NATIONAL CRITERIA
FOR A
QUALITY HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
Revised June 1986
-------
NATIONAL CRITERIA FOR A QUALITY RCRA PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II.
III.
Appendix A
Appendix B
TITLE
Introduceion: Purpose, Scope and
Use of che Criteria
PAGE
Criteria for a Quality RCRA Program:
Characteristics of a Quality RCRA Program
Description of the Performance Criteria
Enforcement Program Criteria
Permit Program Criteria
Closure Program Criteria
Corrective Action Program Criteria
Management Criteria
Response to Performance Against the Criteria...
>
Timeframes for Enforcement Actions
Compliance Formulas
6
7
8
15
18
20
23
29
32
34
- 1 -
-------
PREFACE
In May 1964, EPA and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Wasre
Management Officials published the "Interim National Criteria for a Quality
waste Management Program under RCRA". The Quality Criteria sen basic
goals and performance expectations for the States and EPA in managing the RCRA
program. Since their issuance, the Quality Criteria have received extensive
application in the planning and overseeing of hazardous waste programs in both
the Regions and the States. Of particular importance was their use in defining
program capabilities as part of the authorization process, and their incorpora-
tion into the State grant work programs as performance benchmarks.
The October 1985 revisions to the Quality Criteria were restricted to
changes needed to provide consistency with the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments of 1984 (HSWO and revised national policies. The October L98S
revisions added criteria for facility management planning, joint permit
issuance, and expanded public involvement in permitting. These revisions
also deleted or revised timeframes for permit processing and added or clari-
fied criteria on inspections and enforcement.
In the current revision to the Quality Criteria, we considered more
comprehensive changes to reflect additional HSWA requirements and revised
national policies. These revisions include:
adding criteria for closures;
adding criteria for corrective action;
reformatting the facility management planning criteria as a goal under
management rather than a separate section;
adding performance measurements; and,
clarifying and editing various itc
Seme of the Garments received related to aspects of the Enforcement Program
Criteria which were changed in order for the document to conform with the
Enforcement Response Policy (December 21, 1984). Cuimeuters were concerned
with the definition of violation categories, the timeframes within which the
violations are to be addressed, and the level and type of enforcement response
expected. These and other related issues are being addressed by a State/EPA
workgroup, and the Enforcement Response Policy (ERP) will be revised in light
of implementation experience. The Enforcement Criteria will be revised to
reflect any changes) to the ERP.
The ccranenters emphasized their concern with how the Quality Criteria re-
flected the ERP's provisions on assessment of penalties. The Quality Criteria
states that penalties are to be assessed in accordance with the ERP, which
describes appropriate responses and timeframes for taking action against persons
who violate RCRA requirements. One issue being examined is the scope of the
definition of High Priority Violators (violators who should always be assessed
penalties within a suitable timeframe). Although the existing definition of
High Priority Violators may be refined to some extent, there will always be a
defined group of violators for whom penalties are appropriate. Assessment of
penalties is essential to developing and maintaining an effective RCRA enforce-
ment program. By taking strong action against serious violators, we ensure
that others will be deterre^. from violating RCRA requirements.
,*
- 2 -
-------
These revisions were drafted jointly by EPA and che Association of Scace ar.d
Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. We appreciate che assistance of
everyone who participated in this effort. Comments on how che Qua!ID/ Cricaria
may be improved are welcome at any time.
J. Winston forcer
Assistant Administrator
Solid Waste & Bnergency Response
Environmental Protection Agency
President
Association of State and
Territorial Solid Waste
Management Officials
Date
Date
-------
PAST I
DTCBDDUCriCN: PURPOSE. SCOPE. AND USE OF THE CRITERIA
Purpose & Scope
This document establishes national criteria for planning and overseeing a
quality hazardous waste management program under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Ace (RCRA) as amended by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of
1984 (HSWA). The sane criteria are to be used for evaluating both authorized
State performance and Regional performance in non-authorized States. The
purpose of the document is:
* to clarify program goals, objectives, performance expectations, and per-
formance measurements to ensure that EPA and the States have a common
understanding of what must be done to effectively implement RCRA; and
0 to outline general principles to describe how EPA and the States
should respond when che criteria are either not met or are exceeded.
The development of useful and relevant performance criteria for RCRA is
an evolving process, reflecting our growing experience in program Implanencation.-
The Criteria have been revised twice since originally published in May 1984.
These revisions reflect Congress tonally-mandated changes to the RCRA program,
new Agency policies and directives, and EPA/State experience in using the
Criteria. The Criteria will continue 09 be revised as necessary, although
future changes should be more in the nature of fine tuning rather than major
additions or deletions.
This document and related guidance materials implement for RCRA the Agency's
policy on delegation and oversight.
Use of the Criteria
The criteria influence a wide range of management and evaluation activities
in EPA Headquarters, the Regions, and the States. The criteria will be used:
* to provide Che multi-year performance expectations for defining annual
cconitments contained in che Agency Operating Guidance and the RCRA
Implementation Plan;
to define consistent evaluation protocols for developing State grant
work programs and overseeing the program on an on-going basis;
to provide a' systematic approach which the Regions and States may use
during the State authorization process to support the assessment of
program capability and to reach agreement on the steps necessary to
build and sustain a quality program over time;
to set the national criteria for determining when direct EPA actions
(e.g., Federal enforcement, a:-1:4 Federal permit conditions) are
appropriate;
- 4 -
-------
0 co Identify areas where assistance and training are needed co build
and sustain a quality program;
0 co assist in determining State and EPA resource needs; and,
i i
9 CD identify those measures needed by EPA to oversee iaplemencation
of EOA by authorized State and Regions.
- 5 -
-------
PART II
CRITERIA FOR A QUALITY RCRA PROGRAM
Characteristics of a Quality EOA Program
u
Subtitle C of che Resource Conservation and Recovery Ace (RCSA) as amended
by HSWA, provides Che statutory authority for the hazardous waste management
program. In general, a fully implemented quality program is one which:
9 knot* the status of its regulated community, communicates program
progress effectively to the public, and has taken steps to ensure
chat all handlers covered by che regulations are identified and
brought into che EOA system;
0 has made final determinations (issued or denied permits, approved
closures) for all existing treatment, storage, and disposal (ISO)
facilities and has procedures to promptly address new facilities
and permit'revisions;
* effectively implements corrective action through che permitting
and enforcement process; and,
0 demonstrates Improving compliance rates for all handlers, with all
violators returned to compliance as quickly and effectively as
possible'through a vigorous enforcement program.
Use of chis Document
The criceria in chis document are designed to bring the program closer co
achieving each of chese characteristics. The criteria define che benchmarks and
expectations of che EPA Regions and States. The following assumptions underlie
che definition and use of che RCRA program quality criteria.
