Slflta
.Environment*)
                   :Soiid W«iia and
  DIRECTIVE NUMBER:  9543.01-84
  TITLE:-'State" Capability Assessment Guidance

  APPROVAL DATE:   06/26/84
  EFFECTIVE DATE:   06/26/84
  ORIGINATING OFFICE:
  E;FINAL
 PPRAFT
   'STATUS:
                  [-.  ]  :;A-:Pending OMB-approval
                  [  j  ;B-^ Pending'AA-OSWER"approval
                  '[;  J - iC-:7or.reyiew &/or comment
                  I; ;]= D^-In-developmentfor-.circulating"
REFERENCElotherdocunnenta):;         headquarters,

-------
PART 271 ASSESSMENT OF STATE CAPABILITIES i XC 9543.01(34)
Key Words: State Authorization
Regulations: 40 CFR Part 270
Subject: State Capability Assessment Guidance
Addressee: Regional Administrators, Regions t—X
Originator: Lee M. Thomas, Assistant Administrator
Source Doc: //9543.01(84)
Date: 2—21—84; 6—26—84; 11—13—84; 12—27—84
Summary:
The following is a summary several guidances issued to Regional
administrators or assessing State capabilities for final authorization.
Before recorendirtg authorization of a State program, Regional Adminis-
trators should work with States to identify areas of program inadequacy and
weakness and to devise remedial measures.
A joint review by the Region and State of the State’s capability should
occur as early in the final authorization process as possible. It must provide
for:
o an assessment of the quality of the State’s past performance under
interim authorization or cooperative arrangements including compliance
monitoring and enforcement, permitting, and State program management;
o the identification of State and EPA actions which will be taken to
ensure State capabilities.
The basic criteria for evaluating State capability are the.Criteria for a
Quality RCRA Program, developed jointly by EPA and the States. These criteria
will also be used as a component of the Headquarters review of Regional activ —
fties where EPA operates the RCRA program.
The Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) or Its equivalent should reflect agreement
on the responsibilities of both EPA and the State in sustaining program quality
over time.
The Region must include in its Action Memorandum transmitting the Federal
Register Notice of Tentative Decision (or Final Decision if the State is later
in the authorization process):
o a description of the major aspects of past State performance relevant
to State capability for final authorization;
o an outline of the steps agreed to by the Region and the State to enhance
program capability; and

-------
Continued from Document 9543.01(84)
HQ developed the following schedule for review of State capabiltty:
o For States that have not yet submitted an official application, the
capability assessment should be addressed in the Action Memorandum for
tentative decision.
o For States that have submitted an official application, the assessment
should be addressed (where possible) in the Action Memorandum. If it
is too late in the review process for this, the assessment should be
addressed in the Action Memorandum for final determination.
The review must not be completed later than the final Action Memorandum
and Federal Register Notice of Final Decision.
When notice of the Region’s decision is published in the Federal Register,
the Region must place copies of the Capability Assessment and Letter of Intent
in the State Authorization File for public access.
To ensure timely Headquarters’ concurrence on tentative and final
determination decision packages, the State Capability Assessments contained
in those packages should include:
1) a chart outlining specific grant commitments and State accomplishments
in the areas of permitting, compliance monitoring and enforcement for
FY84;
2) specific schedules and/or dates, in the Letter of tntent or Memorandum
of Agreement, that implement both EPA and State activities identified
as necessary to enhance the State’s RCRA program; and
3) specific documentation of weaknesses found in State program areas not
identified in the grant accomplishment chart.

-------
9543.01 (84)
OE 2T
M F2M C RAN DUM
SUBJECT: Additional Guidance on RCRA State Capability Assess iiertts
‘s’ ack .
FRCM: Lee II. Thomas ‘ ‘
Assistant Administrator (WH—562—A)
ro: Regional Administrators
Regions I — X
Your assessment of the State’s capability to implen’ent a
cuality RCRA program is an Ie portant part of the ‘process of
rriaking a Tentative cter ination to grant RCRA final authori-
zation. :ccuidance on conducting the capability assessments
was issued on June 26.) To help ensure timely Headquarters’
concurrence on both tentative and final determination decision
packages, this memorandum provides additional guidance on
capability assessments.
Our review of the assessments indicates the need for
a more formalized process to collect the information
needed to assess the State c’apability. This process will
ensure that program quality/capability can be readily
discerned from the decision packages and that the packages
can be processed well withLn the 10.-day concurrence period.
Please make sure that your tentative and final determina-
tion decision packages include the following:
1. A chart outlining specific grant commitments and
State acco plish.ments in the areas of perm .tting,
compliance monitoring and enforcement for F ( 84
(suggested format attached). A similar chart should
also be updated upon submittal of the Final Decision
(and for Notices of Tentative Decisions submitted
later this year) with respect to State commitments
and accomplishments to date in FY 85.
2. As you know, the assessments must include an agreement
in the form of a Letter of Intent or Memorandum of
Agreement that outlines specific State and EPA actions
necessary to strengthen State program capability and
sustain a quality RCR.A program over time. The Letter

