SUPERCEDEO
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office at
Solid Was;e and
Emergency Resoonse
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 9420.00-4
TITLE: FY 88 RCRA Implementation Plan
•
APPROVAL DATE: 3/31/87
EFFECTIVE DATE: 3/31/87
ORIGINATING OFFICE: OSW/CWPE
^ FINAL
D DRAFT
. .. . . •> - v
LEVEL OF DRAFT
DA — Signed by AA or DAA
D B — Signed by Office Director
G C — Review & Comment
REFERENCE (other documents):
? WER OSWER OSWER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE Dl
-------
•SEPA
United States Envirc— --— 0-:'i:
w«.-
CSWER Directive Initiation Saoi^st
1 Directive Numoer
94CP-00-4
2. Criqinator Information
Name of Contact Parson
Pat Reed
Mail Coat
WH 562A
Chics ~..js"ona ,''(umo«f
OSWER AA. 475-679:3
13. Tuie
! FY 88 3CSA Implementation Plan
4 Summary of Oirwtiv* (Inttudm 6rnt AMIMIMM olpurpo**)
Provides guidance on implementing the RCRA Subtitle C program and provides a
fraitework'for determining priorities at the national and State levels.
5.
CPMC
Sa. Does this Directive Supersede Previous Oirectivats)? Q Yes [J No What directive (numtif. talfl
3240.00-2 FY 87 RIP
b Does It Supplement Previous Directivels)? Q Yes Q No What Directive (numttr. (ittoj
7,OfirtLi»el
DA — Signed by AA/OAA D 8 — Signed by Office Director D C —
For Review & Comment
In Development
Thu Request Meets OSWER Directives System Formtt
8. Signature of Lead Office Directives Coordinator
Sherry Field^M^ ^J\£&^yf
9 Name and Title of Approving Official
Date
4/1/87 "
Date
2S WER OS WER OS WER
DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT'ON AGENCY
* WASHINGTON. D C 2C4SO
"'I
MAR 3 I 'Q87 OPr-ice OP
' SOL.O WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9420.00-4
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: FY 19^8 RCRAHirEjjlementation Plan
' ^ ,) ^&L
FROM: J. Wins-toi* Porter
Assistant Administrator
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
The purpose of this memo is to provide you with "a copy of the FY 1988
RCRA Implementation Plan. This document provides guidance on implementing
the RCRA Subtitle C program and provides a framework for determining pri-
orities at the national and State levels. The highest priorities are to
meet the 1988 and 1989 permitting deadlines, to process permit modifications,
new treatment and R&D unit permits, to address environmentally significant
closures and to perform inspections as mandated by statute and Agency policy.
I would like to thank all of the Headquarters, Regional and State staffs
who offered Garments on our drafts. In particular, I appreciate the efforts
of our workgroup members in ASTSWMO and Regions II, III, VI and VII. Our
Lead Region is also to be contended for assisting in the resolution of out-
standing issues. Together we have produced a document which will enable us
to protect human health and environment and also meet statutory deadlines.
Attachment
cc: Jack McGraw
Thomas Devine
Mara.a Williams
Gene Lucero
Henry Longest
Regional Waste Management Division Directors,
Regions I-X
John Taylor, ASTSWMO
Bryan Dixon, ASTSWMO
Barbara McGuinness
Elizabeth LaPointe
Patricia Reed
-------
ZsrNi?. Zirecr-ve 342G.:G-4
FY 1
C
1.31PLEMENTAT!
-------
CSV.Z?. Zirecru/.-e 9420.00--
FY 1938 RIP Index -•'ase
Section 1 - Mationai Prior i-:as 1.1 - 1.3
Section 2 - Peraicting 2.1 - 2.7
Section 3 - Closure and Post-Closure 3.1 - 3.3
Section 4 - Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement 4.1 - 4.7
Section 5 - Corrective Action 5.1 - 5.4
Section 6 - Federal Facilities/Issues 6.1 - 6.4
Section 7 - Cross-Media and Program Issues 7.1 - 7.2
Section 3 - State Authorization and Oversight 8.1 - 3.4
Section 9 - State Grants and Work Programs 9.1 - 9.2
Section 10 - Information Management 10.1 -10.4
Attachment A - FY 1988 RCRA Grant Allotments
Attachment B - RCRA SPMS Measures
Atcachment C - Report Forms
-------
Section 1
NATIONAL PRIORIT1I3
Program Direction
The goal of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
program is the protection of human health and the environment.
The annual RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) provides the national
direction and priorities for implementing the RCRA Subtitle C
program; these priorities should be reflected in the State work
programs and Regional work plans as appropriate.
In FY 1988 as in FY 1987, the RCRA program should be results
oriented. The Regions and States should be issuing permits,
enforcing to return handlers to compliance, requiring facilities
to rake corrective action, ensuring environmentally safe closures,"
and taking other actions to protect and reduce the risk to human
nealth and the environment.
The Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) provided
this program with an ambitious agenda. The Agency has accom-
plished much toward achieving the Amendments' objectives. The
RCRA program treats as the highest priorities the statutory
deadlines for permitting land disposal (11/88), incineration
(11/89), and treatment/storage facilities (11/92); statutory
and policy-based inspections; and, other high priority enforce-
ment activities as identified herein. Regions and States should
address facilities that close on a priority basis, proceeding
first with the most environmentally significant. Also, corrective
action measures are an important aspect of processing permits and
closure plans.
In addition, the FY 1988 RIP recognizes the need to devote
resources to activities supporting the land ban, permit modifica-
tions, and call-in of storage applications, as well as reporting,
technical assistance, State authorization, and effective oversight
of State permitting and enforcement actions.
The RCRA program is a most complex environmental program,
requiring technically difficult decisions and sustained manage-
ment support to achieve statutory deadlines and environmental
benefits. The new information management sytem, RCRIS, is
expected to be operational late in ?Y 1988 and should provide
the program a much needed data management tool.
Integrated use of all the management, technical, and
enforcement resources in a strong Federal and State partner-
ship will be necessary to achieve program progress. Superfund
authorities and resources should be closely examined to assist
1. 1
-------
RCRA in addressing significant enviror.-a.-.-i. crrolar.s a- ?.C?_-.
facilities accepting Superfjnd wastes, closing f =-:i 1_-1=53, and
Faceral facilities needing corrective action. This 31? provides
tne framework for managing the reguiatad community w.-.ile nesting
statjtory deadlines and achieving the greaces: environmental
rasuics.
RIP Framework'
The FY 1988 RIP continues the FY 1987 framework for determining
priorities at the national and State levels for hazardous waste
management. The framework consists of two components: 1) a set of
high priority "must-do" activities, and, 2) a description of other
priorities. As explained below, Regions must plan and budget for
ooth components as well as for special Regional initiatives and
other activities not specified in this document.
The activities in the following table are thp "must.-do' s",
critical for meeting statutory requirements and ensuring
environmental protection. These activities must be carried
out for all applicable handlers. Should a Region find that
its resources are insufficient to fully address these activities,
the Region should notify Headquarters and provide an explanation
before August 15, 1987, so as to provide Headquarters with a
better picture of the constraints facing the Regions and States
and to see whether accommodations can be made.
Highest Priority Activities
1." Make final determinations on operating land disposal
facility permits by November 1988 and process and make
final determinations on incineration facility permits by
November 1989.
2. Especially at environmentally significant closures,
ensure that the facility has adequately assessed
ground-water protection concerns.
3. Process permits for new and expanded treatment and
incineration capacity, RD&D permit applications,
off-site commercial treatment facilities, and permit
modifications.
4. Conduct inspections mandated by HSWA, SARA and Agency
policy and pursue enforcement against significant violators
as defined herein.
1.2
-------
This document also recognizes the importance oi c:'-.er directly
and indirectly relatad activities essential ic r.nn:i jir.g tr.a RCRA
program at the Regional/State level. These activities -'e described
in Sections 2-10. Examples of directly related activities are
planning for post-closure peraits and case development inspections.
Indirectly related activities include State authorization and
oversight. To the extent that Regional/State resources do not
allow accomplishment of these activities in the manner or to=the
extent discussed in this document, management discretion should
be used. Note, however, with limited exceptions (which have
been underlined), specific timeframes and accomplishments are
not identified in the narrative. Rather, Regions have the dis-
cretion to determine the amount of attention a particular
activity warrants based on Regional and State needs and circum-
stances. Some tools to assist in this effort are the Facility
Management Plans (FMPs) and the multi-year facility strategies
required in the FY 1987 RIP. In addition, Regions and States
may want to refer to the "Categories of Handlers for Priority
Grouping" (page 3 of the FY 1987 RIP) as an approach for
establishing priorities for these activities.
Regions also should consider and budget for the RCRA program's
contribution to other important activities not specified in this
document, such as those identified in the regulatory implementa-
tion strategies, and special Regional initiatives. The FY 1989
RIP will address specifically setting aside a certain portion of
resources to address special Regional initiatives. Regions should
be prepared to explain their priority-setting scheme during meetings
with OSWER management.
L.3
-------
Section 2
i>ERMITTIMG
PROGRAM OBJECTIVE
The objectives-of the FY 1938 permit program are to:
1) issue quality, enforceable operating permits or deny permit
applications for land disposal (including land treatment) and
incineration facilities in accordance with the 1988 and 1989
statutory deadlines; and/ 2) focus attention on permitting faci-
lities and approving permit modifications which provide
alternatives to land disposal.
Relation to FY 1987 RIP
0 ^ew emphasis on timely, processing of permit modifications;
0 Increased emphasis on initial activities to meet 1992
deadline;
0 Increased emphasis on developing schedules for post-
closure permit issuance;
* Continued emphasis on meeting the 1988 deadline and
increased emphasis on meeting the 1989 deadline;
0 Continued emphasis on providing safe alternatives
to land disposal of hazardous wastes;
0 Continued need to process waivers.
Statutory Deadlines
In FY 1988 the top priority remains making permit decisions
for land disposal facilities by the HSWA deadline of November 1988.
Secondarily, Regions and States will need to focus on incinerator
permits in order to meet the November 1989 deadline. For those
incinerators that failed to submit adequate Part B permit appli-
cations, the Regions and States should take formal enforcement
action in accordance with the applicable enforcement policies
and Section 4 of this RIP (Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement).
Permit denials are an appropriate response when the applicant
fails to furnish in full the information required to make a
final permit determination.
For all facilities other than land disposal and incinerators,
interim status terminates on November 3, 1992, unless the owner/
operator submits a permit application by November 8, 1988. Regions
and HSWA-authonzed States are to complete all call-ins for these
facilities by May 1988. Note that processing of these permits is
2.1
-------
2 low priority in FY 1983 with the follcwir.^ except: ".s:
those States without a heavy worxioac fcr ISSUING la-.ci disposal
or incinerator operating permits; for facilities causing health
or environmental proolems; and for facilities providing alter-
native treatment capacity. Regions are renindec that tr.e Joint
Permitting Policy is applicable to such permit issuance.
In addition to Imposing statutory deadlines for permit
decisions, HSWA requires permits to address corrective action
for releases. At a minimum, an RFA must be completed prior to
permit issuance. While additional corrective action steps should
not delay permit issuance beyond statutory deadlines, Regions
and States are encouraged to complete the process as much as
possible prior to permit issuance. Where corrective action
activities cannot be completed prior to issuance, the permit
must contain a corrective action compliance schedule.