0 The criteria apply to the fully authorized State program, including
che more stringent provisions that are authorized.
0 The performance expectations in the criteria are not explicitly
constrained by existing resources. They reflect the needs for
a quality RCBA program. The annual operating guidance and the
RCBA Implementation Plan set priorities among the national criteria
within the resource levels available to the program in any given year.
* The performance expectations set the basic multi-year goals for the
RCRA program. They may be expanded upon by Che priorities set in
che annual RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) (e.g., grant funds Co be
allocated co Draining or percentage of handlers to be inspected in
a given year), but they should not conflict with requirements in
che RIP. All Scaces are expected Co meet chese performance
expectations except co che extent they are modified by che State/
EPA memorandum of agreement or che Stats grant work program. These
criteria were chosen because they reprr- cnr che critical needs for
a quality program; therefore, deviations from chese criceria should
be minimal and well justified.
• 6 —
-------
Description of Che Performance Criteria
The performance criteria are organized co address five of the major
performance areas of Che RCBA program: enforcement, permitting, closures, correc-
tive action, and program management. . The program management criteria are split
Into three groups to separately identify (1) chose criteria related to activities
of the authorized State (or Region, in nonauthorized States); (2) those criteria
related co the-oversight Agency; and, (3) chose criteria related co a facility
management planning process. In this way, the management criteria capture che
mutual dependence of EPA and che authorized Scaces for ensuring a quality program.
The performance criteria do not include national expectations for certain
measures (e.g., che compliance rate). This is for one of two reasons: che
specific levels are dependent on annual priorities; or our experience co date
provides no clear, quantifiable preference. For some of these measures, annual
targets may be included in che annual Agency operacing guidance or RIP. For
others, che performance expectations will evolve over time as the RCBA program
matures and more performance informacion becomes available.
The criteria provide four levels of informacion for each RCBA goal.
0 Key Questions. The questions represent che key areas to describe a quality
RCBA program for permitting, enforcement, closure, corrective action, and
management.
o
Performance Expectations. The performance expectations (where precisely
defined; provide the national benchmarks to assess performance of che
program for each of che key questions, tbte chat when che performance
expectation is in terms of days, it refers co calendar days, not work
days.
0 Oversight Tools. The oversight cools are che principal source of program
informacion used Co track progress against che cricerla. The overs ighc
cools available to che program include program reviews (e.g., HQ program
reviews of Regions, mid- and end-of-year reviews of States), monthly
monitoring (including use of reporting information), file reviews, admin-
istrative record reviews, and review of individual State actions (e.g.,
oversight inspections, permit reviews, compliance wich various Stace/EPA
agreements and/or State-specific strategies, NOD reviews).
0 Performance Measurements. The performance measurements were developed
co estaousa tne standards by which che performance expectations for each
cricerla will be measured. Vhen reviewing State performance against one
of these criteria, judgment should be based on che specific requirements
in che State grant or other signed State/EPA agreement. To che extent
practicable, chose documents must reflect che standards in these cricerla,
although some deviacion may be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Also, when
evaluating a performance expectation with a yea/no performance measurement,
"yes" should be used only for chose items chat che State/ Region adequately
addressed. "No" should be used co indicate items inadequately addressed
or not addressed.
- 7 -
-------
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM CRITERIA
GOAL: OPERATE AN ENFORCMOT PROGRAM THAT ACHIEVES AN
OF COMPLIANCE TO PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND THE
IMPROVING LEVEL
KEY QUESTIONS
Is che mulct-Tear com-
pliance monitoring
strategy' cons is ten c
with che national
enforcement strategy^?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o State/EPA
Enfbrcanenc
Agreenenc
o Program reviews*
o Stace grant
work program
o MCA
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
A. Strategy is written and updated
annually as necessary.
B. The strategy includes:
PERFORMANCE
A, Yes/ No
1) a plan to inspect all ground- 1) Yes/to
water monitoring facilities
at least each year, with
comprehensive ground-water
monitoring evaluations (CMEs)
as appropriate.
2) a minimun two-year timeframe for 2) Yes/to
inspections of treatment, storage,
and disposal facilities (TSCF's)
and *a plan for inspecting gen-
erators and transporters, with
priority given to those that
pose che greatest public health
or envrironnental threat.
3) procedures for completing rec- 3) Yes/to
ord reviews .of all handlers.
4) procedures to evaluate and 4) Yes/ No
verify chat facilities have
closed in accordance with
approved closure/post-closure
plans and that requests for
withdrawal are valid.
5) procedures to inspect all 5) Yes/No
facilities in conjunction
with the permit application
requests and to otherwise
support the permit process.
6) procedures to identify non- 6) Yes/to
notifiers and handlers
operating without permits
or manifests.
1. See Lee Thomas memo of June 12, 1934.
2. National enforcement strategy is embodied in key policy documents such as che EOA
Implementation Plan, Enforcement Response Policy, and other Agency as well as program
office documents.
* Includes HQ program reviews of Regions and Regional quarterly, mid- and end-of-year
reviews of States.
- 8 -
-------
KEY QUESTIONS
Lon L (Continued)
PERFOCTfrNCE EXPECDVTICNS
7) procedures to coordinate
with other Agencies charged
with responsibility for
regulating transporters.
3) procedures, for taking an
enforcement response for
every instance of known
non compliance.
PERFORMANCE
7) '^
3) Yas/No
2. Are inspections and
record reviews con-
ducted in accordance
with the compliance
monitoring strategy?
A. Inspection of 100% of ground-
water monitoring facilities each
year, with CMEs as appropriate.
6VERSIGHT TOOLa
o Compliance Monitor-
ing and Enforcement
Log (HWDMS)
o Facility Status
Sheet (HWDMS)
o Program reviews
3. •Inspection of at least 50% of
treatment, storage and disposal
facilities (TSDP's) and a per-
centage of generators and trans-
porters each year. (Per HSNA,
all TSOF's must be inspected
every two years* and EPA most
inspect each year all TSDP's
owned or operated by Federal,
State or local governments).
No. of GWM facil-
ities
No. of CEI's and
CME's completed
NO. of TSDF'g
No. of generators
and transporters
No. of CEI's
completed
C. Inspection of RCRA TSDP's
receiving CERCZA wastes in
accordance with EPA's CERdA
Off-Site policy.
D. Are closing facilities inspected
to ensure that all follow approved
plans and that all withdrawals are
valid.
E. Verifications (including recc
reviews and inspections) are
formed within 30 days of the final
compliance date at all facilities
in violation and scheduled to
return to <"V<
F.
Number and types of handlers
(i.e., generators, transporters,
TSDP's) inspected meets quarterly
ccRti&tznents .
