
loot
loot
loot
loot
1001
1000
loot
loot
loot
looe
loot
1000
1001
1001
loot
loot
loot
CU"»LAINT
' INAL 0*01*
' 1X4L 0401K
CUH*XA INT
COM*LAINT
'IN4L 0*01*
'IN4L 0*0tft
COx'LAlNT
'1N4L aunt*
MN4L 0«0l*
CU»»LAJNT
CO"pCAINf
nsjL a*oi»
M*AI o*ot* '
CUM<*LA1NT
'ItK. OHOt*
FfOL 0«0t*
' 1 »AI Qwot*.
CUwpt.AINT
f I **L U*ol*
' 1 '**L Ownm
C:-«LAINT
csw*L4 INT
CO^'LAINT
'<••>(. anal*
ri"»L 0*0t*
rix.L o«oe«
COM*LA1NT
CO»»LAINT
C3"'LAl*tT
riH«L 0«0€»
INC ICTU*/NOV
M"4L 0*01*
riNtL O*OIN
CO"*LAINT
nxtL u*ot*
'114L 0"0t»
CO*** LAINT
r|'l4L OKOt*
COM*LAINT
CO"'LAINT
riN4L o*oe*
CO"*L4INT
CO"»L4INT
COM*LA1NT
CO"»t.4INT
COM'L4INf
riN4L 0401*
CO"'LAINT
CO-»(.AINT
04/10/0*
01/0«/0*
05/OT/l*
91/21/0*
91/10/0*
12/07/0)
lo/il/o*
OS/20/**
OI/V*/**
92/25/C*
11/07/01
95/9«/D*
I2/9I/O
I2/UI/9)
9 1 /2*/**
11/27/01
12/10/01
U*/ 1 I/ft*
1 1/24/01
12/OI/M
U5/20/**
1 t /oT/f 1
95/24/04
0»/10/0*
11/27/0)
94/95/0*
90/01/0*
02/2*/**
04/15/t*
9t/2*/l*
12/21/1)
91/25/1*
12/OI/t)
04/10/t*
02/94/44
04/04/14
94/2*/l*
01/05/0*
12/07/tl
ot/u'/o*
12/14/01
11/17/01
84/10/0*
12/10/1)
04/24/8*
11/07/1)
01/11/04
1 1/28/1)
94/10/0*
02/2*/0*
04/92/94
01/25/1*
00/01/d*
00/11/0*
02/22/0*
02/25/0*
01/25/1*
12/01/1)
91/14/94
04/05/04
04/05/0*
01/11/44
11/27/t)
12/21/1)
11/15/1)
12/D/l)
12/94/41
94/01/1*
91/11/1*
12/15/1)
91/11/0*
11/14/0)
02/24/0*
92/11/0*
^
JU"! ur 't»4Ll'
lltlltD CULLtC
loo* I loo*
0000
loot
7500
toooo
• 500 4
1000 t
14500
U500
7000 4
25*0 4
4
50*0 4
200* *
15900 t
10000
2900
2000 *
7500
19110 4
JOUO 4
1900 4
ioOO 4
2900 *
15000
15000
10900
0900
200* *
2000 4
500*
1050*
9*01
11JOO
12000 1
12000 4
1500 4
1000 <
10000
1000 o
2000 1
7001
looo i
7500 4
21000
2000 >
15000 t
7000
• 0100
7500
15001
0 *
750* t
tltt
• 5**
1*1*
79*t
25**
0
50**
204*
'•
290*
199* '
299*
190*
9
2*0*
200*
200*
1200*
150*
150*
1900
101*
2***
toot
0
200*
'0
*
•
5-8
-------
REPORT 17 - STATUS OF HANDLERS WITH CLASS I VIOLATIONS AT START OF FISCAL YEAR
Purpose
This report tracks the compliance status of those handlers with violations
pending^ on a certain date* (e.g., at the beginning of FY'84). Compliance
status will include three conditions: (a) in compliance; (b) on a current
compliance schedule; or (c) not in compliance. It is expected that, over
time, all handlers in this universe will return to compliar •».