Given these statutory deadlines and the resources available
:or permitting, Regions and States should continue to expand and
update their multi-year strategies to ensure that permit decisions
are made for all facilities by the HSWA deadlines and that priority
attention is focused on those facilities causing or likely to cause
the greatest health and environmental threats. The strategies are
to be used as a management tool to plan resource and workload
allocation. The effectiveness of the strategies will depend on
regular discussions between the Region and States on revisions
necessary to reflect changing circumstances.
OSW has been working with Region 9 to coordinate the develop-
ment of an automated tracking system for the multi-year strategies
that can be-adopted for use by other Regions and States. This
system will be available to interested Regions and States. To
the extent that data- from this system also will be used for
HWDMS, Regions must ensure that such data is consistent with that
in HWDMS. For futher information on the tracking system and its
availability, call State Programs Branch at FTS 382-2233.
Permit Modifications
In addition to final determinations, FY 1988 will see an
increase in the workload associated with processing permit modi-
fications. Attention should be focused on permit modifications
for ground water (Subpart F), HSWA corrective action, and
expansion/new units which result in reduced risk to human health
and the environment and/or improved facility management. For
facilities permitted in FY 1986 and 1987 with corrective action
schedules, close attention should be paid to ensuring compliance
with corrective action milestone dates and to planning/scheduling
resultant permit modifications.
2.2
-------
9-20.:C-
Alternatives to Land Disposal/Additional Cscac-.-/
ar.d Interim Status Changes)
Disposal, storage, and creacjien- capacity saor-ages cue co
cne Large number of closures, more stringer.: land disposal facility
requirements, and cne land disposal bans are having a dramatic inpac*
on the capacity used to handle hazardous wastes. This disposal
capacity shortage requires- increased emphasis on the processing of
new storage, treatment, and disposal permit applications; research,
development, and demonstration (RD&D) permit applications; and
changes to existing interim status facilities for expansion of
storage, treatment, and incineration capacity.
Processing of RD&D permit applications will aid in the
development of safe alternatives to land disposal of hazardous
wastes. Permits must be tailored to the scope of the research
proposal, and include those conditions necessary to protect human
health and the environment. See Guidance Manual for Research,
Development, and Demonstration Permits Under 40 CFR Section 270.65,
dated July 1986 ( EPA/530-SW-86-008, OSWER Policy Directive No.
9527.00-1A). Regions should encourage authorized States to adopt
equivalent RD&D regulations (40 CFR 270.65) as soon as possible so
that applicants in those States are not precluded from obtaining
RD&D permits.
Further opportunities to permit alternative treatment faci-
lities will occur with the issuance of the Subpart X regulations
for miscellaneous units currently scheduled for early FY 1988.
Subpart X will enable the permitting of those hazardous waste
management practices that do not fit the description of any of
the units covered by existing regulations such as open burning/open
detonation of explosives, waste placement in salt domes or under-
ground mines, -and thermal treatment other than incineration.
Permitting under Subpart X will be based on a combination of per-
formance standards1 in the regulation and site-specific design
criteria and performance standards in the permit.
Another FY 1988 rulemaking that will facilitate alternative
treatment is the mobile treatment unit regulations to be promul-
gated in final form in March 1988. Current rules and policy allow
an applicant who has received a RCRA permit for the first site at
which a mobile treatment unit operates to reuse the relevant
portions of the initial application at subsequent sites and tne
permitting agency to reuse the relevant permit conditions.
Regulatory Exceptions
The list of regulatory "exceptions" which EPA and the States
will be processing in FY 1983 remains essentially the same as in
2. 3
-------
3420.30-4
ri" 1987 with the addition of tank secondary ccr. :a^ .-.~.x~.: rfa.-'a
and cne deletion or surface i-.pcu-cnsr.c r atrcri- - •_ -g '-ai.'ers.
Tr.e exceptions are:
0 Dalisting petitions ($260.22)
' Requests for alternate concentration limits (ACLs)
for hazardous waste constituents in ground water
(§264.94(b))
0 Tank secondary containment waivers (§264.193(g) and
§265.193(g))
0
Petitions for exemption from land disposal bans
(RCRA §3004(d), (e), and (g) and §268.6)
0 Double liner variances (RCRA §3004(o)(2))
Headquarters, and States authorized for those provisions, will
process delisting petitions and land disposal restrictions petitions
(technology waivers and no migration petitions). Headquarters
also will process case-by-case extensions under the land disposal
restrictions program. The Regions, and States authorized for
these program areas, will process ACLs, double liner waivers, and
tank secondary containment waivers. The importance of effective
coordination is recognized and available information and evaluation
methodologies will be shared by Headquarters, the Regions, and States
Headquarters permit assistance teams will be available as requested.
In order to track Regional and State progress in processing these
petitions and waivers, a. new measure has been added to SPMS.
ACLs and double-liner waivers are an integral part of the
permit and requests for these waivers should be processed with the
permit applications. To the extent possible, processing of other
waiver requests, such as tank secondary containment waivers, should
be coordinated with permit application reviews so that final deter-
minations are made concurrently. However, where the simultaneous
processing of non-land disposal waiver requests and permit appli-
cations will delay the final determination significantly, Regions
and States should proceed with land disposal and incineration
parts of the permit and treat the non-land disposal waiver requests
and applicable portions of the permit application separately as
major modifications to the issued permit. In other words non-land
disposal waiver requests should not delay final permit determi-
nations for land disposal facilities and incinerators.
Review of Permit Conditions and Compliance Schedules
State and Regions will need to review documents submitted
in accordance with permit conditions and schedules of compliance.
These activities should be considered when developing and updating
multi-year strategies and associated workload planning.
2.4
-------
v-e. j. -.'w-
Post-Closure Permits
Section 3008(h) orders can be used ~c i.iiposa correc-ive action
at closing facilities with interim status. Eventually, however,
Regions and States will need to issue posc-closurs permits to ail
land disposal facilities (landfills, land treatment units, surface
impoundments, and waste piles) chat received hazardous wastes after
July 26, 1982, except for those surface impoundment and waste piles
that successfully closed by removal and met the requirements of
§3005(i). In addition, Regions and States must issue post-closure
permits to those tank systems that fail to meet the requirements
of $264.197(a).
Regions and States should plan for post-closure permit
issuance by updating existing multi-year strategies to indicate
when the permitting agency expects to issue the post-closure
permits. Although submittal to Headquarters of these updated
strategies is not required at this time, this is part of the
information we will need in the Spring of 1983 for the FY 1990
workload and budget planning process.
Public Involvement '
Effective implementation of the expanded public involvement
program should continue to be an integral part of RCRA activities.
Public involvement plans developed in previous years for targeted
facilities should be implemented during FY 1988. Additional faci-
lities that warrant expanded public involvement should be identified
through the facility management planning process in FY 1988. State
grant work programs should contain specific public involvement
activities with appropriate grant funds- identified. At a minimum,
Regions and States are expected to comply with the Guidance on
Public Involvement in'the RCRA Permitting Program, January 1986.
Regional RCRA staff also should be aware of CERCLA community
relations and'enforcement activities, and fully cooperate to ensure
that the mutual objectives of both community involvement programs
are met, especially for RCRA sites listed on the NPL.
List of Applicable Regulations
8 Schedules of Compliance for Corrective Action at Regulated Units:
Changes information requirements related to ground-water corrective
action at regulated units; engineering feasibility studies and
corrective action plans will no longer be'required in the permit
application; these studies and plans may be developed in accor-
dance with a schedule of compliance in the permit; proposed
December 1986; final June 1987*.
8 RCRA Facility Changes Rule: Clarifies facility's obligation to
comply with post-closure requirements even when a portion of an
operating permit is denied; provides for continued handling of
2.5
-------
942C.OO--
newly identified or listed wastes at facili-ias, rir.c/es tr.e
reconstruction linit for certair. cr.ar.gas = t i.-.-.srir. states
facilities (closure, corrective acticr. orders, a.-.d coup nance
rfitn new requiraaants) ; proposed April 1957'1; fi-.si Novancer 1937*.
0 Financial Assurance for Corrective Action: Codifies §3004(u)
requirement that permitted facilities have financial assurance
for corrective action; proposed October 1986; final November 1987*.
9 Mobile Treatment Unit Rule: Establishes a new, two-staged
permitting process for MTUs; incorporates delisting procedure
for residues into the permitting process; proposed May 1987*;
final February 1988*.
9 Codification Rule: Pushes back date of post-closure permitting
requirements, facilities receiving waste after July 26, 1982, or
closing after January 26, 1983, will need post-closure permits;
proposed March 1986, final March 1938*.
9 Permit Modifications Rule: Replaces current major minor permit
.modification process with a new, three-part classification system
and associated approval processes; proposed August 1987*; final
May 1988*.
9 Revision of Subpart H Liability Regulations; proposed November
1987*, final November 1988*.
' Procedural and Technical Regulations for §3t)04(u) Corrective
Action: Provides standards and procedures for conduct of
§3004(u) corrective action requirements; proposed November 1987*;
final December 1988*.
List of Applicable Guidances
* Guidance on Limiting Metals Emissions from Hazardous Waste Incin-
erators; draft March 1987.
9 Guidance on Limiting Carbon Monoxide from Hazardous Waste Incin-
erators to Control PIC Emissions; April 1987*.
9 Hazardous Waste Incineration Measurement Guidance; May 1987*.
9 Guidance for Continuous Monitoring of Carbon Monoxide at Hazardous
Waste Incinerators (will also include performance specifications
for oxygen monitors); June 1987*.
Guidance on Trial Burn Reporting and Setting Permit Conditions;
June 1987*.
' Problem POHC Reference Directory; mid-to-late 1987*.
* ::
Scheduled date.
2.6
-------
9 Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Incir.eratcr Par-izs (-peat 2
of 1983 guidance); September 19o7».
0 Model Trial Burn Plan, September 1937*.
" Trial 3urn Observation Guide; early 193S*.
0 Incinerability Index (preliminary output in FY 1987 will include
POHC soup and incinerability ranking of 20 compounds); ongoing
over next two to three years.
' Minimum Technology Guidance on Double Liner Systems — Design,
Construction, and Operation; March 1988*.
8 Minimum Technology Guidance on Leak Detection Systems for Land
Disposal Units; June 1988*.
* -
Scneduied date.
2.7
-------
-£"^- iirecti'/a 342C.OC--
SSCtiOP. 3
FACILITY CLOSURE and POST-CLOSURZ
Program Objective
The objective of the closure and post-closure program is to
minimize the post-closure escape of hazardous constituents into
the environment and to take corrective action to remedy existing
environmental problems at closing/closed facilities, including
storage and treatment facilities with contamination. Sections
3008(a) and (h) and 3004(u) of HSWA and various State authorities
provide flexible tools for ensuring the environmental integrity
of closing/closed facilities. Decisions and priorities are to
be based on environmental significance.
Relation to FY 1987 RIP
° Emphasizes need to re-examine facilities that closed by
removal;
0 Increases emphasis on planning for post-closure permit
issuance;
0 Continues emphasis on land disposal facilities that
closed after LOIS;
0 Continues emphasis on conducting RCRA Facility Assess-
ments (RFAs).