Facilities identi-
fied in State grant
NO. of TSDF'3 that
submitted a notifi-
cation to close
No. of CEI's at
closing facilities
Projected
compliance date
Actual compli-
ance date
Projected CEI's
and G-ffi'3
Actual CEI's
and CME'3
- 9 -
-------
KEY QUESTIONS
Question 2 (Continued)
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
G. Nunber of record reviews
(cLosure/post-closure
plans, financial assur-
ances) conducted meets
quarterly ccomionencs.
G. 'b. of record
reviews ccramicted re
Actual record r avis'*
3. Are inspections and
record reviews
thorough and
properly documented?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o File reviews
o Oversight in-
spections
o Program reviews
o Copies of in-
spection check-
Lists and reports
for selected GUM
facilities
o TEGD, AFP. A
Evaluation
Worksheets
o Compliance Moni-
toring and En-
forcement Log
(WINS)
B.
C.
Inspection checklists are A. Yes/No
complete and accurate.
Files are maintained and readily B. Yes/Mo
accessible; violations are well
docunented.
Comprehensive ground-water moni- C.
toring evaluations (CMEs) evaluate
the adequacy of detection and
assessment ground-water monitor-
ing systems in accordance with
the RCRA. GW Technical Enforce-
ment Guidance corart August 1983).
Yes/Nb
Saapling quality assurance/
quality control procedures
are followed.
All violations at inspected
handlers are identified and
properly classified (high
priority, Class I or II) per
the national Enforcement
Response Policy.
D. Yes/to
E. Yes/ No
- 10 -
-------
KE? OUESTICMS
Are enfercement actions
timely and appropriate?
(See timeframe in
Appendix A.)*
OVERSIGHT TOOLS,
o Compliance Moni coring
and Ehfbrcanenc
Log owns)-
o Pujgidiu reviews
o Copies of complaints/
orders for ail Oil
facilities
o File reviews
o SIMS
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
A. For high priority violators: **
1) If the State has administra-
tive penalty authority, a
formal complaint is to be
issued within 90 days after
violation discovery in
accordance with the Ehforce-
Response Policy.*** Steps 4,
5. and 6 outlined under 4.B.
below will then be followed
if escalated action is
necessary.
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT.
1 ) (Dace of insp«
Date of dece-
raination of
violation
Cate of fora
enforcanenc
action
* The timeliness criteria are national performance expectations. They may be
more stringent to reflect individual Regional/State requirements or they may.
be adjusted GO incorporate unique State authorities and, to a more limited
extent, processes. The specific criteria used in each State must be included in
the annual State grant work program or the MQA. Note that emergencies (such as
imminent and substantial endangexment situations) should be acted on immediately
and not be limited by these criteria.
** A high priority violator is a handler who has one or more Class I violationr
of the ground-water, closure/post-closure, and financial responsibility require-
ments, or who poses a substantial likelihood of exposure to hazardous waste or
has caused actual exposure, has realized a substantial economic benefit as a
result of non-ccnpliance, or is a chronic or recalcitrant violator (including a
handler who is violating schedules in an order or decree). The Enforcement
Response Policy issued December 21,1984, provides an operational definition
for Region and State use.
*** The average time for the date of discovery from the date of inspection or record
review is 45 days. In many cases, a lesser time frame is more, suitable, for example
where the inspector is also the enforcement official. Where there are mere compli-
cated situations, for example where chemical analysis of samples is required, time
from the date of inspection to the date of violation determination may be greater.
- 11 -
-------
KEY QUESTIONS
Question 4 (Continued)
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
2) If che State lacks adninistra-
tive penalty authority, the
case should be referred GO che
appropriate civil litigation
authority, e.g., State Attorney
General, District Attorney, etc.,
within 90 days from the discovery
of violation. Steps 5 and 6 out-
lined under 4.B. below will
then be followed if escalated
action is necessary.
B. For Other Violators with Class I
Violations: *
PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS
2) Gate of inspec-
tion
Dace of cecer-
ainacion of
violation
Date of
referral
B.
1)
2)
3)
An initial enforcement action
(e.g., warning letter, notice of
violation, or equivalent action)
is taken within 30 days of
violation discovery.
1) Date of inspec-
tion
Date of initial
enforcement
action
Decision is made to escalate 2)
action (e.g., administrative
complaint/order, civil referral)
with 90 days of the initial en-
forcement action for handlers not
returned to compliance or on an
agreed upon compliance schedule.**
(More than one action, such aa a
warning letter, NOV or equivalent,
may be taken within this time period.)
If a decision is made co issue a 3)
formal administrative complaint,
it should be issued within 60 days
after the decision to escalate. (Note
that pre-hearing negotiations should
not generally continue beyond 90 days
from issuance of the initial complaint.)
Return to com-
pliance date
Date of escala-
tion decision***
Date of complain
issued
At its option, an EPA Region or State may choose co bypass less fonnal enforcement
actions and go immediately to a complaint (AO) or civil referral. The criteria in
Part A above should be followed in such cases. (See page 7.)
Handlers on a compliance schedule will be monitored to ensure conformance with the
schedule. Escalated enforcement action will be taken if the handler is not in
compliance within 30 days of the compliance schedule.
The date of che escalation decision may not be documented.
- 12 -
-------
KEY QUESTIONS
Question 4 (Continued)
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
4) Decision is made co refer
case co appropriate civil
Litigation authority after
the administrative process is
exhausted for handlers not in
compliance, noc on an agreed
upon compliance schedule, or
for" which no administrative
hearing has been scheduled.*
5) Case is referred to civil
litigation authority within
90 days after decision to
refer case.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
4) Dace of refer
decision
5) Date of refer
6) Civil litigation authority files 6)
the case within 60 days of referral.
Date of filir
C. Appropriate enforcement actions: C.
1) Penalties are assessed against 1) Yes/No
all high priority violators and,
where necessary* against other
Class I violators in accordance
with the Bifbrcement Response
policy.
•
2) AIL penalties are conanen- 2) Yes/No
surate with the violation,
based on a consistent
penalty policy.
3) All final formal enforcement 3) Yes/No
actions specify activities the
owner/operator muse carry out
and dates by which activities
must be completed, and require
the handler co certify compli-
ance or contain other means of
verification*
4) All final orders, including 4) Yes/No
Consent Agreements/Final Orders,
must express what "compliance"
entails and should either specify
a detailed technical remedy or
require the owner/operator to
develop plans that specify de-
tails of the remedy.
(Civil and criminal actions are
considered appropriate actions.)
See footnote 2 on previous page.
- 13 -
-------
KEY QUESTICKS
5. Are Federal facilities.
dealt with in accord-
ance with timely and
appropriate response
policy?
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
To the extent allowed under
State and Federal law, Federal
facilities should be treated
the sane as any other violator
by both EPA and the States.
