&EPA
Environmental Protection
Agency
ol
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
DIRECTIVE NUMBER: 954i.oo-5c
TITLE: Capability Assessments for RCRA Authorization
Program Revisions ^
APPROVAL DATE:
EFFECTIVE DATE:
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Osw
D FINAL
DRAFT
STATUS:
A- Pending OMB approval
B- Pending AA-OSWER approval
C- For review &/or comment
[ ] D- In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other document*): headquarters
O.QM/PP
'E DIRECTIVE DIRECTIVE D
-------
I
r&EPA
r. r - ••
asriIngton DC 20460 I
OSWER Directive Initiation Request I
Orginaror lnformaP,ori
Name of Contact Person
Susan Absher
Mail C
WH— 3B Bf, h Telepnone Numoer
I 202—382—2210
Lead Office
0 OERR
0
OUST
OWPE
Approved for Review
Signature of Office Director Dare
OSW
AA OSWER
title
Capability
A
ssessments for RCRA Authorization Program Revisions
Summary of Directive
A draft memorandum to be signed by Win Porter on the conduct of Capability
Assessments for authorization for the HSWA requirements. This draft guidance
should be applied to any State for which a HSWA application has been received
and the Federal Register notice.has not been published.
Key Words:
Capability Assessment
Type of Directive (Manual. Policy Qirecrn’e. Announcement. etc i
Policy Directive
Status
Draft
0 Final
0 New
0 Revision
Doee this Directive Supersede Previous Directive s;? Yes
If Yes to Either Question What Directive (number title)
No
Does It Supplement Previous Direc(ive(sf
Yes
No
I
Review Plan
0 AA.OSWER 0 OUST 0 OECM
0 OERR 0 OWPE 0 OGC
osw 0 Regions 0 OPPE
0
Other (Specify/
?auest Meets OSWER Directives System Format
ure of Lead Office Directives Officer
Date
Signature of OSWER Directives Officer
Date
-------
os’ r, ‘_L ? r : ::n O.
ST 11
9541 00- C.
w UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY
WASHINGTON 0 C 20460 OCT 1 6 l58R
o r I4
OFCICE OF
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
M E?1ORAN DUN
SUBJECT. Capability Assessments for RCRA Authorizatiofl
Program Revisions
AjiP W
FROM: Bruce R. Weddle, Directorj
Permits and S áte Pr r m Division
Lloyd S. t 4 ’
RCRA Enforcement Division
TO: Hazardous Waste Division Directors
Regions I-X
Attached is a draft memorandum to be signed by Win Porter
on the conduct o± Capability Assessments for authorization
for the HSWA requirements. The approach outlined is based
on the discussion we had at the Division Directors’ meeting
in Washington on July 8. This draft guidance should be applied
to any State for which a HSWA application has been received
and the Federal Register notice has not been published.
Please review and send any comments you have to Susan Absher,
OSW, W}1-563B, or telephone 382-2210, by October 29, 1986.
Attachments
CC: RCRA Branch Chiefs,
Regions I-X
State Programs Branch, OSW
Implementation and Compliance Branch, OWPE
-------
OS L rGL ! i iECT VE NO.
9541 .oo ‘:‘c
DRAFT
1 EMO RAN DUM
SUBJECT• Capability Assessments for RCRA Auchorizatio:i
Program Revisions
FROM. J. Winston Porter, Assisca Administrator
Solid Waste and Eniergency Response (W}i-562B)
TO• Regional Administrators,
Regions I-X
State performance and capability will continue to be
important considerations as we begin to make authorization
decisions on State program revisions for the HSWA requirements.
Capability assessments provide EPA with a continuing mechanism
to identify areas of State programs that warrant enhancement
and to establish the EPA and State actions necessary to
strengthen the programs. In general, States should demonstrate
the ability to capably implement the base RCRA program as well
as the additional elements of HSWA for which they are seeking
authorization. Those States having problems with implementing
the base program should be discouraged from seeking authorization
for further aspects of the program until they have demonstrated
capability for those elements either through a cooperative
arrangement or by implementing similar State authorities
(e.g., State corrective action authority).
A capability assessment need not be prepared for every
program revision application. I am primarily concerned about
State authorization for HSWA provisions that may significantly
impact the State’s workload. Obviously, this category includes
-------
O W OL C? :C1 E O.