Implementation of Multi-Year Strategies as Reflected in FMPs
* * * » •
Regions and States should continue to use the facility
management planning process to refine their multi-year permit/
closure 'strategies, taking into account the priorities discussed
below. FY 1988 closures should occur in accordance with these
strategies.
a. Post-Closure Requirements/Closure by Removal
Under §3005(i), all interim status landfills, surface
impoundments, land treatment units, and waste piles that received
hazardous wastes after July 26, 1982, must meet Section 3004
standards for ground-water monitoring, unsaturated zone monitoring,
and corrective action. These standards initially may be imposed
through an enforcement order, but eventually a post-closure permit
must oe issued if these standards have not been met. These
standards also apply to facilities receiving waste after July 26,
1932, that attempt, or have attempted, to close by removal under
Part 265. If these facilities do not meet, or have not met, the
3004 standards, post-closure requirements are applicable.
3. 1
-------
.-
To determine whether facilities that cl^sec cy reno^a! u.-.der
Par. 265 met the 3004 standards, Regions and States sr.culd re-exa:n:.r.e
cne interim status closure plans for such facilities. ~aciiiti.es
tnat did not meet the 3004 standards (facilities tnat have known
ground-water contamination, inadequate grcur.c-watar .-or.: tor ing
aata, closed by removal based on tne waste no ior.gar exhibiting a
characteristic, etc.} should be easily identified by a cursory
review. -Identification of facilities that have not met the 3004
standards should be completed during FY 1988.This information
will be used to supplement the information submitted in response
to the need identified under post-closure permits (page 2.5). The
results should be used to develop a strategy for addressing the
identified facilities. When specific activities are identified
for a facility, they should be reflected in the facility management
plan and the multi-year strategy.
As always, attention should focus on facilities likely to
have releases of concern. In those States that have no operating
land disposal facilities or operating incinerators, post-closure
permits and §3003(h) orders to address releases at closing or
closed facilities are a priority. Post-closure permits and
corrective action- orders also are a priority when necessary to
obtain an important environmental gain such as when an operating
permit is denied at a facility needing corrective action. (See
also Section 2, Permitting.)
b. LOIS Closures
The FY 1987 RIP required Regions and States to conduct RCRA
Facility Assessments (RFAs) at 30% of the closing or closed LOIS
facilities'and to approve 30% of the LOIS closure plans by the
end of FY 1987. During FY 1988, RFAs should be conducted at an
additional 30%"of the closing or closed LOIS facilities and an
additional 30% of the LOIS closure plans should be approved. The
facility management planning process will help establish Regional
priorities for conducting RFAs at closing or closed LOIS facilities.
The FMPs should indicate that RFAs are scheduled at closing
facilities where there is no unit subject to permitting and will
be completed prior to the regulatory deadline for releasing the
firm's financial mechanism.
List of Applicable Regulations
' Conforming Changes: Conforms 265.228 with 264.228; proposed
July 26, 1982; final Marcn 1987.
Financial Assurance for Corrective Action: Codifies §3004(u)
requirement that permitted facilities have financial assurance
for corrective action; proposed October 1986; final Movetnoer 1937*.
3.2
-------
r-i2C.CC—
9 RCRA Facility Changes Rale: Clarifies jaciliiy 3 j-ligacior. to
comply with post-closure requirarier.ts avsr. -./ft a- i cc-cicr. of an
operating permit is denied; provides for concinuaa '.lar.clinc
of nawiy idsntifisd or iistsd wastes at facili-123 ; rar.oves
"he reconstruction liait for certain chances at ntariia status
facilities (closure, corrective action orders, and compliance
with new requirements); proposed April 1987*; final November 1937*.
8 Codification Rule: Pushes back date of post-closure permitting
requirements; facilities receiving waste after July 26, 1932, or
closing after January 26, 1983, will need post-closure permits;
proposed March 1986; final March 1938*.
0 Hybrid Closure Rule: Provides hybrid option based on waste-
specific and site-specific factors that would allow some waste
residues to remain in place with modified post-closure care
requirements; proposed March 1987; final May 1988*.
9 Revision of Subpart H Liability Regulations; proposed November
1987*; final November 1988*.
'List of Applicable Guidances
9 RCRA Guidance Manual for Subpart G Closure and Post-Closure Care
Standards and Subpart H Cost Estimating Requirements; January 1987
9 Clean Closure Guidance; draft March 1987; final September 1987*.
9 Hybrid Closure Guidance, draft July 1987*; final July 1988*.
* Scneduled date.
3.3
-------
Sec-icn 4
COMPLIANCE MON'ITORIN'G AND ESFORCZMZyT
Program Objective
The compliance monitoring and enforcement program objectives
are to ensure compliance and corrective action. Timely and
appropriate enforcement action should be taken against violators.
The program is in a major transition from enforcing pre-HSWA
interim status requirements to enforcing requirements in permits
and closure plans, requiring and enforcing corrective action
measures and enforcing other major HSWA requirements, including
the land ban and surface impoundment retrofitting requirements.
Relation to FY 1987 RIP
0 Continued emphasis on :
-meeting statutory inspection requirements;
-achieving compliance with groundwater monitoring, closure,
post-closure and financial responsibility requirements;
-assuring compliance with outstanding orders and finalizing orders;
-corrective action orders;
-criminal prosecution of illegal disposal;
-federal facility compliance;
8 Increasing emphasis on;
-enforcement of priority land disposal ban requirements;
-assuring compliance with permits and orders,
• particularly corrective action requirements.
" Decreasing emphasis on;
-enforcement support of permit decisions on land disposal
facilities as permits are issued prior to the 1988 deadline;
-Loss of Interim Status.
Inspections
Inspection priorities are governed by: 1) statutory requirements;
2) the Agency's strong emphasis on groundwater protection; 3)" the
significance of compliance with permit and closure plan requirements,
particularly schedules of compliance; 4) the importance of implementing
corrective action and 5) the importance of enforcing the major HSWA
requirements, particularly the land bans and minimum technology
requirements.
Inspections in FY 1988 are discussed in two categories:
(A) .nandatory inspections which fulfill statutory requirements
and Agency policy and (3) other inspections recommended to support
program goals. Significant aspects of inspections in all categories
are discussed under subpart C, Inspections Requirements.
4.1
-------
Case Development Inspections are ~o ca cc.-.duz-ad *-.3re
necessary to fils high priority enforcsren- ^c-xcr.s ar.d -c support.
such existing cases.
A. Mandatory I."i3C3Cticr.3
1. Handlers presenting immediate threat to health or the
environment
Inspections should be conducted to provide necessary
documentation for enforcement actions where EPA or the State has
information that handlers may present an immediate threat to human
health or the environment.
2. Government facilities
Under RCRA §3007(c) and (d), EPA is required to conduct annual
Compliance Evaluation Inspections (CEI) at all facilities owned or
operated by Federal, State and local governments. EPA may undertake
these jointly with the States or as oversight inspections or utilize
contractors; however they must be reported as EPA inspections. State
inspections cannot substitute for EPA inspections at these facilities.
3. Commercial TSDFs receiving CERCLA waste
In accordance with §121(d)(3) of the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) the following requirements must
be met:
a) - Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDF) which
are candidates for receipt of CERCLA waste must be inspected by
the State or EPA within six months prior to receiving CERCLA waste.
Facilities must be in compliance with all applicable State and
Federal-requirements.
b) Additionally, land disposal facilities receiving CERCLA
waste must receive an annual CME and be inspected to assure that
the unit receiving the waste is not releasing hazardous waste or
constituents into groundwater, surface water, or soil. Releases at
other units must be under, and in compliance with, schedules in a
federally approved corrective action order or permit addressing
all releases.
CERCLA funds may be utilized for these inspections.
4. Land disposal facilities
a) CEI 's; Each operating, closed and closing land disposal
facility,except certified'closures by removal and UlC-only
facilities (which are inspected by the 'JIC program), must receive
an annual CEI inspection conducted by the Region or the State. To
determine conformance with §3005(i), clean-closed LDFs may eventualLy
have to be revisited (see Section 3). In addition to the general
inspection requirements in subpart C, compliance with ground waier
monitoring requirements must be evaluated as part of the CEI.
4.2
-------
Inspections of oparating land disposal f aciH ;i is should focus
on documenting compliance with " liquids in landfills" rastnctior.s,
corrective action, financial responsibility, nir.i.nur. technology
requirements and prograss toward meeting surface irrccup.d.Tiant
retrofit provisions. Where land disposal units dra closed or
closing, inspections must evaluate compliance -^ith closure plans
and assure the adequacy of ground water monitoring systems.
Particularly at closing facilities, inspectors should be alert to
illegal activities, such as continuing receipt of hazardous waste.
b) CMS'a; In FY 1988, one third of the land disposal universe
will receive either a Comprehensive (Ground-Water) Monitoring
Evaluation(CME) or an Operation and Maintenance Inspection (O&M).
The O&M inspection is designed to evaluate the compliance status
of a facility's ground-water monitoring system where a reliable
comprehensive evaluation of the system and area hydrogeology has
previously been performed; it is less intensive than a CME.
The priorities for conducting CMEs in FY 1988 are as follows:
1) Facilities with unreviewed assessment monitoring systems;
2) Permitted facilities with complex compliance or corrective
action requirements at regulated units;
3) Facilities where there is doubt as to the adequacy of the
ground-water monitoring system (e.g., a closing facility required
to re-do site characterization, poor quality prior CME, etc.).
5. Treatment and Storage Facilities (TSFs)
. a) In addition to government facilities, and regardless of
whether inspected in FY 1987, in FY 1988 CEIs are to be conducted at
all permitted incinerators; all treatment and storage facilities
(TSF) with significant corrective action measures required under
permits or orders in FY 1988; and all commercial treatment facilities
treating F001-F005 or California list wastes subject to effective
land ban requirements.
b) Inspections must be conducted at a minimum of 50% of the re-
maining TSFs in accordance with RCRA §3007(e).Standards in effect
during FY 1988 for handlers of hazardous waste fuels must be considered
where applicable.
As a goal, to be addressed in work plans, Regions and States
should also strive to inspect TSFs that ceased receiving waste
wiihin the past twelve months, other newly permitted facilities,
and on-site facilities that treat large amounts of land-banned
wastes.
4.3
-------
6. Generators
As tha program expands gsr.arators T.JS- rac^ivs gr^anar
attention; this is especially iirporrant to -^.5 anfor-anant of tha
land disposal rastrictions. aacions and Sta-33 TJJ- ir.^pact at
least four parcsnt of ths larca"gua.nciy/ car.aratcr univarse and
should attempt, to inspect a greatsr percentaca of t'ns large quaniicy
generator universe than was inspected during FY 1987. Inspections
will focus on generators of F001-F005 solvents and1 California
list wastes in order to establish an enforcement presence in
support of the land ban. Each Region must send an inspection
targetting strategy to Headquarters jy August 31, 1987~ (Land~Ban
Enforcement Strategy Feb. 1987)"State inspection and compliance
activities for small quantity generators should reflect the EPA
"Implementation Strategy for Generators of 100-1,000 kg/month"
(April 1986).