*NOTE: The universe is not "fixed" because reporting delays may cause new
violators to be identified. Running the report at various times during the
year may give a slightly different universe.
Source of Data
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log
Status of Report
cUd?«'acf1nal rev1ew by national program. Release expected first quarter,
FY 1985.
Report Example
STATUS or
HANOLERS HtTH UNRESOLVED
THRU AUGUST
CLASS I VIOLATIONS ON 10/01/S3
31, 1984
MUNICH or HANDLERS IN COMPLIANCE
TOTAL
CENCRATORS
TRANSPORTERS
FACILITIES
(STORAGE)
(INCINERATION)
(DISPOSAL)
CNOUMOMATCR
CLOSuae
FINANCIAL
OTHC"
•
127 SO
«7 3*
2S 10
6« 27
•« 23
t 0
1« «
16 0
16 5
36 23
•2 30
«
J«
37
<0
• 2
52
0
21
0
31
63
32
FORMAL
•
2
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
2
SCHEDULE I*
S
t
2
fl
8
0
0
0
a
a
a
REGION 2
STATE ACL
VIOLATION
•
7S
94
14
37
21
1
IS
16
U
13
2 60
S
59
60
5*
57
«7
100
78
100
66
36
65
5-9
-------
REPORT *8 - COMPLIANCE STATUS FOR HANDLERS THAT HAVE BEEN EVALUATED
Purpose
This report tracks the compliance status of all handlers that have been
evaluated during the current year as of a specified date. It provides a
simple compliance rate computation (# of handlers with pending violations/* of
handlers that have been evaluated), broken out by type of handler. The
compliance status includes: no violations found, violations resolved, formal
compliance schedule, and still in violation.
Source of Date
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log
Status of Report
Under final review by national program.
FY 1985.
Report Example
Release expected first quarter,
COMPLIANCE STATUS Ofl AUGUST 31. 1984 FOR HANDLERS EVALUATED
NUMBER OP HANDLERS NO VIOLATION RESOLVED FORMAL SCHEDULi
EVALUATED
TOTAL 1793 .
GENERATOR/TRANSPORTER 1696
FACILITIES 474
(STORAGE) 331
(INCINERATION) 34
(DISPOSAL) 109
GROUNOWATER 351
CLOSURE 247
FINANCIAL 396 .
OTHER . 1650
•
1705
1612
414
300
23
91
343
226
379
1603
X
95
95
87
90
67
83
97
91
95
96
• X
20 1
18 1
7 I
3 0 •
2 5
2 1
1 0
1 0
0 0
20 I
•
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
X
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
REGION 2
STATE_ALL
IN VIOLATION
*
68
66
53
2S
9
16
7
20
17
35
X
3
3
11
8
26
U
1
8
4
2
5-10
-------
REPORT 19 - PERMIT PROGRESS A&AINST STRATEGY
Purpose
This report tracks the permit actions taken to date against the total universe
of interim status facilities requiring Part 8 permit actions. Its purpose is
to assess how much of the initial permit program has been completed to date,
and how much further action is planned for the current fiscal year. The
report tracks the percent of applications that have been requested and final
determinations made, broken out by type of facility.
The performance expectation (based on the quality criteria document) is to
request 100% of the land disposal and incineration applications by the end of
FY 1985 and make final determinations on 100% of the land disposal and
incineration facilities by FY 1987.
Source of Data
Permit Status Sheet
Status of Report
Report not 'yet completed because of definitional problems.
Report Example
CRITERIA REPORT 19 REGION I
PERMIT PROGRESS AGAINST STRATEGY STATE ALL
THRU March 31. 1985
(1) (2) (3)
Storage t Treatment
Incineration
Land Disposal
Total
ACTIVE
FACILITIES
CN
MARCH 31. 1984
500
20
150
620
(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
PROGRESS TO DATE IN COMPLETING PERMIT ACHCNSJ
Part B {Public Notice
Application!