-2- 41 .OO ’Q
those .applicacions Covering all or most of the July 15, 1985
codificacio:i rule provisions or any appticatio:i that includes
corrective action. Lt would not include a State application
that just addresses the §3006(f) availability of information
requirements nor in most situations an application or additional
waste listings. It is difficult to develop a comprehensive
list of tb’jse provisions tor which an assessment is or is
not needed because some provisions which do not warrant an
assessment if applied tor singly may need an assessment if
their combined workload is significant. As you review your
State authorization schedules, your staff should consult
with OSW/OWPE staff before determining that an assessment
is not needed.
OSWER has refined the approa’ch initially used to develop
capability assessments. This memo, with the attached
checklist and instructions, provides guidance on this new
approach. We have established two categories o States as
detailed below. For each category, we developed a capability
assessment approach designed to ensure quality reviews of
State hazardous waste programs while minimizing the burden of
conducting comprehensive capability assessments. These cate-
gories are:
Group 1. This category includes those States that
consistently meet or exceed grant commitments, as well as the
more critical RCRA quality criteria elements (e.g. , timely and
appropriate enforcement action and technically adequate RFA’s).
-------
OSViE F [ L T.’ •: TlvE [ $0.
-3- 9F4i OO
A iy problems previously idenciried in evaluations or these
State programs have been or are being corrected. These States
also nave the potential to meet the additional requirements
of HSWA.
Group 2. These States generally fail to meet certai:i
grant commitments and/or the more critical RCRA Quality Criteria.
This category also includes States that have met grant commitments
but are unlikely to continue to do so with the additional HSWA
workload.
We suggest the following approaches for these groups
Group 1. The attached chart must be completed to.
demonstrate that the important quality criteria and grant
.comm].tments have been met. No narrative is necessary if
the Region submits current documentation that explains why
the pertormarice is satisfactory. The chart should be completed
based on available information such as existing State program
evaluations (quarterly, mid-year, end-of-year), monthly State
reports, tracking of items detailed in the MOA and any other
State/EPA agreement, and day-to-day contact with the State.
Group 2. For States in this category, the Region and
State, in consultation with OSW/OWPE staff, will, agree on an
action plan to correct problems identified in the attached
chart. We suggest that until these problems are corrected,
the Region delay the tentative decision on authorization.
Any delay should be minor tor States needing short-term
improvements (e.g., training of newly hired inspectors).
-------
OSWR POLICY DIRECTIVE !O.
4 9541 00- 4 1
However, where States tace significant problems (e.g., inability
to draft land disposal permits) they should be discouraged
from seeking additional authorities until these problems are
corrected. Should such States persist in applying for addicio:-ial
authority, the Region will need to prepare an action plan (in
consultation with Headquarters) chat explicitly identifies what
the State must do to qualify tor authorization. Regardless of
whether short or long-term improvements are needed, the time
required to complete a comprehensive capability assessment (and
to demonstrate the necessary improvements to the State program)
should be tactored into the Region’s schedule for authorizing
the State. 05W and OWPE staff will be available to review and
comment on proposed action plans before these are finally nego-
tiated with the States.
I would like to reiterate that our purpose in continuing
to conduct capability assessments in some instances is not
to prevent or hinder States from obtaining authorization for
additional, elements of RCRA, but rather to ensure that States
are fully capable of assuming the new responsibilities before
we authorize them.
A tacI- e nts
C: RCRA Branch Chiefs,
Regions I-X
Marcia Williams
Gene Lucero
State Programs Branch, OSW
Implementation and Compliance Branch, OWPE
-------
Capability Asses iients for H 4A Authorities
FORCEMF} T
1. State has multi-year canpliance monitori:- stracegy.*
2. State has met grant caniuiients for.*
o ME inspections
o CEI inspections
o Generator/trans rter inspections
o Inspection of TSDF’s receiv1r CFPCLA wastes
o Closi facilities inspections
o Verificatioris*
o Record reviews
* * ** *** .* * * .L. .1 . ** **** *** ****** **** ***************
3.