B. Other inspections
While not dictated by statute or specific policy other
inspections are nonetheless very important to the Program. The
Regions and States have discretion in determining which other
inspections to conduct, consistent with environmental and programmatic
priorities. The following are among those that are encouraged:
(l) inspections to support the criminal enforcement program;
(2) inspections of non-notifiers; (3) inspections of waste oil and
hazardous waste fuel burners and blenders, particularly processors,
for compliance with applicable standards; (4) additional generator
and transporter inspections, particularly related to land bans.
C. Inspection Requirements
Quality inspections are essential to an enforcement program.
Proper documentation-including use of the appropriate checklists,
effective oversight and review of reports-are necessary*
Evaluation of compliance with the base program, including
closure/postclosure and financial responsibility requirements
must continue. In addition, inspections must focus on compliance
with permits and orders, compliance with corrective action conditions
is of particular concern. Effective tracking and oversight of
owner/operator corrective action activity at hazardous and solid
waste management units under orders and permits includes evalua-ion
of corrective actions, RFI/CMSs and interim measures to assure
proper scope and adherence to schedules of compliance.
In ?Y 1988, compliance with the land ban, as applicable,
should be reviewed during all inspections. Land ban requirements
for waste identification and analysis, treatment and disposal,
operating records, limitations on storage accumulation and increase!
financial assurances for stored waste all warrant particular attention.
The possibility of illegal disposal should also be considered.
4.4
-------
3-12C.OO-4
Enforcement
A series of policies were issuad ir. 7V 1534 =r.- JV 17-35
establishing the framework fcr a ccr.sis^zr.-, ^qui-^cls, ar.d
rasponsive enforcement program. T*h3 program approach no -i-.alv
and appropriats enforcement is set forth in tha Ir.f orrananr Response
Policy (SRP). Penalties must be assessed against violators in
accordance with the SRP and the RCRA Penalty Policy or appropriate
State policies. Penalties should be large enough to act as a
deterrent and exceed economic benefit achieved by a facility for
non-compliance. States that do not have administrative penalty
authority will need to address high priority violators by taking
prompt judicial action. While authorized States are expected to
take the enforcement actions, if unable to do so, they may request
that EPA take enforcement action. Where a State enforcement action
is not timely and appropriate, EPA should take an action, especially
for high priority violators.
At the end of FY 1987, many facilities will be subject to
enforcement actions. Where complaints have been issued, Regions
and States must move toward final orders, and ensure that compliance
is achieved. Follow-up is important. Facilities in substantial
non-compliance with orders are presumed to be subject to judicial
actions and permit denial (where applicable).
Priorities for enforcement actions are as follows:
1. Handlers with releases and threatened releases which
may present an immediate threat to health or environment
A number of enforcement tools are available to the Regions
and States (e.g., RCRA §§3013, 3008(a), 300S(h), 7003, or State
equivalent), depending on the circumstances. Where specific
criteria for use of the authority are met, use of these authorities
is encou'raged. Consideration'should also be given to the use of
CERCLA §104 or §106 response authorities or TSCA §7 authority, or
any other appropriate EPA or State authority.
2. Commercial facilities receiving CERCLA Wastes
Where necessary, in accordance with CERCLA Off-Site Policy,
priority attention should be given to compliance and corrective
actions needed to assist in maintaining CERCLA-eligible treatment
and disposal capacity.
3. Ground-water monitoring, closure/post closure and financial
responsibility violations at land disposal facilities
Actions are to be brought against operating permitted and interim
status, as well as closing, land disposal facilities that have Class
I violations of ground water monitoring, closure/post-closure and/or
financial responsibility requirements. In FY 1988, Regions and States
will continue toward the goal of 90 percent compliance with these
requirements at land disposal facilities by 1989 (July 24, 1986
J. Winston Porter memo). Enforcement of conditions in permits,
4.5
-------
j • ~ i •>. r- i
s—.i. „ . JU~-
approved closure plans and newly effective closure ar.d fi-.anciai
responsibility regulations are important. Viclaticr.s of liability
requirements are to be addressed in accordance ^itr. appliraole
guidance.
4. Corractiva action rscuiramBr.ts
Regions, with appropriate assistance frc.-?. 5cat33, trust act
aggressively to achieva corrective action at T5D facilities. In
FY 1988, the emphasis is on the following:
(1) Substantial violations of corrective action requirements in a
permit or order;
(2) Use of enforcement authorities where necessary to obtain
corrective action at environmentally significant facilities,
consistent with available resources; and
(3) Compelling interim measures when warranted.
5 . Land ban
Where TSDFs or generators are found to have substantial
violations of the land disposal restrictions, enforcement is a
high priority. Most of the inspections will be conducted by the
States under cooperative arrangement with EPA. States not
authorized to enforce the land disposal restrictions may issue
letters notifying owners/operators of violations. If formal action
is the appropriate response, EPA must enforce by issuing an order
or by preparing a referral.
The most substantial violations are:
"For generators (including generating TSDs): shipping waste
exceeding treatment standards to land disposal facilities
without notifying about need for treatment.
'For trea'ters (who have inadequately treated wastes): directing
waste exceeding treatment requirements to land disposal;
'"For disposers; illegally disposing of wastes exceeding
treatment standards;
Anoth'er serious violation is the falaif ication of records by any handler
6. Federal facilities
Authorized States will have the lead in enforcement for Federal
handlers. However, the Region must take action if a State declines
or is unable to take formal action on a high priority violator.
The Region should consider issuing a press statement concerning
enforcement actions for Federal facility violations in accordance
with the applicable guidance.
7 . Criminal enforcement
The basic goals of an enforcement program are to encourage
compliance and to punish incidences of noncompliant behavior.
Because of the publicity and stigma attached to a criminal
conviction, criminal enforcement is a very effective tool.
Increased disposal costs, closer scrutiny of waste oil handlers,
and illegal disposal of land banned wastes are expected to increase
the need for criminal enforcement. Criminal case development and
prosecutions are encouraged.
4.6
-------
942C.JG--
8. Other important enforcement, activiiias
Other significant violations at har.dlars sr.c'-ild 33 a-icressed
as resources allow.
0 The permit program should be supporie-i by tia.-.iric actions against
handlers submitting lata or incoraplece part B applications. Discretion
should be used in choosing between permit denial and enforcement.
* Regions and States should establish a strong enforcement presence,
taking administrative and judicial actions as appropriate, in support
of newly effective HSWA requirements.
0 The waste oil (hazardous waste in fuel) regulations should be
enforced, especially at waste oil processing facilities.
' Enforcement support should be provided to biennial reporting data
collection efforts.
Relevant Guidance Documents
'Ground Water Monitoring-Technical Enforcement Guidance Document
(TEGD) September 1986
"Hazardous Waste Ground Water Task Force Protocol for Ground
Water Eva-luations September 1986
"Comprehensive Ground Water Monitoring Evaluation (CME)
Guidance Document December 1986
'Land Ban Enforcement Strategy/Inspection Checklist 1987*
"Waste Oil. Guidance December 1986
"Waste Oil Interim Enforcement Guidance November 1986
"RCRA Corrective Action Plan - November 1986
"Enforcement of Financial Responsibility at Operating TSDF's Oct. 1936
"Enforcement of Financial Responsibility for RCRA TSDFs that
are closing Spring 1987*
"RCRA §3008(h) Model Order 1987*
"RCRA §3008(h) Guidance December 1985
"RCRA §3013 Guidance September 1984
"RCRA §7003 Guidance September 1984
"Enforcement Response Policy - 1984, Revised Spring 1987*
'Scheduled date.
4.7
-------
:C.N^_- :ire
-------
9-120. 00-4
Corrective action activities may zs co-r-c:ac j_r:n -.r:eriT.
scatus, permitting, and closure stages. All — -arcc-s release
oroblems"associated with the facility shculc ce i-vss. icsted at
ore riTie, whenever possible. Nunerous Federal a'j cr.or: t les -iay be
e-iployed to compel corrective action activities, including RCRA
§§3004(u) and(v"), and 3008(h), 3013, 7003 and 3008(a) (permit
enforcement), and CERCLA authorities consistent with Agency guidance.
tJse of equivalent State authorities is also encouraged where applicable.
Section 3004(u) of RCRA states that corrective action for releases
from SWMUs at TSDFs must be incorporated into the final facility permit
through a schedule of compliance where corrective action cannot be
completed prior to permit issuance. In practice §3004(u) is used to
incorporate corrective action into the permit when the permit issuance
is to be accomplished in the near future. In some situations §§3008(h),
7003 or CERCLA §106 may be more appropriate to compel corrective
action. For instance, 3008(h) may be used where a release at an
interim status facility is associated with hazardous waste management
activities outside a hazardous waste unit or SWMU. When a permit
is subsequently issued at the facility the response activities may
be continued under the permit, using §3005(c)(3) authority. RCRA
§7003 and CERCLA §106 may be used whenever a hazardous or solid
waste or hazardous substance (such as a product release) presents an
imminent hazard and substantial endangerment. Section 3008(h) should
also be used where the permit issuance is not going to occur soon.
When issuing an order or permit that includes corrective action,
public involvement must be included in plans. Public involvement is
an important and necessary part of the RCRA corrective action process.
Specific decisions regarding the extent, timing, and nature of public
involvement activities for any given site will be determined by the
Region in close consultation with the appropriate State agency.
This process should beoin as early as possible in order to inform
the public of site activity including results of studies, and
provide an opportunity for public involvement in remedy selection.
EPA will focus on corrective actions at operating land disposal
facilities and incinerators in the permit pipeline and other facilities
which pose the greatest overall threat to human health and the environ-
ment. Reqions, in conjunction with the States, will use the FMP process
and grant negotiations process to identify a workable number of
facilities in the Region for priority attention in initiatina and
implementing the corrective action process. After considering the
overriding priority, i.e. significant releases impacting on health
and the environment, the priorities in descending order are: off-site
commercial disposers/treaters; others in the permitting pipeline,
especially land disposal, incineration, and alternative treatment
facilities; and closing land disposal facilities. Following is a
brief description of the major steps in the corrective action process.
5. 2
-------
5-2G .30-4
RCRA Facility Assessment (RrA*
RFAs must be cone prior co peri:i is^a.-ce . .-.:-.£ 3"C'-lc 'nave
seen completed for ail operating land cispcsal Jacii:;i=s ana 30^
of closing facilicias by Secteniber 1 = 3". .*-.-. c t: - a r 30'; cf -.-.2 = lcs :."
LDF universe should receive an RFA dur:ng FY 83. An RFA should
provide evidence of potential and actual releases and serve as a
basis for decisions regarding further corrective action. General
guidelines on conducting RFA's and how they should be coordinated
with other enforcement or permitting activities are provided in
the RCRA Facility Assessment Guidance (Oct. 1986).
Interim Measures
Interim measures include a wide range of actions which may be
taken to prevent releases or additional contamination and to reduce,
abate, or remove the exposure threat presented by a release. Interim
measures should be taken to accomplish these objectives while the
more complex process of release characterization, corrective measures
evaluation, and design and implementation of corrective measures are
underway. At closing facilities with existing or potential hazards,
where owners or operators have financial problems or are likely to
have such problems in the future, interim measures can be used to
obtain some measure of response action.