Requested
1 %
250 50%
15 75%
120 80%
385 62%
Of Permit
DBteml nation
1 %
125 25%
5 25%
75 50%
205 33%
Final Determinations:
Issued Den. i ad W/0 Total
* » t *
55 5 40 100
2 '- 0 3
5 2 43 50
62 a 83 153
% of Final
D*teoilnatlon*
Made to
Oat*
20%
15%
33%
25%
5-11
-------
REPORT #10 - STATUS OF PERMIT PROCESSING: AGE OF PENDING APPLICATIONS
Purpose
This report tracks, in summary form, the processing step and time period
elapsed (since request) for pending permit applications. Its purpose is
two-fold: (1) to display in an aggregate fashion the 25= "* <=«-«?p of pending
applications and (2) to identify the number of applications that have been in
process for the various steps, longer than planned for in the permit strategy.
Source of Data
Permit Status Sheet
Status of Report
Report completed, tested with Region 2 and 10 data.
scheduled to begin at the time of issuance of the Guide.
Report Example
Review by RPOs was
SUIUS Or PfHHIl ChUCtSJlKC: *C[ OF '[KOIHC APPUCA1IWS
AS Of Sl'I.M. 1984
-O«.'M» titei tPPiicino- •touiiui
11-11
»PH.K«IJO*
IPP11OTTO*
C"lt«
TOTIL
• PPLICMIOH MCClvfD
CO"»ltU»lll C»CC«
»PPI.1CiTtO"l
PU«IU
Oll'OUL
»f»l.HiliO*
»«uc«tir,>i
cn«'l tTlvEj
4»»L
untie
14
li
It
I
*
tt
I
T
t
*
Jt
II
tl
i
5»
IT
!*.!« It'll 61 It
t*
Ik
I
>
5-12
-------
REPORT #11 - AVERAGE PERMIT PROCESSING TIMEFRAMES
Purpose
This report summarizes the average time periods for completed permit actions
for any given State, Region, or the national progrram. For each permit
application, the report summarizes the number of applications that have
completed for each step, the average time taken to complete the step, and the
longest time taken for each step. Its purpose is to prz.^z a broad look at
the program experience in processing permits, for comparison on an aggregate
basis with the permit strategy and the quality criteria document.
Source of Data
Permit Status Sheet
Status of Report
Report completed, tested with Region 2 and 10 data.
scheduled to begin at the time of issuance of the Guide.
Report Example
Review by RPOs was
STOIUCe AND TREATMENT
REQUEST TO RECEIPT
RECEIPT TO REVIEW
REVIEW TO COH'LETE
COMPLETE TO oRArT
O»A*T TO issue
INCINERATION
REQUEST TO RECEIPT
RECEIPT TO REVIEW
REVIEW TO COupLETE
COMPLETE TO OR»*T
ORA*T TO ISSUE
DISPOSAL
RE°UEST TO RECEIPT
RECEIPT TO REVIEW
REVIEW TO CO^RLETE
COMPL£Tf TO o°»PT
ORAPT TO ISSUE
AVERAGE PERMIT PROCESSING
FOR ACTIONS THRU AUGUST
APPLICATIONS
»3
54
27
1«
it
13
1!
a
2
J
30
13
t
1
0
TIMEFRAMES
31. 1984
AVE»ACE
(MONTHS)
»
3
S
3
3
6
•
3
3
3
*
S
9
2
REGION 2
STATE KJ
HUMEIT
(MONTHS)
24
21
14
•
8
a
IS
T
5
3
8
IS
9
2
0
5-13
-------
REPORT 112 - FACILITIES EXCEEDING KEY PERMIT PROCESSING TIMEFRAMES
Purpose
This report lists all facilities where the Part B permit application has been
requested. For each facility, the report lists the month since request and
the current permit processing step (including final determination). It
provides the detail corresponding to the summary numbers provided for in
Reports #10 and 11.
Note: This is a general purpose exception report that can easily be modified
to (a) list the facilities exceeding the established timeframes for any step
and (b) list all facilities in any given step for any time period.