A. Yes/Mo
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Compliance Monitoring
and Enforcement
Log (HJEMS)
o SPMS
Are enforcement actions
reported to the public
or to che regulated
ccmmunity to promote
compliance?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
B.
Compliance strategy includes
procedures for publicizing
precedent-setting or other
important actions/violations.
Actions/violations are publi-
cized in accordance with the
compliance strategy.
A. Yes/Ms
B. Yes/>b
Cbes responsible
agency monitor the
Class I compliance
rate of inspected
handlers? (See
description and
compliance formulas
in Appendix B.)
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Compliance Monitoring
and Enforcement
Log (WEMS)
B.
The responsible agency establishes A* Yes/No
the percent of handlers having
Class I violations ac the
beginning of the fiscal year
wiich were brought into
compliance or are on a compliance
schedule each quarter.
The responsible agency establishes B. Yes/to
the percent of handlers inspected
(or who have had record reviews)
which are found to have Class I
violations. This is done on a
quarterly basis.
- 14 -
-------
REMIT PRO3WM CRITERIA
GOAL: USE THE PERMIT PROCESS TO INCREASE REGULATORY CONTROL
OF TSDFs TO PROTECT HLMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT
KEY QUESnONS
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
PERFORMANCE
1. Are Federal and Seace
permitting responsi-
bilities coordinated
where chose responsibil-
ities are shared?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o MIA
o Scace granc
o Joint permit-
ting agreement
o Program reviews
There is a signed MDA or other A. Yes/No
agreement chat:
-- clearly delineates respon-
sibilities fior permit
processing;
— reflects priorities fior per-
mit processing established
in annual guidance.
B. EPA and State meet agreed upon 3.
commitments for permit processing
and issuance.
Yes/Mo
(HQ review)
2. Is the permitting
authority processing
pennies in accordance
wich established
procedures?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Manthly Permit
Status Report
(OTMS)
o Status of Permit
Applications
Report (HWEMS)
o Program reviews
B.
Internal decision schedules are A. Yes/No
established and cracked for
individual permits for:
— che receipt of che appli-
cation,
.. completeness check,
— notice of deficiency,
— completeness determination,
— public notice of draft
pennit,
— end of the public cement
period, and
— final decision on permit.
Permitting authority uses full B. Yes/No
range of regulatory powers to
obtain adequate ground-water
systems and data.
C.
If permit deficiencies are not C.
resolved within 60 days of
Notice of Deficiency (NOD),
referral is made for enforce-
ment action* or permit denial
is initiated, as appropriate
(unless an alternative
schedule is agreed upon).
Date of complete-
ness determination
Date of NOD
Date of permit deni
Date of closure pic
submission
Date of NOD with
formal action or
referral
* See "Late and Incomplete Part B Policy" dated September 9, 1;iJ, and Che
"Compliance Order Guidance" dated August 1985.
- 15 -
-------
KEY QUESTIONS
3. Are petal c determina-
cions consistent with
permit regulations?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Review of draft
and final permits
o Permit/files
o Administrative
Record
o NOD review
o Program reviews
PERFORMANCE ESPSCTAIICNS
A. Lead permitting authority aakes
permit determinations that are
consistent with the authorized
State and/or Federal program.
B. Conditions that are based upon
permit writers' technical
judgment/interpretation are
consistent with the intent of
the regulations regarding level
of control, containment, cleanup,
or protection.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
A. Yes/»
B. Yes /to
Comments arising from permit
reviews by oversight agency are
resolved before the next stage
of permit processing is completed.
C. Yes /No
Permit determinations are upheld D. Yes/No
on technical, legal, and proce-
dural grounds.
Permit conditions are enforce- E. Yes/No
able.
Permit conditions are clear, F. Yes/No
understandable, and properly
documented (through applica-
tion or administrative record).
Permit fully describes and G. Yes/No
defines requirements and
frequencies for facility
monitoring, reporting, inspec-
tion, and analyses after
permit issuance.
4. Is the responsibility
for managing public
involvement activities
clearly identified?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
EPA and States have selected
a public involvement
B. EPA and States communicate on
a regular basis ts ensure
coordination of public involve-
ment activities.
A. Yes/No
B. Yes/ No
- 16 -
-------
QUESTIONS
5. Are che public in-
volvement plans (PIP)
implemented in*
accordance with
national policy?*'
CVBSIQg TOOLS
o Program reviews
o Permit files
o Public Involve-
ment Plans
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
A. National policy* for selecting A. Yes/to
facilities for expanded public
participation is followed. At
a minimum, selection should
focus on:
— commercial facilities
— new, facilities
— high public interest facilities
B. Public involvement plans are B. Yes/No
prepared and implemented in
accordance with national policy.
C. Public involvement activities C. Yea/No
are well integrated into the
permit program and FMP develop-
ment.
MEASURERS
6. Are public concerns/
comments taken into
account during deci-
sion making?
Final permit decisions consider
all relevant public comment on
draft permit.
A. Yes /No
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Final permit
decision
o Public comments
See revised National Permits Strategy and "Guidance on Public Involvement in
RCRA Permitting" dated January 1986.
- 17 -
-------
CLOSURE PROGRAM CRITERIA
GOAL: ASSURE CLOSURES ARE IMPLEMENTED IN A BANNER PROTECTIVE
OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT.
KEY QUESTIONS
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
1. Are EPA/States reviewing
closure plans in accor-
dance with statutory and
regulatory requirements?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o Reviews of
Administrative
Records
PERFORMANCE
B.
ClosureVpost-closure plan A. Date of notificati
deficiencies are resolved or the of in can c to close
plan is modified within regulatory Date of public not
timefranes. of intent to appro
Closure decisions are based on
adequate soil and ground-water
monitoring information, where
applicable.
B. Yes/No
C. Cost-estimates are reviewed to C. Yes/No
determine tfiecher they accurately
reflect costs of completing
closure and financial assurance
instruments are sufficient to cover
cost-estimates.
D. EPA/States review closure D. Yes/No
certifications prior to release
of ovner/operacor1 s financial
assurance.
E. EPA/States assure that notices E. Yes/No
in the deed are recorded in
accordance with regulatory
requirements.
F. EPA and States follow all 3cam- F. Yes/No
tory and regulatory requirements
for public participation.
2. Are the approved plans
consistent with the
technical closure
requirements?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o Reviews of
Administrative
Records
A. Closure decisions are made A. Yes/No
in accordance with regula-
tions, including Subpart F,
and draft Subparts G and H
Guidance (5/86).
B. Closure plan provides mechanism B. Yes/No
for measuring achievement of
closure performance standards.
C. Closure plans contain specific C. Yes/No
activities and timeframes to
ensure enforceability.