Inspection and record reviews are choroi h and
properly docu nented.
o Inspection checklists are canplete and accurate
o Violations are well docunented
o Files are maintained and readily accessible*
o QIE’ s are conducted in accordance with TB D
o State properly classifies violations
4. State takes timely and appropriate enforce nent action.
o For HPV’ s formal canplaint issued or case referred
within 90 days*
o For Class I violations, Q.iality Criteria tiineframes
are followed*
o Penalties are assessed appropriately*
o E forcenent actions specify r riedies aix! dates for
canpletion
I I
1 1
fill/If I//fl/If Il/I
///I///////I/1/////
OSWER POUCY Di1 ECTiVE F O.
9541 .OO- c ’
Sans- Needs tin-
factory prov nent
/ / / / / / / / / / 1/ / / / / / / /
////I/iii’itiiii I/f
//////////i/i//////
/////////////ji / / /i
///////////////////
I//fl/If I/Il/If/I/I
//////////I////////
////////////I//////
5. State follows lace aix! inc nplete Part B policy.*
* see instructions
-------
1. State meets permit grant cnitlents.*
0 Land Disposal
- Catlpleterless/tecft-iical reviews
- draft permit/public notices
- final determLnatio:-Is
0 Incinerators
- c npleteness/technic i reviews
- draft permit/pubLic notices
- final determinations
- canpleteriess/tecbnjcal reviews
- draft perrnit/public notices
- final determinations
2. State meets closure grant c(xuni 1ents:*
o Land disposal
- canpleceness/cech-ijca]. reviews
- public notices
- plan approvals
o Incinerators
- canpleteness/technical reviews
- public notices
- plan approvals
- c pleteness/technica1 reviews
- public notices
- pLan approvals
* see instructions
fl ’ R POUCY D11 ECTIVE N :
P J 1ITS AND CLDSURE PLA S
Satis-
factory
OO- C; 4
Needs Im-
prov e nt
//I/III/////// [ /7 / /
////////i//////i/i/
:
1/ / / iii! / I I / / III / / I
° Storage
__ I__
I//I/I/f 1/I//I//I/I
///////////////////
//I//If/7///////// 7
///////////i/iI////
/ ///////////////// /
////////////u//////
///////I///////////
Ill//If lii fl//If//I
///////////////////
o Storage
I
I//////////////iiii
///////////////////
I
I
-------
-3—
P MITS AND CLOSURE PLANS (co tmued)
L’ FCUY C:SEC V
9 41 OO-5C
3. Permic/Closure plan quality*
o ALl r ulatory requirenents are addressed
Ebcunents are technically sound
Sacis- Needs Im-
tac tory prov i enc
I
0 E jcuiiencs are enforceable
************************************************************
4. Public participation
° State follows public participation requirei ents in
processir permits arid closure plans
0 State meets grant c nL ents for public involve ent
activities
1. State ensures that RYA’s and RI’s identify and
evaluate all 4t1U’s and 1c own/likely releases.
********************** *************************************
2. State ensures that RFA recamnendations for RI, interim
measures or corrective action are adequately doct ented
to support permit or canpi iance order conditions.
*************************************r**********************
3. State ensures that RI and corrective action plans
contain enforceable schedules of canpliance.
**************************************-k*********************
4. State monitors approved RI and corrective action plans.
************ ) k******************************* k
5. State ensures that correc:ive action plans specify the
expected results and how these will be measured.
/ / / I / / / / / / / / / / / / / /7
/////////////iiiii /
///////////////////:
CORRECTIVE ACrIO
Satis- Needs In-
tac tory Rrovenent
f/Ill/I/f,
1/1/1111/
/////////i/////////
If iitiiii7iiiiiitii
* see instructions
-------
1. esources, staff i arx:1 data manag nent•
o Resources :1].ocaced in accordance with grant
o Staff adequately trai:-ied, appropriate skill mix
o State effectively utilizes information/data syst
in support of their progr , syst n provides timely
a accurate permit, enforc ent, closire and
corrective action information
o State informs EPA of progr i cha es
icicn
o State meets MOA/grant carulliunents for reportir ,
program coordination, etc.
3. Facility Managenent Pla:1rIi :*
o State s a process for planrii:-g and coordinati:-g
enforcenent and permittir actions at all
enviroruientally significant facilities
o State has developed and is impleiienti a multi-
year strat y that addresses Fow the responsible
agency(ies) plan to permit and/or brirg all TSEF’s
into ca pliance with applicable r ulations
///////I///////////
///////////////////
1••
-4-
1ANAG ftl
- Dc:cTIVE i D ’
9 •)’ ! OO Sc
Sacis- weeds tm-
tactory prov nent
2. Reportir
—•1
* see instructions
-------
OSWE POLICY D REC /E NO.