Source of Data
Permit Status Sheet
Status of Report
Report completed, tested with Region 2 and 10 data.
scheduled to begin at the time of issuance of the Guide.
Review by RPOs was
Report Example
STATUS 0* FKIUTUS UtfK POT I AWUttTtMH AM II PMMSS
AS tf SOT. 10, 1*4
fACIUITT NIHC FACILITY 10
AOVAKfO (N«tMiw*tirA(. rccmot
At* M40UCT1 >HO CMC»IC»kl« 1*
•U, COUNTt INKIUWflMAk, U»V*
IK.
jro«c/i«e»T
CAlk.lN
94/02/02
94/OS/l*
III COM*
• Atf «VANOQm COO
If I CMmCAk St«vtCM IK
ItOOkt 14.TIH COM*
TCOMlCAi. CIN*
IK
CCkANCU JU«I
crt»~*UT
C04.M 'I
T0«»
co««tiiV INC
tf CXOICA4.I IK
OuMNf 1 1 Of *t«)U«OUA* « co
INQUSTRKS omiton
• |>l(*A|.S AMU CHfMIC*
CTHfk
CNyKOH«r»*r »tnnt9i
cua» Nciiticx MO cist|NCtniN«
naif ma «crn.i cane.
IOUT OIV11ION
niT2iei<« agoac » JLCOIT INC
M cj«»omtiaN « LIXOCN
•iu»(«»
lairrii, *i*c MOOUCTS
iukf aik co'voKinox
^«.A «OC"€ INC
•UHf *li|kl* • CHC»lC«k CO**
ICI ««t«(C'J lnC
92/24/12
91/11/1*
NjooonoiSir
01/21/1*
94/02/12
g«/0!/i«
91/24/12
0(/2*/92
JTOMC/I««»t 94/01/14
9I/IO/H1
91/11/04
Ol/13/ll
02/94/MJ
94/02/12
91/24/12
ITOMC/IMtT 91/24/12
11/17/62
91/K/l*
04/02/12
g*/2«/«2
9»/27/l*
92/17/14
92/24/12
94/10/1*
94/01/9*
01/07/14
or/ov/n
04/21/1*
07/01/H
11/17/12
04/10/b*
OIIPQS'C
•1UUCS7
11
7
II
21
21
11
7
21
17
2*
7
21
*
22
21
11
2k
21
T
II
12
2t
1
HjOO«J«fl«0»«
ifo»t/'»€»r
OIS'OKI.
92/l*/14
92/24/92
01/10/11
12
21
22
RCGIOII Z
STATE HT
•CCCIVC
10/0k/l2 12/10/12 92/17/»l
01/17/12 91/29/11
01/19/1*
01/2»/l2 12/0«/12 02/17/M
11/14/11 01/11/M
11/21/tl
Ot/09/tl lt/«T/»J
91/lt/nl
01/11/1*
01/22/11
91/24/1]
91/24/iJ
^1/20/11 91/01/11 It/10/11
Ol/IJ/14
12/21/12 94/0*/ll Ot/21/11
11/02/12
01/11/1*
|2/9«/ll
07/11/11
12/0*/11
02/21/1* 01/10/1*
01/15/11 91/10/1*
1 02/0«/14
91/01/1*
9f/2«/ll
Ol/11/11
07/ll/Vl
5-14
-------
SECTION 6
GUIDELINES FOR EPA RESPONSE
TO STATE PERFORMANCE
-------
Section 6
Guidelines for EPA Response to State Performance
PURPOSE OF SECTION
This section recommends procedural actions that can be followed to respond
effectively to both positive and negative State performance as identified
during the data collection and program review process described earlier in
this guide.
Part 3 of the Interim National Criteria for a Quality RCRA Program outlines
the general principles to use when determining how EPA and the States should
respond to performance against the criteria and related requirements. The
basic policy is that all performance issues must be followed through in a
consistent manner, and that the Regions use a rational mix of incentives and
sanctions in response to State performance. Also, responses to poor
performance are to be based on a strategy for escalating the response relative
to the seriousness and persistence of the performance problem.
