&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 This draft guidance should be applied to any State for which a HSWA application has been received and the Federal Register notice.has not been published.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 This draft guidance should be applied to any State for which a HSWA application has been received and the Federal Register notice has not been published.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. ------- |