- 18 -
-------
KEY QUESTICTS
3. Do EPA/Scaces oversee
closures co ensure chose
actions are consist enc
with approved plans?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o Reviews of
Adminiscracive
Records
o CMEL
o SPAR
4. Are che Reg ions/Scaces
coordinacing closure
accivicies wich
correccive aceion?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
EPA/States conduct adequate
inspections .to ensure chat
hazardous vaste units are
closing in accordance wich;
approved closure/post-closure
plans.
PERFORMANCE J'EASUREMENT
A. MJ. of nocificacion
of closure
Ms. of closure plan
approved
No. of closing fact
cies inspected
o
o
SPAR '
reviews
EPA/Scaces are assessing Che
need for correccive action at
closing facilities.
B. Based on chis assessment, EPA/ B.
Scaces are integrating
corrective accion into che
closure process chrough che
closure plan, a post-closure
permit, or an adminiscracive
* complaint/order.
% of closing facili
Cies receiving a RC
Facility Assessment
(RFA)
ta. of closing
facilicies ac
which correccive
accion is deemed
necessary
Nb. of closing
facilities for
which corrective
accion is
addressed in
closure plans,
pose-closure
pennies, or
compliance orders
- 19 -
-------
CORRECTIVE ACTION PRO3AM CRITERIA
GOAL: TO CLEAN UP RELEASES FROM ALL WASTE MANAGEMENT UNITS THAT THREATEN PUBLIC
HEALTH OR THE ENVIRONMENT AND TO MINIMIZE THE THREAT OF CONTINUED RELEASES
IN THE FUTURE.
KEY QUESTIONS
1. Are RCRA Facilicy
Assesaaencs (RFAs) and
Remedial Investigations
(RLs) conducted in a
technically adequate
manner?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o File reviews
3.
C.
F.
G.
PERFORMANCE MEASLTIEME
A. Yes/No
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
»
RFAa and RIs examine all rele-
vant information, in accordance
with Che following: draft RSI
on continuing releases (dated
1/30/85), codification rule
promulgated 7/15/85, draft RFA
Guidance (dated 6/86) , and
40 CFR Part: 270.
Vhere appropriate, investigations B. Yes/No
and remedies consider the use of
authorities other than RCRA (i.e.,
CERCIA, TSCA, or other State
authorities) to secure corrective
action.
RFAs and RIs identify and
evaluate all SWMUs and all known/
likely releases ac a facility.
Determinations regarding releases D.
are made using appropriate on-site
inspection or comparable information.
No. of releases
identified '
No. of releases
evaluated
Yes/No
At the conclusion of any RFA E. Yes/ No
conducted, the need for a remedial
investigation, interim measures, or
corrective actions is determined.
RFA reports provide adequate F. Yes/No
docunentation to support specific
permit or compliance order
conditions.
EPA/ State identify and respond G. Yes/No
expeditiously to situations
requiring immediate corrective
measures.
- 20 -
-------
KEY QUasiiCKS
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Ojuescion 1 (ooneinued)
H.' RI work plans for releases are
reviewed and approved Co ensure
chac they contain schedules of
compliance chac are enforceable.
H. Yes^b
I. EPA/States monitor approved RI I.
workplans and sampling plans for
releases in accordance with the
Draft JOA RI Guidance for
Continuing Releases ac RCRA
Facilities (6/86).
Yea/to
2. Are remedies adequate
to protect hunan
health and the
environment?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o File reviews
A. EPA/ States review and approve
or require modifications to
proposed corrective measures.
B. Appropriate interim measures
are taken as necessary to
prevent releases or additional
contamination, to prevent or
reduce the further spread of
contamination, or co address
an exposure threat chac a
release presents.
A. Yes/No
B. Yea/to
C. EPA/States ensure Chac suf- C. Yes/Nb
ficienc financial assurance is
provided by the owner/operator
for implementing corrective
measures.
D. Corrective action plans are D. Yes/No
specific and contain schedules
of compliance chat are en-
forceable.
E. EPA/States have established pro- E. Yes/No
cedures to ensure chac owner/
operators implement corrective
measures in accordance with
the plans.
F. EPA/States ensure chat cor- F. Yes/Ho
receive action plans include
mechanisms for measuring the
effectiveness of the corrective
accion.
- 21 -
-------
KEY QUESTIONS PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS
——^————^"-^~—————
3. Are chere procedures A. EPA/Scaces assign lead A. Yes/No
for ensuring- effective responsibility (between
coordination? permitting and enforce-
ment) "for managing the
corrective action program.
QVERSIQg TOOLS
B. Decisions on RCKA, corrective B. Yes/No
o Program reviews action activities take into
o File reviews account other activities
relevant to corrective action
(CERCIA, State Water Agencies,
local authorities, etc.)
- 22 -
-------
MANAGEMENT CRITERIA
GOAL *1: PROVIDE MANAGEMENT SUPPORT THAT FACILITATES ACHIEVEMENT OF
PROGRAM GOALS AND SUSTAINS A HIGH QUALITY PROGRAM OVER TIME.
KEY QUESTIONS
1. Are resources used in
accordance with the
annual Scate grant and
Regional resource
allocation?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
B.
o Program reviews
o Scace grant work programs
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
•
Wbrkyears used for RCRA match
workyears allocated.
Wbrkyears used for each key pro-
gram element (e.g., enforcement,
program development, program
management, permitting) match
vorkyears alocated.
PERFORMANCE MEASURE*
A. to. of workyee
allocated
to. of workyec
used
B. to. of workyes
allocated
to. of workyea
used
2. Have training needs
been identified?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Training plans
o State grant work
progrj
B.
EPA and States develop annual A. Yes/No
work-plans that identify specific
training needs.
Training plans are relevant to B. Yes/No
problems/deficiencies identi-
fied during program reviews.
3. Has staff training
been provided and
maintained?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o Training plan
o State grant work
A. EPA and State staff are trained
in accordance with the annual
training plan.
B. EPA and States implement on-going
training programs to initiate
new employees and to maintain
expertise of experienced staff,
including but not limited to,
the following major subject
— inspections & enforcement
.. ground-water monitoring
— corrective action
— closure plan approval
— Part B reviews
— post-closure permits.
A. Yes/No
B. to. of hours
training by
subject area
or
- 23 -
-------
KEY QUESTIOS
Is an information
system in place that
effectively supports
progran management?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o Report formats
o MCA
o State grant work
programs
o HflHS
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
Information system has che
following features:
PESTOHMftKCS
A.
1) Data system (automated or i) ';es/:b
manual) cracks key program
elements and provides data
to meet EPA.and State
reporting requirements.
2) Data base accurately identifies 2) Yes/>b
regulated community covered
by che authorized program.
3) Management cracking system 3) Yes/Mo
provides up-to-date and
accurate permit, inspection,
compliance, enforcement,
closure, and corrective action
status information.
B. States provide information on B. Yes/No
facility status changes (e.g.,
notification, Parr A) to EPA at
least monthly.