RCRA Facility Investiaation (RFI) and Corrective Measures
Study (CMS)
Releases and threatened releases that are identified during the
RFA as requiring further investigation will be fully characterized
during the RCPA Facility Investigation (RFI). The RFI is performed
by the facility owner/operator pursuant to an enforcement order or
a.permit schedule of compliance and must be closely monitored by
the Region or State. The purpose of the RFI is to determine the
nature and extent of releases of hazardous waste or constituents
from regulated units, solid waste management units and other source
areas at the facility, and to gather all necessary data to support
the CMS. Based on the results of the RFI, the owner/operator will
then perform and submit the CMS for Agency review. The CMS data is
used to develop and evaluate the corrective action alternative(s)
and recommended corrective measures. (See RFI Guidance and Corrective
Action Plan (CAP) Guidance.)
Corrective Measures Implementation
After EPA or the State approves the corrective measures selection,
the owner/operator will design and construct the selected measure(s).
After construction, the owner/operator will undertake appropriate
measures needed to operate, maintain, and monitor the activity.
These activities will be required by permit condition or order.
Whether performed under order or as a permit condition, close oversicht
of o/o activities is critical during this phase of corrective action.
Where necessary, CERCLA authorities should be used where the owner '
operator is not financially viable.
3. 3
-------
Correctiva Action at Federal facilities
See Federal Facilities Section 6 - "SARA § L20/SCRA Corrsctiive ^c:nc
Relevant Guidance1 Documents-
'National Corrective Action Strategy, October 1986
•RCRA Corrective Action Plan (CAP) Guidance Document,
November 1986
"RCRA §3008(h) Corrective Action Interim Measures
Guidance, November 1986
•§3008(h) Model Order final expected Spring 1987
"Final Administrative Hearing Procedures for RCRA
§3008(h) Orders, February 19, 1987
"Vulnerable Hydrogeology, July 1986
"Guidance on Public involvement in Permitting, January 1986
"RFA Guidance, October 1986
'Draft §3004(u) Guidance, February 1985
•§3008(h) Guidance, December 1985
"RFI Guidance, September 1987*
"Procedural and Technical Regulations for §3004(u) Corrective Action
Proposal, November 1987*; Final December 1988*
"Schedules of Compliance for Corrective Action at Regulated Units.
Proposed, December 1986; Final May 1987*
* Scheduled date.
5.4
-------
:£•;!?. D—ac^ive 9420.00-4
Seccior. 6
FEDERAL FACILITIES/ISSUES
Program Objective
The objective of EPA'3 RCRA work with Federal facilities
is to ensure that they afford the same deyree of environmental
protection as is required of other hazardous waste handlers.
In FY 1988, we will concentrate on applying corrective action
rules and policies to Federal, facilities, on meeting the FY 1988
deadline for permitting DOD chemical demilitarization facilities,
and on integrating DOE-SRC mixed waste facilities into the RCRA
program.
Relation to FY 1987 RIP
0 Adds discussion on Section 120 of SARA (1986 CERCLA
amendments);
0 Adds discussion on NRC mixed-waste permitting.
Corrective Action in RCRA Permits
The Federal Register notice published March 5, 1986,
(51 FR 7722) resolved three issues:
0 RCRA §3004(u) is applicable to Federal agencies;
9 A "facility" is the entire site under control of the
owner/operator; and,
" The owner of Federal lands is the individual Federal
'department or agency, rather than the U.S. Government.
Also, on March 5, 1986, EPA announced (51 FR 7723-7724)
the Agency's intent to develop regulations to acTcTress additional
issues raised by Federal agencies. Until a final rule is
promulgated, Regions and States should continue to process and
issue permits to Federal facilities. Scnedules of compliance
for corrective action will be negotiated on a case-by-case
bas:s.
Where agreement regarding permit conditions cannot be reached
on the extent of cleanup or on the schedule for cleanup activities,
or whera there are ownership questions that cannot be resolved,
those questions should be referred to the Director, Permits and
State Programs Division, OSW, for resolution.
6.1
-------
Section 120 of S ASA/RCRA Corrective Actisr.
Section 120 of SARA requires EPA to establish a comprehensive
Federal facility docket containing infor.-nacicr. undar 3CHA §3016
(including information submitted under §§301J and 30C5 of RCRA
and §103 of CERCLA). Once this docket 13 established by Headquar-
ters, each facility must be evaluated for possible NPL listing.
In-listing sites, EPA will apply the same criteria as are applied
to private facilities. For each site that is listed on the NPL,
statutory deadlines relating to RI/FS and RD/RA are triggered.
EPA must enter into an interagency agreement (IAG) with the
appropriate Federal agency for remedial design and remedial
construction at the listed sites. States should be signatories
to the LAG and the public has the opportunity to comment on
draft lAGs.
Where RCRA and CERCLA apply, EPA may rely on either authority.
(See Section 5, Corrective Action.) If the permit is being noticed,
and/or corrective action is proceeding under RCRA, either activity
should proceed notwithstanding §120. On the other hand, if a
CERCLA cleanup incorporating corrective action elements is in
progress or is ready to proceed bexore issuance of a permit,
§120 lAGs should be developed. The IAG must be incorporated by
reference in the final permit.
POD Chemical Demilitarization Facilities
Permits for DOO chemical demilitarization (nerve agent)
facilities are to be issued in FY 1983 to meet DOD's statutory
deadlines for disposal of obsolete nerve agents. Regions and
OSW will provide support to the States for timely processing
of these permits upon receipt of quality permit applications.
' • -•
POD Installation Restoration Program (IRP)
DOD has developed the IRP to identify and clean up hazardous
waste sites. Under the IRP, OOD prepares studies and generates
data that can assist EPA in drafting RCRA permits. The Regions
should incorporate the IRP process into the permit development
process by reviewing the results of each phase of the IRP process.
When necessary, the scope of the IRP should be expanded to
include all solid waste management units at a facility. For
further information, see memorandum dated December 8, 1986, from
Marcia E. Williams to Regional Division Directors ("The Department
of Defense Installation Restoration Program").
DOE-NRC Mixed Waste
Mixed waste handlers should be integrated into the RCRA
hazardous waste program as expeditiously as possible. Under the
Federal program, all RCRA requirements, including statutory
deadlines for issuing permits, are applicable to mixed waste
6. 2
-------
9420.00-4
-ar.dlers. EPA currently is working •*-, -h CO I -r =c r-:r = ;al^ ;d = r.-
tify the affected universe. EPA and NRC ]cir.-iy davalcpad and
issued (1/87) a document entitled, "Guidance on the Definition
and Identification oz Commercial Mixed Low-Level radioactive and
Hazardous Waste and Answers to Anticipated Questions ' eo assist
commercial low-level radioactive waste generators in assessing
whether they generate a mixed low-level waste. In addition, the
following guidances for mixed low-level waste are being developed
to support compliance with RCRA:
9 Joint NRC-EPA Siting Guidance for Disposal of Mixed Low-Level
Radioactive and Hazardous Waste, estimated March 1987;
0 Comparison of EPA-NRC Regulations, estimated June 1987;
0 EPA-NRC Joint Permitting Guidance, estimated September 1987.
Until a State with final authorization is authorized for
radioactive mixed wastes, handlers of such waste are not subject
to pre-HSWA regulation. Therefore, those authorized States that
have DOE facilities or NRC licensees are urged to apply for mixed
waste authorization- as soon as possible. See J. Winston Porter's
memorandum entitled "State Authorization to Regulate Hazardous
Components of Radioactive Mixed Wastes" (dated October 20, 1986).
A-106 Process
Every year Federal agencies develop draft A-106 reports which
show the requested funding levels for the agencies' proposed
pollution abatement projects. EPA Headquarters distributes these
draft reports to the Regional Offices in January for comment.
EPA Headquarters uses these comments in preparing a report to
OMB, a draft .of which is distributed to the Regional Offices in
July for comment. OMB uses EPA's comments when recommending
funding levels for pollution abatement projects. The Regions'
comments should be based on information available from permit
and inspection files, inspection reports, RFA's, etc. we are
aware that the A-106 reports may not always include sufficiently
detailed information for evaluating the priority of a project
proposed for five years in the future. However, we are working
with the Office of Federal Activities to improve the amount and
quality of the data in the A-106 reports.
Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement
Conventional compliance, as distinguished from corrective
action, is largely unchanged by SARA and remains a RCRA program
responsibility and priority. The enforcement priorities in
Section 4 apply to Federal facilities. Authorized States have
the lead in enforcement for Federal handlers. However, the
Region must take enforcement action where the State fails to
do so for a High Priority Violator. The Region, where possible,
should institute a formal action with penalties against government-
owned/contractor-operated facilities. If an action is not filed
6.3
-------
against a goverrinient-owned/ccntractcr-CTsritad fi-i ---'_', ar.zcrcs-
nsnt must be commenced against the Facsrai ac^r.cy- T~ = ?.ecion
should consider issuing a press statement concerning enforcement
actions for Paderal facility violations.
Certain information contained in inspection reports cay
not be subject to release due to national security requirements.
These reports- should be reviewed prior to release by the appro-
priate security officials of the Federal agency involved. This
review should not delay enforcement action.
Note: EPA's. enforcement procedures at Federal RCRA faci-
lities is still under development and should be available for
FY 1988.
6.4
-------
Section 7
CROSS-MEDIA AND PROGRAM ISSUES '.PRIORITIES CCCR2: SAT 13:;
Objective
The RCRA prograa acknowledges tr.a: er.vircr.nar.cai prscrar.s
cannot continue to shift risks from one er.vironaentai aecia to
another. We must ensure that RCRA activities use all availaoie
tools to focus on overall reduction of environmental risks.
RCRA activities particularly have an impact on, and need to be
coordinated with, EPA's air, water, and CERCLA programs.
Air Emissions at TSDF'S
Under the RCRA program, regulations addressing air emissions
from hazardous waste facilities with vents on equipment used to
recover materials (i.e., distillation columns and air strippers)
are expected to be promulgated in final form in December 1987.
Regulations which address air emissions from other sources at
these facilities are to be promulgated in final form by November
1988. Section 3004(u) o£ HSWA requires corrective action for
releases iron solid waste management units to air, surface water,
land and ground water. OSWER is currently developing a regulatory
program for corrective action under §3004(u). OSW is developing
a §3001 air toxicity characteristic and plans to expand the land
ban rule to address air releases.
Water Discharges at TSDF'S
Increasing emphasis should be placed on 'coordinating RCRA
permitting, corrective action, and enforcement activities with
water program activities, especially for POTW's treating hazardous
wastes. To the extent possible, RCRA ground water and corrective
action activities should be consistent with both Federal and
State'water program requirements and aquifer classification
systems. In addition, where releases from a hazardous waste
facility threaten a public water supply, Safe Drinking Water
Act authorities may be applicable and should be considered.
CERCLA/RCRA Integration
With the enactment of the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
of 1984 (HSWA) and the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 (SARA), the objectives and authorities of the RCRA
and CERCLA programs are becoming more integrated. A greater
emphasis will be placed on coordinating the two programs to
ensure effective, non-duplicative implementation. Specific
coordination activities are addressed in the closure, permitting,
corrective action and Federal facilities sections of this document.