RESPONSE PRINCIPLES
The appropriate response to performance against the criteria will depend on a
number of conditions. The overarching ones include:
t The relative importance of the criteria to program objec-
tives
t The extent of the -success or failure in meeting the
criteria
For cases of exemplary performance, the following apply:
• The consistency of the effort over time
• The applicability of State effort to other States
• Regional policy or a provision in the MOA regarding
incentives such as technical or financial assistance for
special State projects
For cases of poor performance, oversight personnel should consider:
• The frequency of the problem/failure
• The number of criteria failed
• The past response to corrective actions
Program managers must tailor the response action to the needs of the
situation, recognizing that the principal goal is to strengthen the
credibility, capability, and performance of the implementing agency. Certain
situations demand a nationally consistent response (e.g., revocation of
6-1
-------
authorization or withdrawal of the program grant). Most situations, however,
require a response based on what will work for the individual Region and
State, reflecting the general principles outlined here.
Res pond inn :^ >:;. ^iy)-.rj Performance
In conducting effective oversight of State programs it is as important to
recognize and provide incentives for good performance as it is to identify
problems and ensure that corrective actions are taken.
The first response to effective State performance is, simply to give credit
where credit is due. Foct^ management attention on those areras where the
State is operating in an exemplary way, and publicize the State program and
its accomplishments.
Related to this effort is the need to analyze what is accounting for a State's
exceptional performance in some area. Is it, for example, rooted to some
particular State procedure? If so, could such a procedure (idea, approach, or
project) be effectively employed in other States? If so, these ideas, etc.,
should be transferred to other States in the form of memos, guidance, or
technical notes, and or included in training programs.
A third response to positive State performance is to reduce the degree of
oversight to levels appropriate to the need for that State. For example, if
the State's inspections follow the established procedures and are always
thorough and well documented, the Region may reduce the number of oversight
inspections. Alternatively, where performance has been demonstrated to be of
consistently high quality, the Region may reduce the frequency and scope of
performance reviews.
Regions may also wish to reward States for exceptional performance by
providing them with technical or financial assistance for special or
innovative State projects.
Responding to Performance Problems
Listed below in roughly ascending order are examples of responses to failure
to meet the program's requirements (including the quality criteria) and
performance commitments. These responses may be used singularly, or in
combination. It should be noted that a "failure" to meet a criterion or
commitment should be viewed relative to past performance and the impact the
commitment has on overall program accomplishments. For example, a State may
miss a key commitment, but may show significant improvement over recent
quarters. In such a case, none of these responses may be necessary.
• Suggest a minor change to State or Regional procedures
(e.g., a change to filing procedures to improve availability
of enforcement information).
• Provide technical assistance (e.g., provide training on
drafting groundwater corrective action provisions to State
permit writers).
6-2
-------
• Slightly increase oversight (e.g., where file reviews indi-
cate inspection checklists are not being properly completed,
an increased number of oversight inspections or file reviews
may be appropriate).
• Raise performance issues to a higher level of management,
both at the Regional and State offices (e.g., include as
agenda item at routine RA/State Director meetings).
• Revise future work program (e.g., add additional grant con-
ditions requiring program management changes designed to
correct problems with meeting performance criteria).
• Greatly increase oversight (e.g., where State consistently
drafts permits that are not in accord with State
regulations, oversee more permits).
t Award conditional grants or revoke a State's letter of
credit (e.g., where States consistently fail to take timely
enforcement actions, future grant awards should be tied to
improved performance).
• Initiate procedures to deobligate grant funds.
EPA will award conditional grants and release them on a quarterly or semi-
annual basis where a consistent pattern of problems has developed for an
individual State. Release of subsequent increments should be conditioned on
correcting performance deficiencies.
Where a State consistently fails to follow through on the corrective actions
agreed upon, or the State's legal authorities are no longer equivalent, EPA
may initiate withdrawal of the State's authorization. The criteria for with-
drawal of the prograr are outlined in 40 CFR Section 271.22.
6-3
------- |