5. Is there a process to
ensure data quality?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o Database audits
A. EPA and States use consistent A. Yes/No
definitions for reporting data.
B. EPA and States exercise quality B. Yes/No
control over data input and
retrieval.
C. EPA and States select a lead C. Yes/No
person responsible for data
quality.
6. Is the State contin-
uing to operate an
equivalent Federal
program?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
OOW^tf*
«Tvg
o MGA
reviews
A. State informs EPA in advance
of potential waivers, variances,
changes to State statutes and
regulations, etc., in accordance
with MCA.
B. State adequately'addresses EPA
comments on waivers, delistings,
variances, and regulation changes.
C. Authorized State adopts changes
made in Federal requirements
within che specified time period.
A. Yes/No
B. Yes/No
Dace Federal
change made
Dace Scace
adopts change
- 24 -
-------
GOAL *2: PROVIDE EFFECTIVE OVERSIGTT TO E2EURE AOIIZVEME:>rr CF PROGIAM GOALS
KEY QUESTIONS
1. Are che Regions admin-
istering State hazard-
ous waste grants in
accordance with grant
regulations (Fart 35
Subpart A)?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o Regional grants
guidance
o State grant work
programs
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT
A. Regional program guidance co A. Yes/Mo
each State contains EPA'3
national objectives and
priorities, che State's
funding allocations, che
program elements EPA uses
for budget justification and
management outputs and spe-
cial conditions or limitations
relevant co che State.
B. Regions provide program guidance B. Dace final guidance
co States at least 60 days prior is received
Co final application deadline. Date of applicacion
deadline
C. All complete applications
are approved, conditionally
approved, or disapproved by
che beginning of fiscal year.
C. Dace ccmplece appli
cacion is received
Dace of approval,
conditional approva
or disapproval
2. Are HQ and Regional
oversight activities
resulting in an
improved RCRA
program?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o Review of mid-
and end-of-year
procedures/
reports
o Analysis of
monthly reports
and other sub-
missions
A. Regions conduct State- file
and program reviews according
Co schedules specified in
grant or other agreement.
B. Reviews address che key ques-
tions and perfonnance measures
specified in chis policy.
C. Review findings are provided
to the State within 45 days
of conducting the review.
If the evaluation reveals
problem areas, negotiations
are conducted to reach an
it for resolving
D. EPA and State cake action to
resolve problems, including
providing technical assistance
or direct EPA action, in
accordance with negotiated
agreements.
A. Yes/to
3. Yes/No
C. Date of review
Date Scace receives
comments
D. Yes/No
- 25 -
-------
KEY
Question 2 (Continued)
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
E. EPA performs oversight inspec-
Cions in accordance with M3A,
annual Scace work programs, and
other agreements.
F. EPA completes and transmits
oversight inspection reports
co che State within 30 days of
inspection; or, where inspections
are conducted jointly, EPA
transmits oversight report
within 30 days of receiving
State's inspection report.
G. EPA reviews and cconents on
pennies and closure plans agreed
upon by che Region and State.
Ccmmencs include a statement of
che reason for che comment and
che actions che State should
cake.
PERFORMANCE
E. Yes /Ho
Date of inspection
Date report crans-
micced co Scace
G. Yes/No
3. Does EPA provide A.
guidance and assiscance
co screngthen program
implementation
capabilities? B.
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Scace granc work
programs C.
o Program reviews
EPA and States identify guidance A. Yes/No
and technical assistance needs.
EPA provides guidance wich B. Yes/No
sufficient lead ctme for use and
clearly indicates how and when
guidance is to be used.
there State performance is C. Yes/No
dependent on agreed upon
technical assistance, judgments
,of State performance will take
into account failure to provide
such assistance.
• 26 -
-------
GOAL 13: USE A FACILITY MAHAGEMEOT PLANNING PROCESS TO ENHANCE
BEXUEEff PEROTTING AMD ENFOHCEMENr TO MAXIMIZE COMPLIANCE WITH THE
EOA REQUIREMENTS
KEY
1. Are facility management
plans (FMPs) developed
updated in accordance
with the Draft Guidance
for Facility Management
Planning (7/85)?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program reviews
o State grant
work programs
B.
C.
0.
PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS PEFORKANCE
EPA and States periodically A. Yes/to
review relevant information
to determine envixonnentally
significant facilities.
Facility management planning B. Yes/No
is done for each environ-
mentally significant facility.
The planning process identifies
specific problems at the facility,
the appropriate tools to be used
(e.g., enforcement, permitting),
the responsible State/Federal
organization, and a schedule for
taking action that meets statu-
tory deadlines, as appropriate.
there permitting and enforcement C. Yes/Ha
functions are separate, the
development of FMPs and multi-
year strategies are coordinated
Internally.
An EPA facility
designated -for rnrh
has b
ility.
FMPs include current commitments
and out-year expectations and
are updated as necessary.
D. Yes/to
E. Yes/Mo
Is there a process for
Identifying potential
releases and estab-
lishing priorities
for further investi-
gations/corrective
action?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Program review
o File review
B.
EPA/States have established A. Yea/No
a process for reviewing and
screening available information
(e.g., SH4U responses, inspec-
tion reports, Part B applica-
tions. RFAs, etc.) to Identify
potential releases at all FCBA
facilities.
EPA/States use the established B. Yes/No
process to develop corrective
action schedules and priorities
for environnentally significant
facilities.
- 27 -
-------
KEY Qubb'i'lONS
3. Is there a multi-year
strategy that addresses
how the responsible
authorities) plan to
petal t and/or bring all
TSCFs into conpllance
with applicable regula-
tions?
TOOLS
o Program reviews
o State grant
work program
PB1PORMANCE EXPECTATIONS
A. The strategy sumarizes the
schedule of activities for
environmentally significant
• facilities and schedules
final determinations for non-
environaentally significant
facilities.
B. These schedules take into
account the need to sec
priorities for corrective
action, permitting, and
closure activities.
C. The strategy is updated
annually. •
PERFORMANCE
A. Yes /Mo
B. Yes/No
C. Yes/ No
4. Is the multi-year
strategy being imple-
mented to manage the
EOA program to
achieve priority
obj ectives?
OVERSIGHT TOOLS
o Compliance Monitoring
and Enforcement
leg (HftMS)
o Msnthly Permit
Status Report
o State grant
work program
o Program reviews
o MCA
A. ttilti-year strategies are used A.
as a management tool to coordinate
and implement scheduled permit
and enforcement actions,
including corrective action and
closures for environmentally
significant facilities, as well
as non-environnentally significant
facilities.
Yes/to
B. Final determinations are made
at facilities in accordance
with the multi-year strategy.
B.