7.1
-------
Procedural and technical regulations covering ?C3s are oeing
developed under the RCRA program. These regulations <=ra scheduled
;o be proposed mid-1988 and finalized ,Tiid-i9e9. Tha addition of
PC3s to the RCRA regulatory scheme is expected to have a signifi-
cant impact on the FY 1989 and FY 1990 budgets. Regions and
States snould consider this additional workload when developing
budget proposals for those years.
7.2
-------
:c,,i.- Zireeuve 9420.00-4
Section 3
STATE AUTHORIZATION A
Program Objectives
The goais of State authorization and oversight: are twofold:
(1) to strengthen tns Federal/State partnership, and, (2) to ensure
the implementation of quality RCRA programs.
Relationship to FY 1987 RIP
0 New emphasis on codifying changes to approved State programs;
0 New emphasis on capability assessments for HSWA
authorization;
0 Increased emphasis on maintaining State program consistency
with the Federal standards, including HSWA.
Proposed Revisions
Under §271. 21 (a), a Scate must Xeep EPA fully informed of
any' proposed modification to its basic statutory or regulatory
authority, or its forms, procedures, or priorities. Whenever
the proposed revisions raise questions about the equivalency
and consistency of the State program, the Region must work with
the State and Headquarters to address the identified deficiencies.
Developing State Authorities
Authorized States should develop the legal authorities
necessary to revise their programs consistent with the deadlines
in the final State authorization Codification Rule (51 FR 33712,
September 22, 1986).- These deadlines are:
State
Modification
Cluster Cluster Period Deadline
Non-HSWA rules 7/1/84 - 6/30/85 7/1/86
and §3006(f)
Non-HSWA rules 7/1/85 - 6/30/86 7/1/87
HSWA Cluster I 11/8/84 - 6/30/87 7/1/89
HSWA Cluster II 7/1/87 - 6/30/90 7/1/91
All HSWA and 7/1/90 - 6/30/91 7/1/92
non-HSWA rules
States are not precluded from applying for authorization before
cluster deadlines. Extensions are availaole if a State demonstrates
8.1
-------
tnat it has made a good faith effort ar.c t- = t its legislative or
rjiemaxing procedures render tr.e State -r.a^^a -z 7.= =. tr.s -splines.
Each grant work prcgran sr.ould includa tr.= 3;at,= 3 schedule
for submitting program revision applications. It will be tne
Region's responsioility during the year to: track the States'
progress, in meeting the deadlines, grant extensions to the dead-
lines if appropriate, and negotiate compliance schedules for
those States who are unable to meet the deadlines. After
grant negotiations are completed, the Regions should submit to
tne Chief, State Programs Branch, OSW, each State's schedule for
modifying its program to maintain equivalency"!This schedule
will aid the Regions and Headquarters in planning resource needs
for timely application review and approval.
To expedite the review and approval process for HSWA
applications, the Region is encouraged to conduct a pre-
application review of State statutory authorities for HSWA.
For a further discussion of this process, see the memo from
Bruce Weddle to the Regional Division Directors dated March 8,
1985.
Codifying Approved State Programs
Codifying changes in approved State programs in Part 212
is a continuing effort .for FY 1988. Codification clarifies for
the public and regulated community those State hazardous waste
program requirements EPA has approved and will enforce in lieu
of the Federal requirements.
As a Headquarters effort, all State programs authorized for
the pre-HSWA program are scheduled to be codified by summer
1987. The Regions must codify revisions to State programs at
the same time such revisions are approved. The Part 272 process
is discussed in detail in Chapter 1.6 (pp. 1-4) of the State
Consolidated RCRA Authorization Manual.
Assessing State Capabilities/State Program Oversight
EPA must assess the States' performance and progress in
implementing quality RCRA programs and their aoility to implement
additional program elements prior to making authorization decisions
for HSWA requirements. This assessment is based on the State's
ability to meet grant commitments, as well as the RCRA Quality
Criteria, and should reflect an evaluation of tne State's entire
authorized program. The Regions should evaluate the State's
qualitative and quantitative performance in operating the base
program. A quality State program must operate without substantial
dependence on the Region. In deciding whether dependence is
"substantial" Regions should consider the extent to which lack of
State administrative penalty authority has necessitated Federal
enforcement actions.
8.2
-------
The Regions should discourage Scatas navir.g prod 2-3 with
ino 1 ernenting the base program from prenatura.y acp./ir.g for
HSWA authorization until the Region and State have agreed upon
3.1 action plan to correct yrograin de:icie~ci = s. Spaces iiiust
still comply with the applicable cluster deadiinas or be placed
on a schedule of compliance. A further discussion of HSWA Capa-
bility Assessments is to be set forth in a memorandum from
J. Winston Porter to the Regional Administrators (Spring 1987).
Ongoing, comprehensive evaluations of State RCRA program
performance are an integral component of the Regions' oversight
responsibilities. The Regions are strongly encouraged to use
several documents in reviewing State program performance and
progress against grant work programs and Memoranda of Agreement
commitments:
0 RCRA quality criteria (revised July 1986)
3 Protocols for evaluating permit quality and
closure/post-closure plans (August 1986)
0 Updated RCRA Evaluation Guide (March 1987)
The Region should determine the frequency and method of
review based on the State's past performance and the seriousness
of identified program deficiencies. However, States should
receive at least one comprehensive, on-site review during each
fiscal year. In States having performance problems, more fre-
quest reviews should be conducted.
Oversight inspections are important tools for ensuring the
quality of State inspections and can include joint inspections
and/or independent EPA inspections. In addition, regular re-
views of inspection reports should be conducted as part of the
grant oversight process.
A copy of each final review report should be sent to the
Chief, State Programs Branch, OSW.
Training
Training activities are eligible for funding under the RCRA
$3011 grants. States are strongly encouraged to use their grant
funds to provide management and staff training in permitting,
enforcement, and corrective action activities. It is recom-
mended that up to 5 percent of each State grant be earmarked
cor training activities. 'The RCRA Implementation Contract and
TES III and IV also may be used to provide training, either
with Regional contract resources or with reurogrammed State
3.3
-------
grant funds. If a Scare plans co use era.-; f^r.Ja :or ;
the grant work program aust provide 2 -rair.ir.g plan specifying
the subject araa, sourca, recipients (a general nuncer, not
name-spec ific), and cost.
Under the ASTSWMO grant, OSW and OWPE will provide train-
ing in FY 1988 on entry-level skills (e.g., inspections, per-
mitting, ground-water monitoring) and new RCRA requirements
for State staff. Another State training effort, funded through
a special Congressional appropriation, will provide grant monies
to selected States for the development and implementation of
State RCRA training programs. This latter effort is being
funded through the National Environmental Training Association.
3.4
-------
Section -
STATE GRANTS AND WC3K PRCC-P.A.MS
Program Objective
This section specifies the formula for determining FY 1988
grant allocations and addresses how the money will be disbursed
by Regional Administrators and how it may be used to implement
State RCRA programs.
Relation to FY 1987 RIP
° Continues Regional allotments;
0 Grant formula remains unchanged;
* Authorization bonuses eliminated.
Grant Formula
For FY 1988, the grant formula remains unchanged and con-
tinues to reflect the program emphasis on land disposal and
incineration facilities. However, the number of treatment,
storage, and disposal facilities has been updated, using HWDMS
data as of March 3, 1937. Population figures have been updated
using the latest census data.
Grant Allotments
As before, allotments were prepared on a Regional, rather
than a State-by-State, basis. The allotments also have been ad-
justed "to ensure that no Region can receive less than 3 percent
of the total amount available. Regional grant allotments are
provided in Attachment A.
This Regional allotment disbursement procedure is meant to
provide maximum flexibility to the Regional Administrators to
fund activities which reflect national goals and initiatives,
individual State workloads, and special State initiatives.
While Regional Administrators have the discretion to set grant
amounts, it is suggested that a State grant not be decreased by
more than 12% from the FY 1987 State grant amount. We also
recommend that the Region negotiate proposed grant activities
with each State before State-specific allotments are determined
to ensure adequate and fair funding levels. State grants will
continue to requira a 25 percent match. There will be no
authorization grant bonuses in FY 1988.
Grant Work Programs
FY 1938 grants must be performance based. (For a detailed
discussion on performance-based grants, see EPA's "Policy on
Performance-Based Assistance", May 31, 1985.) This approach
9.1
-------
jrovides for a consistent nacior.-wj.cs -^--'GC -fsr r^r.arir.3 ~r.±
evaluating State RCRA programs. All gran; vcr< urtcrar.s ~_sc:
3 contain quarterly commitments;
* provide for ad ]us~.uent ir. activillas, com-
mitments and funding (a "reopener" clause)
if certain situations (e.g., reversion of
program, significant decrease in State funds)
arise.
The work program also should address, when appropriate:
0 instances where a State did not meet its
FY 1987 commitments or was administering
its program in a deficient manner and where
the remedies that will be undertaken to
improve performance/correct deficiencies
extend into FY 1988;
0 special grant conditions (e.g., disburse-
ment of funds other than annually).
If a State relies heavily on the State Attorney General or
other law officers in order to take enforcement actions, funding
should be provided. The Attorney General should participate in
the grant process through the lead Agency, but would not be made
a party to the grant. However, in order to receive funding,
both parties should be signatory to a Memorandum of Understanding
or other subsidiary agreement to the grant. As a signatory to
this agreement, the Attorney General is expected to meet the
"timely and appropriate" criteria for filing referred RCRA cases
within the .60-day period. -EPA will take into consideration
unusual circumstances that may affect the Attorney General's
ability to file within 60 days. As required by EPA grant
regulations, the lead State agency will be held accountable
through the grant oversight process, even though funds were
passed through to the Attorney General's office.
The Regional Administrator may reprogram funds not awarded
to any State into the RCRA Implementation Contract, the Tech-
nical Enforcement Support (TES) contract, or other programs which
support activities consistent with national priorities (e.g., public
participation and the Senior Environmental Employment (SEE) program),
Note, however, that State monies can only be used to support the
implementation of State hazardous waste programs. Section 3011
yrant funds cannot be used to implement CERCLA or UST program
activi ties.
Copies of each State's grant work program must be sent to
tne Chief, State Programs Branch, OSW, upon execution of the grant
award document by the Region.
9.2
-------
:=*—- Directive 9420.CO--
Sac'ion 1C
I NFORMAT ION MA-NTAG£M£.N'T
Reporting Objectives
The two objectives of RCRA reporting requirements are to
obtain information: 1) necessary to eftectively manage the RCRA
program at the State, Regional, and national levels; and, 2)
that demonstrates the viability and effectiveness of the RCRA
program in protecting human health and the environment.
Relation to FY 1987 RIP
0 Adds discussions of the 1987 Biennial Report and of
RCRIS;
8 Establishes separate tracking of permitting actions at
land disposal 'facilities without incineration units and
at land disposal facilities with incineration units;
* Establishes a more realistic date for Regions to enter
State data into HWDMS;
* Deletes the provisions regarding justification of
permit schedules and RFA schedules.