9541 •OO-’ (--
INSTRUCTIONS
The sacisfacco yH or “needs i1T provernent” colunm should be
checked for each item or “N/A” filled in per the instructions
below. “Satisfactory” indicates that granr commitments or the
Quality Criteria elements were fully met, if the Region judges
that a lesser level of pertormance is satisfactory, the reason
should be explained. “Needs improvement” means some level of
Improvement is needed, short-term corrective steps may not
delay authorization (see transmittal memo from Win Porter)
The numbers below correspond to the numbers on the checklist.
Enforcement
1. State has multi-year compliance monitoring strategy: The
State multi-year compliance monitoring strategy may be a
separate document or may be incorporated into the MOA or
other State-EPA agreement. To meet the satisfactory stand-
ard, the State must meet the Criteria found under Key
Questions 1, 2, and 6 under Enforcement Program Criteria
on pages 8, 9, 10, and 14 of the Quality Criteria.
2. State has met grant commitments: If no grant commitments
were negotiated for a particular item, mark N/A for not
applicable. Satisfactory should be marked only when the
State has met the initial grant commitments. If grant
commitments have been renegotiated during the fiscal year,
the Region should justify the new numbers and any satis-
factory rating in writing.
3. Verifications: Verifications (including record reviews and
inspections) must be pertormed within 30 days of the final
compliance date at all facilities in violation and scheduled
to return to compliance.
4. Files are maintained and readily accessible: It is essen-
tial that case development/case referral files be compre-
hensive, well-documented, and current to ensure that
enfor etnent actions are timely and that all available
evidence is accurately identified.
For HPVs formal complaint issued or case referred within
90 days: A formal complaint is to be issuitd within 90
days after violation discovery by those States with ad-
ministrative penalty authority. A case is to be referred
within 90 days after violation discovery by those States
with no administrative penalty authority.
-------
S ’E OLICV D EUiIVE NO.
-2- 9 4i ØO C-
4. Continued.
For Class I violations, Quality Criteria timeframes are
followed• To meet the satisfactory standard, a State must
meet the Criteria found under Key Question 4.8. (Enforce-
ment Program Criteria on pages 12 and 13 of the Quality Criteria).
Penalties are assessed appropriately• Penalties are assessed
in accordance with the Eritorcemerit Response Policy.
5. State follows late and incomplete Part B policy: A late,
incomplete, or inadequate Part B application is a Class I
violation. As such, no more than two NOD’s should be issued
before assessing a penalty. The penalty assessed should be
in accordance with the Civil Pe: dlty Policy for all Part 270
and contributing Part 265 violations. If the owner/operator
fails to comply by the date specified, the State.should ini-
tiate termination of interim status by issuing a notice of
intent to deny.
Permits and Closure Plans
l-2.State meets permit grant commitments; State meets closure
grant commitments. See Instructions No. 2 under Enforcement.
3. Permit/closure plan quality: OSW has developed permit and
closure/post-closure plan quality review documents. These
documents should be used to determine the quality of permits
issued and closure/post-closure plans approved by a State.
We expect the Regions to use these documents to review a
representative sample of permirs issued and closure/post-
closure plans approved by the State before making a judg-
ment regarding a State’s rating in this area.
Corrective Action
This section need be completed only when a State is seeking
authorization tor the corrective action portion of HSWA
authorization. States are likely to have the least amount
of experience in this area. However, where States have had
experience with corrective action, either as EPA’s agent or
under State authorities, their performance should be evalu-
ated. For the five elements listed under the corrective
action section, rate the elements for which a State has had
some experience. For those elements for which a State has
had no experience, mark “N/A” tor “not applicable”. This
section is based on draft corrective action guidances. When
these guidances are finalized, this section will be revised.
-------
OS ’ER POLICY D!RECTIVE NO.
-3- 9 41 0 oO 5c
i 1ariageme c
3. Facility maiagerneric pla-i ii-ig To complete this sectiori,
reter to Key Questioris I through 4 urider Goal. #3, Mariage-
merit Criteria, ori pages 27 arid 28 of the Quality Criteria.
Lt should be rioted that eritorcenierit arid perrnittirig accioris
LriClUde closures arid corrective actjori.
------- |