Projected date
for final deter-
minations
Actual date for
final deterainatioi
- ".8 -
-------
PART III
RESPONSE TO PERFORMANCE AGAINST THE CRITERIA
Part II establishes che criteria for a quality RCRA. program and liscs che
oversight cools and performance measurements most appropriate for cracking progress
against each of che criteria. This Part outlines che general principles to use
when decermining how EPA and che States should respond to performance against che
criteria.
The RCRA program quality criceria provide national expectations for program
performance. As explained in Part I. all States are expected to follow chese
criceria except to che extent they are explicitly modified by the Memorandum of
Agreement (MCA) or che annual grant work program. Regional and State performance
relative to che Criceria will be formally reviewed at least once a year.
General Principles for Response Actions
The appropriate response Co performance against Che criceria will depend on
a number of condicibns, including:
9 che relative importance of che criceria Co program objectives;
0 che seriousness of che failure Co meet che criteria;
' che frequency of failure;
0 che number of criceria failed; and,
• che past response to corrective action.
Certain sicuacions demand a nationally consistent response. However, most
situations require a response based on what will work for the individual Region
and Stace, reflecting the general principles outlined bare- and in the Agency's
Performance-Based Cranes Policy. Therefore, the response) action will be tailored
co che needs of the situation, recognizing that the principal goal is to streng-
then che credibility, capability, and performance of che iaplenenting agency^
The level and severity of the response! action should be consistent for similar
performance problems, whether the lead Agency is che EEA Region or the Stace.
However, che available range of EPA response actions differs depending on whether
che Region or che Stace is che lead agency. Oversight in an authorized Stace is
based on che MQar annual grant work program, or other State-EPA agreement, and
response actions) are to be in accord with Agency policies. Response actions where
che Region is che lead agency are based on performance tracking and evaluations and
personnel performance standards.
Oversight in Authorized States
there che authorized State is che lead agency, Che Region is responsible for
developing a consistent oversight approach chat provides a rational mix of
incentives and sanctions for performance against che criteria. This approach muse
be delineate clearly in che Memorandum of Agreement or other Regional-State
agreements so chat response actions are both predictable and effective.
- 29 -
-------
ttiere che State consistently meets che performance criteria, che Regional
Office will reduce the degree of oversight to levels appropriate co che r.eed
for that State. For example, if the State's inspections follow cne established
procedures and are always thorough and well documented, the Region may reduce
the nunber of oversight inspections. Additionally, where performance has been
demonstrated to be of consistently high quality, the Region may reduce the fre-
quency and scope of performance reviews.
Where the State fails to meet the performance criteria, the Regional Office
will initiate corrective action. The primary emphasis of corrective action will
be on meeting the enforcement, permits, closure, and corrective action criteria
and maintaining an equivalent program, there a State has problems meeting
those criteria, the Region will take a more rigorous look at how the State is
handling certain of the management criteria, such as effective use of resources
and training of staff.
In some cases, failure to meet the criteria will trigger a direct EPA action.
This is particularly true in the enforcement area, where EPA has the authority
under S3008(a)(2) to bring Federal enforcement action if the State action is not
timely or appropriate. The criteria in Fart II define "timely and appropriate"
and establish a system of escalating enforcement actions based on the seriousness
of the violation (e.g., Class I violations) and the available authorities (e.g.,
administrative penalty authority). Lack of confoxmance to these criteria will
trigger EPA involvement.
EPA may also take direct action in response Qo State-prepared permits that
are inconsistent with *±e authorized State pennit regulations. EPA will prepare
comments in writing to the State for all permits designated for EPA review
through the specific Regional/State Memorandum of Agreement. Based on 40 CFR
§271.19, comments reflecting requirements of the authorized State program are
enforceable by EPA, even if not included in the final State-issued pennit.
For the remainder of the criteria, the response will depend on the pattern
of the performance evaluated through program monitoring and the mid- and
end-of-year reviews, there failure to meet a criterion has a minor impact on
the overall quality of the State's program, the Regional Office may slightly
increase oversight or urge the State to modify a procedure, there a State
consistently falla selected criteria and show little intent to correct the
situation, stronger actions are called for. This should include award of
conditional grants and quarterly or semi-annual release of the funds, directly
linked to perfoxmsnce. Listed below in roughly ascending order are examples
of responses to failure to meet the criteria. These responses are not mutually
exclusive.
• Suggest a minor change to State or Regional procedures (e.g., a
change to filing procedures to improve availability of enforcement
information.)
- 30 -
-------
* Provide t*yhn*'*al assistance (e.g., provide training 'on drafting
groundwatsr corrective action provisions 00 State permit writers).
* Slightly increase oversight (e.g. , where file review indicate
inspection checklists are not being properly .completed . increased
nunbec of oversight inspections or file reviews may be appropriate) .
0 Raise performance issues to higher level of management both at
Che Region and State (e.g., include as agenda item on routine
RA/ State Director meetings) .
0 Revise future work program (e.g. , add additional grant conditions
requiring program management changes designed co correct problems
with meeting performance criteria) .
0 Greatly increase oversight (e.g., overview more permits where State
consistently drafts permits not in accord with state regulations) .
9 Award conditional grants or revoke a State's letter of credit (e.g.,
where States consistently fail to take timely enforcement actions,
future grant awards should to tied 00 improved performance).
Consistent with the Policy on Performance-Based Assistance (May 31, 1985),
EPA- will award conditional grants and release them on a quarterly or semiannual
basis, where a consistent pattern of problems has developed for an individual
State. Release of subsequent increments should be conditioned on correcting
performance deficiencies.
there a State consistently fails to follow through on the corrective
actions agreed upon, or the State's legal authorities are no longer equivalent,
EPA may initiate withdrawal of the State1 s authorization. The criteria for
withdrawal of the program are outlined in 40 CFR S271.22.
Oversight of Regional Office
there the EPA Region has responsibility for a portion or all of the
ona waste program because the State is not authorized, the Region
must meet the performance criteria listed in Part II and follow the general
principles on Regional actions outlined in this Part. The Regional perform-
ance standards against which Regional job performance is measured should
reflect the Pact IX criteria* The annual program reviews conducted by
Headquarters ia each Region will address the criteria, and Headquarters
may increase oet-Seerease Regional oversight baaed on Regional performance.
In summary? these criteria form the basis for a dynamic evaluation pro-
cess. They establish goals toward which the implementing agency, either the
Regional Office or an authorized State, must work. Evaluations of Regional
and State programs should identify' strengths. such as areas of effective
Implementation, as well as problems, such as training needs. EPA then can
focus its assistance efforts on disseminating effective implementation stra-
tegies and on resolving problem areas.