Reporting Requirements
The required State reporting forms (the Status of Permit
Application Report, or the "SPAR", the Compliance Monitoring
and Enforcement Log, or the "CMEL", and the Facility Status
Sheet," or the "FSS") are similar to the FY 1987 reporting
forms, except that.there is increased information on the CMEL
regarding HSWA (land ban and minimum technology) and SPMS. In
addition, a new Corrective Action Report ("CAR") is being deve-
loped. States that enter data directly into HWDMS should comply
with their State/Regional agreement regarding submittal of hard
copy reports.
States must submit information from the three reports (SPAR,
CMEL, and FSS) to EPA by the 20th calendar day of the month for
the previous month's data (e.g.. State RCRA permitting actions
taking place in April must be reported to the Regional Office by
May 20). The Regions then have until the seventh working day of
the following month to enter State-submitted data into HWDMS
(e.g., June 10 for April actions). Data for Regional activities
must be entered into HWDMS by the seventh working day of the month
for the previous month's data (e.g., EPA RCRA permitting actions
taking place in April must be entered into HWDMS by May 9).
10. 1
-------
5-52:.DO-;
.acss
If a Region decides that required racor-.r.c aces no;
provide timely or sufficient information, z.~e
institute an expanded reporting program. Vr.a
grant work program may ir.craase ooth -.-3 fraquanc:- and ;na
amount of required reporting. Authorized States must continue
to provide the Regions with information on new hazardous waste
handlers and amended notifications or Part A's in accordance
with the State-EPA Memorandum of Agreement.
To ensure that progress is made in attaining the 90%
compliance goal, States must submit to the Regions copies of
significant land disposal inspection reports (CMEs, CEIs)
showing significant non-compliance, and other reports deemed
necessary by the Region, as well as enforcement complaints,
orders, and judgments regarding Class One violations of
yround-water monitoring, closure/post-closure, and finan-
cial responsibility at land disposal facilities. This
requirement will help ensure that Regional files are suf-
ficient to determine a facility's enforcement status.
Similarly., to enable EPA to enforce HSWA requirements
where States have done the inspections, States must submit
reports regarding inspections wnere there were significant
violations of corrective action requirements in permits or
orders or significant violations of land ban requirements, and
reports on surface impoundment retrofits.
Regions must submit copies of Regional enforcement com-
plaints, initial orders, and final orders to the Director,
RCRA Enforcement Division, OWPL.
New reporting requirements for FY 1988 for OSW include
additional information about corrective action (corrective
action design selected) and. reporting the receipt of permit
modification requests and the determinations of those requests.
To help identify problem areas in HWDMS, the Headquarters
data audits and consistency reports begun in FY 1986 will
continue in FY 1988.
Biennial Reports
Annual/biennial reports covering 1987 calendar year acti-
vities are due from handlers to States and Regions by March 1,
1988. States and Regions are responsible for ensuring that
reported data are accurate and complete and for submitting
State Biennial Program Reports to OSW by September 30, 1988.
Regions and States should target enforcement actions for
failure to submit timely reports.
10.2
-------
O-4
=-= 3r.-ry,
The new 1987 Biennial Report forn
-------
RCRIS Conversion
Conversion of OSWSR RCRA da;a froa HWSMS 10 ?.C?.:= NI 11
oecin in the first quarter of ?Y 1963 wi;h a pile: ?rc;ec-
testing RCRIS in one Region ana its Statas. This pi lor project
will cover tne handier, permitting, compliance monitoring, ar.d
data administration modules of RCRIS. It will not include the
corrective action, facility management planning and environmental
data, data administration, regulatory development, and program
administration modules. RCRIS is projected to go on-line for
all ten Regions in the third quarter of FY 1988. HWDMS will
be used, at least in tandem, during FY 1988. Automated SPMS
retrievals will continue to come from HWDMS until all modules
relevant to SPMS are in place and RCRIS is capable of supporting
this function.
Efforts involved in converting HWDMS to RCRIS will be
essential activities for data management staff in the States,
Regions and Headquarters. Accordingly, States and Regions should
determine the resources necessary to convert from HWDMS to RCRIS,
including accomplishing the following tasks:
0 developing software to translate data from State computer
systems into RCRIS data (this applies to States using
their own system for data input);
0 providing quality assurance of State data (State responsibi
Lity under RCRIS); and
0 cleaning up HWDMS data that will be moved into RCRIS.
These activities should be funded in the FY 1988 State grants.
The results of a resource'analysis study will be distributed
as soon as it is available (projected date: April 1987). Also,
guidance addressing specific conversion activities will be
distributed to States and Regions prior to implementation of
those activities.
In order to establish the State/EPA partnership concept
that is at the heart of RCRIS, a State/EPA forum will be created
in ?Y 1988 to negotiate and coordinate ongoing changes to RCRIS.
10.4
-------
ATTACHMENT A: FY 1988 RCRA GRANT ALLOTMENTS
-------
Region
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region V
Region VI
Region VII
Region VIII
Region IX
Region X
?Y 19S9 Grant All = tr.sr.-s
15 i- thousandsj
Regional
Ratio
0.07052
0.10960
0.11374
0.15320
0.20654
0.13169
0.04560
0.03376
0.10547
0.02988
1.00000
FY 1938
Base
Allotment
4,654.6
7,233.9
7,506.9
10,106.6
13,627.0
8,691.6
3,009.7
2,228.6
6,961.1
1,980.0
566,000.0
The allotments reflect the FY 1988 budget request to Congress.
The allotments could change based on the actual appropriation
or subsequent budget adjustments (e.g., Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
cuts) .
-------
ATTACHMENT B: RCRA SPMS MEASURES
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND IMJuRGENCY RESPONSE
Program Area; RCRA Permitting
FY 1980
Mnkc rin.-'I UCKA permit
d«'l.r»rnii p-'l ion by tlie
sl'il.iitnry il-wl I i n^s.
MEASURES
Permitting Measures j/ (Report on the following information
for land disposal, incineration, and storage and treatment. )
Public notice of draft RCRA permit issued.
Notice of intent to deny RCRA permit issued.
i
Notice of availability of closure plan issued.
RCRA permit Issued. *t
RCRA permit denied. *t
Closure plan approved. *
* This measure requires Regional target for
land disposal and incinerator facilities.
Distinguish between land disposal facilities
with incinerators and Land disposal facilities
without incinerators.
t Permits issued and permits denied are combined
dor one target. They will, however, be reported
sei«rately toward the combined target.
I/ DeCinitJ'iis nl end of: program measures.
SIMS cooi.:
R/C-l(b)
R/C-Kc)
R/C-l(d)
R/C-l(e)
R/C-Kf)
FRl-XJUI^NCY
0 1.2.3.4
By Region
Q 1,2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2.3.4
By Region
Q I.2. 3 4
Dy Region
Q 1,2,3.4
By Reqion
Q 1 2,3,4
By Region
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND liMERGENCY RESPONSE
Program Area: _HCRA Permitting
FY 19MO
kf i I'M i':ii-»i'? on requests
I or w. » i • T- i s I r <
rcgulat ions .
MEASURES
Waiver Requests V
Number of waiver requests granted year to date.
Nuntoer of waiver requests denied year to date.
]/ IJcLiiiiliiiruj nL end of proyram measures.
SIMS OJDE
R/C-2(a)
R/C-2(b)
FRtXXJENCY
Q 1.2.3.4
By Region
0 1.2.3,4
By Retjion
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RJiSPONSt
Program Area; RCHA Permitting
EY 1980
CIVJI-XJTIVE
AiifwisR .u"l inplnnrjnt actions
Lo cotuM'L relonsos of hazar-
-ril ilpfiita to the
cnvi ri nm-Mit .
MEASURES
Corrective Action Measures I/ (applies to facilities
seeking operating permits and closing~Eacilities)
RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) completed Eor
entire facility; remedial investigation decision
made.
RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) imposed.
(Separate by entire facility or partial facility.)
RCRA corrective action remedy selected. (Separate
by entire facility or partial facility.)
Corrective action design approved. (Separate by
entire facility or partial facility.)
\J Dsfinitials ah end ot program treasures.
SPMS CUUli
R/C-3
R/C-3(a)
R/C-3(b)(l)
R/C-3(b)(2)
R/C-3(c)(l)
R/C-3(c)(2)
R/C-3(d)(L)
R/C-3(d)(2)
FRBQUliNCY
Q 1.2.3.4
By Region
-------
RCRA Permitting Pet i nit ions
l*ul»l ic ixjtice of draft permit issued; The date the public notice of draft permit is issued.
ic.-n of intent to deny RCRA permit issued; The date the public notice of intent to deny a RCRA permit
Pol ico of availability of closure plan issued; The date the public notice is issued.
n.TA i^rmit issued; The date the RCRA permit is issued.
IVI'A permit denied; The date the RCRA permit is denied.
e plan approved; TVie date the closure plan is approved following an inspection of the facility and
public notice of the plan.
Nun-lrer ot waiver requests granted year to date; Number of waiver requests granted by EPA or authorized
!jtal»3 y^-:ir to date. Include waivers granted for the following: ACLs, double Liner waivers, and/or
t'ltik secondary containment waivers.
Nuir*jcr oE waiver requests denied year to date; Number of waiver requests denied by EPA or authorized
St;jt
-------
RCKA Permitting Detin it Ions
(continued)
Ki.'RA corrective action remedy selected; When the RCKA corrective action remedy has been selected or
wlifii n decision has been made that corrective action is not necessary. Where corrective action remedy
h.i:; Ir-vn selected, permit or permit modification is issued incorporating corrective action rcmeui:lrjr ized State notifies the owner/opera tor in writing that corrective action is not necessary
.n n i-f'Biilt of the RF1. Report the entire facility if the permit/order addresses the entire facility;
n-|nrt p-trtial facility if the pemit/order addresses less than the entire facility.
Concc-tive action design approved; Dote EPA/State approves the corrective action design. Report entire
r.ir:ini.y if the permi t/order addresses the entire facility; report partial facility if the [«rm it /order
.wltlr rHHc?s l««3s than tlic entire facility.
-------
OFF1CF. OF SOLID WAS'IT AND FMKRGENCY RESPONSE
Program: RCRA Enforcement
OIUMTIVR
MEASURE
SIW.S CODE
impi nvcil cunpl i.mct* of hazardous
V/.T;|«« li.ni
-------
C+TICI: or SOLJIJ WASTI. ANI» MSI w;r.N< v KI;SPON:;I:
nlVIIXTIVi:
K'-luni •-•• Hini I icnnl noncojnpl iers
I M C( mipl i.iiu i1.
Program; RCRA r.nforcemcnt
MFASIIKF,
SPMS coi*. i m:oni:N< Y
Significant Noncompliance - Fixed Universe (Part 1)
Specify the number of land disposal facilities in
significant non-compliance with ground-water man itoring,
closure/post-closure and financial responsibility requirr>-
ments at the beginning of. the year (fixed universe - part.
1).
Specify the number of Jand disposal facilities that
received formal enforcement action prior to FY88 addressing
all R/E 3(a) SNC violations.
Report the number of these facilities that have had a
referral for filing of a judicial action that addresses
all outstanding R/E-3(a) SNC violations (Report FPA and
State separately.)
Report the number of these facilities have received an
initial filed formal enforcement action that addresses all
outstanding R/E-3(a) SNC violations (Report EPA and State
separately).
Report the number of these facilities that are under a final
formal enforcement order that, addresses all outstanding
R/E-3(a) .SNC violations (Report EPA and State separately).
Report the number of these facilities in physical compliance
for all K/F.-3(a) SNC violations regardless of how accomp-
lished. (KPA and State combiiied report).
t
Target and report, t.lie number of these facilities that have
not returned to compliance with all R/E-3(a) SNC violations
and have not had a formal enforcement action filed against
them to rosolve-alJ R/F;-3(a) SNC violations.
(Separate KPA and State targH.s.)*.
* This mivnuro reguires declining targets from the first
guart-.r.-r through tho fourth quarter. - All facilities rnu^t
be nddri'TTOd prior lo the ond of t.he fiscal year through
_.J^n/PJl^y^Ht. jnd/or have rot urned to physical cnmpl ianco.
R/K-3(n)(l)
R/F.-3(a)(2)
R/E-3(a)(5)
R/E-3(a)(6)
R/F.-3(a)(7)
0 1,2,3,4
By Rng i on
0 1,2,3,4
Ry Reg ion
O 1,2,3,4
My Rerjion
O 1,2,3,4
By Rngion
O 1.2,3,4
Hy Reg ion
0 1,2,3,4
By Region
0 1,2,3,4
By Hcci i on
-------
OIUIXTIVI:
Program! RCRA l'.nl orcement
MFASIIKT
sins mm: FKKXIIM Y
fiirnnt noncompliers
I <>
i .mi-".
Significant Noncompliance - Fixed Universe (Part 2)
Specify the number of treatment, storage and disposal facil-
ities in significant non-compJiance with corrective action
requirements in issued orders or permits at the beginning of
the year (fixed universe - part 2).
Specify the numher of facilities that received formal enforce-
ment action prior to FYB8 addressing all R/E-3(b) SMC viola-
t ions.
Report the number of these facilities that have had a referral
Cor filing of a judicial action that addresses all outstanding
K/E-3(b) SNT violations (Report EPA and State separately).
Report the number of these facilities that have received an
initial tiled formal enforcement action that addresses all
outstanding R/E-3(b) SMC violations (Report EPA and State
separately).
Report the number of t.heso facilities that are under a final
formal enforcement order that addresses all outstanding
R/F.-3(b) SNC violations (Report EPA and State separately).
Report the number of these facilities in physical compliance
for all R/E-3(b) SNC violations regardless of how accomplished
(FPA and State combined report).
Target ami report, the number of these facilities that have
not returned to compliance wit.h all R/E-3(b) SNC violations
and have not had a formal enforcement action filed against
them resolving all R/H-3(b) SNC violations. (Separate EPA and
State targets.)*
iMs measure reguiros declining targets from the first
guarter through the fourth quarter. All facilities must be
addressee! prior to the end of the fiscal year through
| enforcenif'Mt and/or have returned to physical compliance.
R/F-3(b)(l)
R/E3(b)(3)n
R/E-3(b)(3)
R/E-3(b)(5)
R/E-3(b}(6)
0 1,2,1,4
My Jtaqion
O 1,2,3,4
Ry Region
0 1,2,3,4
My Region
O 1,2,3,4
My Region
0 1,2,3,4
My tog ion
0 1,2,3,4
My Region
0 1,2,3,4
My Region
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WVSTF. AND CMRRGLM'Y RF.SPONSR
Program; RCRA I:nfotcement
MHASIJRF.
SPMS COI)T. FRKOUF.NCY
• : 11 i/i I- I iinoly and appro-
pi i.ilc cut ot ( »*IP"MI nrtion is
I .ikfii .T|.iiir:1 ;;?!( '•,.
Unsure mnpl
f nr:i 1 i tics.
hy Federal
Significant Moncxjnpliance - Snapshot _/
Report the number of TSD facilities in SNC at this point in
time. /
Report the mimfxir of TSD facilities in SNC at this point in
time that have not had formal enforcement action initiated
against them to re«v>lv« all violations causinq the facility
to he in SNC. Report by time lapsed from inspection.
o 135 days or less.
o 136 - 180 days.
o ini days or more.
Federal Facilities - Snapshot
Report the number of Federally owned or operated TSD
facilities {including contractor-operated Federal facilities)
that are in SNC, at this point-in-time.
Report the niirnber of these facilities against which there is
one or more Formal enforcement action(s) addressing all SNC
violations.
_/ Definition at end of program measures.
R/F.-4(a)
R/E-4(b)(l)
R/E-4(b)(2)
R/F.-4(b)(3)
0 1,2.3,4
By Req i on
0 1.2.3,4
ny Region
0 1,2,3,4
ny Ren i on
0 1,2,3,4
Hy Region
-------
OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND IMF.RGENCY RESPCWSE
Program; RCRA Enforcement
OIUfiLTFVE
MEASURE
SFMS CODE FREQUENCY
i I Kit vinlnlnrn of the
-MII| Dini'^.ii P'vit i ic'tiixis are
thai ROKA violators are
l an«l I.hat onvironment-
a I ly signiricnnt releases are
a eld res seil.
Land Disposal Restrictions Nonoonpiiance - Snapshot
Report the nuntoer of treatment anci disposal facilities and
generators (including generating TSDs) with substantial
violations of the Land disposal restrictions at this point
in time. _/
Report the number of these facilities and generators that have
received an initial and/or final filed formal enforcement
action that addresses all outstanding R/E-6(a) violations.
(Report FPA and State separately).
Enforcement Actions
Report the number of formal administrative actions issued,
year to date, not including §3008(h), §3013 and §7003
(Report separately by EPA and State).
Report the number of formal administrative enforcement actions
issued, year-to-date to TSDFs under §§3008(h), §3013 and
§7003.
R/E-6(a)
R/E-6(b)
R/E-7(a)
R/E-7(b)
Q 1,2.3,4
By Region
Q 1.2,3,4
By Region
O L.2,3,4
By Region
Q 1,2.3,4
By Region
_/ Definition at end of program Measures.
-------
RCRA HMPORCEMENT DEFINITIONS
U/K-1 (n) Mini Dlotxasal Facility Uni verse; Includes operating, closing and closed facilities. Does not include
iT^m 1 we wells (only), certified clean closed facilities, and pre-HSWV State del isted and EP/v del is ted
I.-MI-I l facilities.
I'/'^-'C') iLii-~ •"" ' of TSDF'a other than Land DiBposal Facilities; Does not include underground storage tanks,
'•"•ii"ivtt or transporters, notifiers carrying non-regulated status codes or State-only regulated handlers.
I0v-?(n) I'T-r^clirrif;; All operating, closed and closing land disposal facilities (except Class I U1C wells, certified
c-i'-Mr«:if,"«i»il facilities and del is ted facilities) nust he inspected in FY 1988. Once inspected in FY 1988,
r-> fncj i i ty should not be recounted in this category. This measure is intended to evaluate whether every
facility lins been addressed with a full compliance inspection under RCRA §3007(c), (d) and (e). Inspections
to lie OLMiited are CEIs. (Includes Federal, State and local facilities.)
K/i-:-2(h) inn '""tump: All treatment and storage facilities owned/operated by federal/state/local entities, all
cx"i i-^ rein I treatment facilities known to be subject to effective (not extended) land ban requirements, all
j-erniittrtl incinerators, and all treatment and storage facilities with substantial corrective action
net ivi ties such as studies, investigations, interim measures or remedial measures required in FY 88 under
permits or orders nust be inspected. In addition, at Least one half of the remaining treatment and storage
facilities must be inspected. Once inspected in FY 88, a facility should not be recounted in this category.
This irsriBure is intended in part to assure that every facility has been addressed with a full compliance
inspect io»i under RCRA §3007 (c), (d), and (e). Inspections to be counted are CEIs. (Includes Federal,
State a«Kl local facilities. )
R/E-2(c) Ffcfioral, State and local TSU^'s; Tliese numbers are a subset of the numbers targeted and reported in (a)
and (b) ~. 'Pius, Federal, State and local facilities are counted both in (c) and in (a) or (b).
R/E-2(d) Inrprctionq t This includes all inspections of non-SQG generators inspected in FY 1988. Once inspected in
FY 19(*8 a generator should not be recounted in Oils category. Regions and States should maximize the nuirber
of inspections of (non-SQG) generators of F001-F005 solvents and California List wastes. (Includes Federal,
State o'vl local handlers).
-------
RCRA ENPORCEMFHT DEFINITIONS
l'/i :-«(.i) f-ipii^'i of land disposal facilities in significant nonoompl iance includes those with Class I violations of
UIR nioui id-water monitoring, closure/post closure or financial responsibility requirements (interim status,
r lo'-.inr: plan or permit). Submit names to the program office. Note that violations of the liability
e requirements are to be addressed in accordance with applicable guidance.
l'/i:-l(l>). ri"inl"M of TSDF's in siqnificant non-compl iance with corrective action requirements are those with
'vilni .-u trial violations of corrective action conditions in permit schedules of compliance or final orders.
'Ilii^ includes investigations, interim measures and remedial measures. An owner/operator is in substantial
violnt ion if he is not meeting those conditions in a timely manner and/or the quality of his work is
<-ulnl..nntinlly unacceptable. Submit names to the program office.
K/I-: 4,5 'Hie definition of SMC in R/E-3 (a) and (b) applies to these categories. Submit names to the program
office', where names and information not indicated in submission to program office for R/E-3.
K/K-6 Applies only to effective land disposal restrictions:
o ('operators (including generating TSDFs) with substantial violations of the land disposal restrictions
rire those who ship wastes exceeding treatment standards to land disposal facilities without notifying
need for treatment.
o TroaterS with substantial violations of the land disposal restrictions are those who have inadequately
treated wastes and who direct waste exceeding treatment requirements to land disposal.
o Disposers with substantial violations of the land disposal restrictions are those who have illegally
disposed of wastes exceeding the treatment standards.
Enforcement actions taken by States not authorized to administer the land disposal restrictions mny 1*2
reported where a State has comparable authority.
R/F-7 l^r the purpose of JVE 3-7, "formal enforcement action" includes: filed §3008(a) complaints (administrative
or judicial), S30()fl(a) final ordeis, $3013 orders, §J()08(h) orders, §7003 orders and all equivalent, formal
Statr net ions. To be "equivalent", a State action must be equal to Federal S3(inR(a) complaint or he legally
binding. Itiis excludes notices of violations, warning letters or agreements, schedules in FMPs etc. The
purpose of this measure is to count formal enforcement actions.
-------
ATTACHMENT C: REPORT FORMS
-------
STATUS Or RC7A ?E?C?.TISG 7C7.MS
There are two forma which are being updated to fulfiil
Headquarters informational needs:
- the Status of Permit Application Report (SPAR);
and
- the Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Log (CMEL)
These forms are currently in various stages of review
by Headquarters and Regional staffs.
The format for the Facility Status Sheet (FSS) will
continue to be used.
Headquarters staff are working in cooperation with the
Regions to develop a Corrective Action Report (CAR) .
We are working to ensure that the CAR will ultimately
be consistent with the common data elements in RCRIS.
Our goal is to fi-nalize the SPAR and CMEL in the summer
of 1987 and a version of the CAR prior to the commencement
of FY iy38, if possiole.
------- |