- 31 -
-------
TIME.NE FOR ENFORCEMEN ' ACTONS
HIGH PRIORITY VIOLATIONS
• !•!•• vlth
Ilvwra 1
•«Bl»l»ltatl«*|^|
•*• r"
r>
I
p«mlty
•••tetlly
vlll
If
M« vllkl* It
f*t
«« !• IK*
•• llM HM||M.
€• •! •• UltUI
-------
••«•
CLASS I .VIOLATIONS
• *t*«t toiMi
• KM it* «ff
fUtollM
* «t I««I««I«
-------
COMPLIANCE FOKMUUS
INTRODUCTION
EHA will use two types of formulas to track compliance. The first
compliance formula tracks tne progress of a fixed universe of Handlers'
returning to compliance over time. The purpose of tms formula is to track
the KeyIons' and States' success in orinyiny nandlers «itn Class I violations
into compliance.
The second compliance formuta tracks tne percentage of handlers witn
Class I violations at tne oeyinniny and middle of tne fiscal year. The
purpose of tnls formula is to take a snap snot of tne compliance rate at a
point in time.
These formulas will oe applied to nandlers with all types of Class I
violations, as well as to nandlers witn particular types of Class I violations,
e.y., yround-water monitoring or closure/post-closure violations.
COMPLIANCE FORMULA A - PXQUHESS UF HANDLERS RETURNING TO COMPLIANCE
At any point in time, handlers found to nave Class I
violations fall into one of tnree categories:
1. returned to compliance;
2. on a compliance scnedule and meeting scheduled milestones; or
3. oenind tne compliance scnedule or not yet on a schedule.
Compliance Formula A is designed to snow the movement of a fixed
universe of nandlers witn Class I violations from Categories Z and 3 Into
Cateyory 1. EPA will use tne compliance formulas to compute tne percentage
of nandlers 1n eacn of tnese categories eacn quarter. (Handlers with new
violations discovered eacn quarter will represent a new universe and will
oe tracked separately.) Table I Illustrates these formulas.
TAMLI i - cainmct FUMHUIA
FOMIA Al — NAMJUAS KCTUMK0 TO CONPilMCi
Hand tors in Caapllanco Hsndtors In Conpllanca Himlort la
on oocasaor Ji on aarcn 31 • on Juno 3U
T3n3Tors™»Ttn~CTassi^ T5ndTers™»TtE"CTa1s1sT""" mnsiors «»t« ciass I Handlers »itn class i
violations on Octooor I Violations on Octooor 1 violations on uctooor 1 violations on Octooer 1
FOMUU At — NMBkllS ON CONPUANCI SCMOWUS
Hindlors on ScMdulo Handlers on Scnodvlo Nindlors on Scnodwlo Handlors on Scnotfulo
on Karen 31 on Juno 30 on SsBtoaur in
lianaisrs «v
. ¥ttn CTassl Nansiors «un Class I Handlers •unciasi l Handlers
violations on uctaoor 1 violations on Octooor 1 violations on Octooor I Violations on Octooor 1
of
CUMPllANCE FUMMULA A3 — NA*Jl£RS SCrtlW SChCUUL£/UM W XMCflULf
Nanolors aonlno Scnooulo Handlers ttontno Scnooulo Nanolsrs Honlnd ScAsdulo Handlers
.31 im Scnodulo on nar 31 im Scnoaulo on Jun au /an r^ij
T™^ Mandlors «Uh Class I MMiors »ttn ciass i HanUif.^
•un Cuts I HandUrs •<» Class I MMiors m\ut Class I Hanwir.'t ««ta
violations on Octooor i violations on Octooor 1 violations on October 1 violations e«
Of
- 34 -
-------
• (con
Table II below is an example of the application of Compliance Fomula A.
This example Illustrates tracking for only one universe of Handlers, a group
o£ ISO handlers out of compliance on Octooer 1, 19XX.
TABLE II -• SCAI*PL£ OF FOPWLA A
i
Category Dac.31 Mar.31 Jun 30 Seo 30
Returned to compliance
(Compliance Fonaula Al) 20% 30% 40% SOI
On schedule
(Compliance Fonwla A2) 50% 30%- 20% 40% *
No schedule or behind
schedule
(Compliance Formula A3)
TOTAL
In this example, by the end of the first quarter, 30 of the 150 handlers (20%)
have returned to compliance, 75 (50%) are on schedules to achieve compliance, and
45 (30%) either do not have a schedule yet or are behind schedule.
By the end of the second quarter, IS nere of the) 150 handlers have
reached compliance, for a total of 45 (or 30%> handlers in compliance. Forty-five
handlers (30%) are on schedule to reach oanpliance and 60 (40%) are either
behind schedule or do not have a schedule.
The value of this type of tracking system is that one can follow the
progress of a fixed universe of handlers over tine until all come into
compliance.
raSMlLA B - GCN9UAHCK RATE *T A POINT IN TIMK
The second •^•rlT will take a "snapshot* of handlers with Class I
violations at the aiddle (March 31) and at the end (September 30) of
fiscal year. The fooula looks at all handlers out of compliance on those dates
as a factor of the* matter of handlers that haws been evaluated. To compute
the total number of handlers out of compliance, SUB the nutter of handlers
on a compliance ^chenille, behind schedule, or on no schedule for all violators.
The number of handlers evaluated includes all handlers that have received
inspections and/or record reviews. Table ZZZ below illustrates Compliance
Formula B.
- 35 -
-------
APPENDIX 3 (conc'd)
TABLE III — COMPLIANCE PORMJIA B AND EXAMPLE
Handlers with Class I Handlers vich Class I
Violations on March 31 Violations on Sept. 30
local Number of Handlers local Number of Handlers
Evaluated Evaluated
Handlers with Class I Violations: Mar 31 Sept 30
On compliance schedule (Formula A2)
Behind schedule/ no schedule (Formula A3)
Total Number of Handlers Evaluated co Date
Percent in Compliance
1000
500
1500
3000
50*
1370
1150
2520
4500
44%
In this example, of the 3,000 handlers evaluated as of March 31, 1,500
have Class I violations. The compliance rate is 501. As the State inspects
more handlers, completes more record reviews, and conducts more in-depth
inspections, they find more Class I violations. As of September 30, of the
4,500 handlers evaluated, 2,520 have Class I violations. The compliance
rate decreases to 44Z.
The change in the compliance rate from one period to another must be
analyzed on a case-by-case basis to properly interpret the situation.
A decrease in the compliance rate does not necessarily mean that a State's
performance is becoming less effective. In fact; it may mean that a State's
performance is improving. The State may be finding more Class I violations
because they are looking at handlers more closely. On the other hand, a
decreasing trend in the compliance rate may mean that the State is finding
violations, but not taking timely and appropriate enforcement actions to
bring handlers into compliance. Because of this, EPA will not use this
compliance rate alone to judge a State program, but will base its Judgment
of the quality of the program on the overall Scace program.
- 36 -
------- |