-------
of tnt.nt or Metorandue of -A r..eont aust include
spacific #schadul.s and/or dates for ispl. entin
both PA and Stat. activities identified as necessary
for enhancing the State’s R( A program. ?..ett.rs or
e randa which are vague or genersitsad ar. sore
likely to )ead to unachieved expectations and
m ieunderst and i nçs. It is t’ oratLve that both we
and the Stat. clearly understand and acre. to these
specific mileatones so that each program knows
what is ex;ect.d. Por •xs ple, if the State ha.
not se its inspection cc ait snts for ground—
vat.r.sorutoring facilities, the aqr.e .nt sbould
reference a sch.wlule identifying specific facilities
to be inspected a’ d a tla.table for coepletion of
those Inspections Irt the ccising year. .The age’sem.nt
would also specify a tis.table for the State to
hire additional tnspectora,snd an EP? inspection
schedule that would temporarily augment the State
program and enable the State tos..t its Inspection
c mi taents.
3. Where woaknesaes are found In Stat.progra i areas
not identified in the grant acco.p ltahaent chart,
include specific documentation, to uppoct. the
findings. Por example, a Stat. capability assees.aent
may conclude that the State •ttorn.y general has
been slow in processing cases referred by the program
office. Th. assessment would identify the specific
nu b.r of cases referred inrt 4, and the currant
status of those cases at the tia. of th. I3s3sS nt
(pending. filed etc.). .çorr.ctive asures for
this situation would be addressed in the Letter of
Intent or in the Memorandue of Acreement.
I encourag, you to submit drafts f your capability assess—
ments to R.adquarters (OSW’s State Programs aranch) prior to
transmitting your tentative or final 4.ter ijnationg. ay re tewtng
draft, in advance, the Office of Solid Wast, and the Offic. of
Waste Programs enforcement are able totdentify and assist in
resolving potential problem areas in the docuzent without being
constrained by the 10—day concurrence pøriod. -
Attachment
cci Waste Manageo.nt Division Directors,
Regions I —X - -

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, 0.C. 20460
FEB 2 I 1984
OP1ICE OF
30U0 WASTE ANO EMlRcaiicv PGNU
M 1ORANDU?4
SUBJECT: Review of State Capability in RCR Final
FROM: so M. Tfi as
Assistant Administrator (WE—562—A)
TO: Regional Administrators
Region I —
At the heart of the- Federal and State- implementation of- the-
hazardous waste management program under R BA must be a co itment
to quality in the pec its we issue, the enforcement actions we
initiate, the corrective steps we undertake, and the information
we provide to the public on program accomplishments. The States
are pivotal to the success of this effort. Our 3 oint commitment
to quality under final authorization is critical to meeting our
mandate under the statute. Capable managers at all levels working
together toward co on objectives is a. prerequisite to an effective,
high quality program.
It is appropriate, therefore, to re—affirm the importance of
jointly completing with the States a detailed review of program
capability as a. key component of the final authorization process.
The enactment of state statutory authority and promulgation of
regulations, although critical steps, must be coupled with a firm
commitment to enhance program capability to effectively implement
the authorized State program.
Zt - is im .rative that you reach agreement with each State,
before- the finaL authorization decjsioit La made, on the .steps
ecessary to strengthen program capability and sustain a quality
State RCRA program over time. I am optimistic that the States will
have achieved adequate program capability to implement the R A
program. owever, if your joint review with the State leads
you to conclude that the State does not have this capability,
you should be prepared to recoiertd that the State’s application
for final authorization be denied

-------
2
The Review of State Caoability
The Region am± State should jointly conduct a detailed
re’rie of State caa Lity to identi fy areas that require
strengtherxirz . This revie i shouI use information, gathered
i previous reviewa or analyses, particu.LarLy the mid—year
an end—of-year emEuations an other acti3itiee ralated t
the. annual pro a rant .. The re ie should address those
portions o the Federal. program’ a State has been conducting
f (t.f under a cooperative arangement) or’ in Lieu of
EP (U they have interim authorization). i t t the latter
instance, more stringent State requirements may be included
if they are- part of the progra authorized by EPA.. Areas of
a State’ s program’ broader in scope than the Federal program
are not part of the ’ authorized program and need not be included
in the review.
‘r i review. must be- broad, enough to isolate the issues and
needs of botft EP, and the- State to manage the program’ under
finaL State author±zation ... tt must provide for:
MT Assessment of the Quality of The State’s Past
Performance Under Inter .m Authorizat .on or Cooperative
Arrangements . Areas to consLder i.riclude:
— The compliance monitoring and enforcement program
under Lnterim authorization or cooperative arrange—
Enents, including an analysis of the number and
thoroughness of inspections, the number, type and.
timeliness, of enforcement actions, and the- improve—
nent shown by the’ State in bringiri /Lolators
into compliance.
— The permitting program under interim authorization
or cooperative arrangements, including the number
and types of permit actions handled, conformance
to technical. and. procedural, requirements, and
future p.rmitting. traeegy;
— State program’ management, including resources, skLU,
mix, State organization, institutional constraints
(organization, salary rate, etc.), training needs,
legal support, and timeliness for filling vacancies.
Even when such areas cannot be directly influenced
by EPA. or the State program (e.g., salaries’) they
should be noted.
The Ederitification of State and EPA Actions Which Will
Be Taken To Ensure State Capab .lities . . The ac ’tLon.s
should:

-------
3.
— Defin, resource Levels, skill six, training needs
anit other factors necessary to address. management
issues. raised Ln the assessment of. past perforarice.
the - leveL at Regional iavalve nt in. direct
i’ tP!+ after fina ’ authorization-, and the fora
a ataat of ver igftt an assistance over time.
Rs cgnize the value of flexible State management
approaches and,. where appropriate, account for State
institutE ’naL constraints or- other unique features
that determine the farm of. the authorized. program.
tJse at The Review En E’inal Authorization Process .
The joint review of State capability should take place as
early in. the- final. authorization process. as. possible, most
ap ropriateL before the draft a piicatiorr is submitted. to EPA..
The t’temorandum o Agreement (MOA) or- ar equivalent document
(e.g., joint Letter- of intent) should.. reflect agreement on the
responsibilities of both gPAI an the State in- sustaining- program.
quality over- time.. Through the MOA, the Regions and States
should agree- to use the program grant process to annually (or
more frequently) identify and Commit to specific actions required
to strengthen the State program. The specific coients and
associated resource impact should be incorporated into the State’s
grant work. program..
T a. facilitate- the final, authorization- decision, your- Action.
Memorandum. transmitting- the- Federal Register Notice of Tentative
Decision (or Final DecisiorT-TrTEZte is later i t t the authorization
process) must: (a.) describe- the major aspects of past State perform-
ance relevant to State capability under final authorization, (b)
outline the steps. agreed to by the Region and. State to enhance
program capability, a.nd. (c) include- a; statement that affirms that
these actions will, result in. the implementation of a quality RCRA
progr . Aa stats before-,. t.t you. conclude f o your revte that
a State- doe. not have the capability tc implement the- RCR? program,
then- you. should. rec end. that the State’s application be denied.
Timely- completion of the review is critical to demonstrate
that proper consideration has been given to identifying and
resolving State capability questions prior to the decision on
final authorization. Because we have already received several
draft a.nd. official applications,, the following schedule shou 14
be foLlowed:

-------
4
foe States ub jc .h I ave not yet submitted an official
plici iorr the caability - assessment should be
addreesect Lz , the Action. Memorandum fa tentative

fc Stataz w ic tave submitted. a officiaL applica—
tfzm the aa.i.ssment shcui a.Lsa be addressed Cwhere
csst1 L.y L the Action Memcrandu for tentative
decision.. ffcvever, if it is too Lat, in the review
process to permit this, the assessment should be
addressed. L the Action Memcrandu for final.
deter ’ ir atio n..
In no case is :he - review of State capability to be completed later
than the final Action Memorandum and. Federal Register Notice of
Final Decision....
A ow knot.,,. Z t av eetabLishet latht Reçion/State task force-
eo ccnsidee the questiorr of RCR progra qua Lity.. The outputs frc
this task. force ilL provide more specific guJ .dance. and. po1icy on
ceiteri.a t be used. ir evaluating pragra performance under final.
State authorization.... We dO’ not expect to issue the final policy on
RCPA program quality until April, 1984, However , to the extent
feasible you nay wish to use the- criteria developed by the task
force to assist you. in performing the State capability reviews
outlined, above, The cr .terj4 you use should be based on the
circumstances.. appropriate to. your- situation and your experience
with eact State...
Support an& assistance in completing the reviews during the
final authorLzatiorr process will be provided by the Permits and
State Programs. Division, Office of Solid Waste. The State Programs
Branch will be developing recommended MOA language, a model Action
Memorandum’ and a. sample review- of State capability to implement
the ne requirements.. This. wiLL be- completed in. spring, 1984.
cc: Rejon L ezardcu Waste Mam ement tvisiorr Directors
OSWB Office’ Dtrector
LriC - Sniff,. Office of nforcemene and. Compliance 4onitorLng
t...i.sa Friedman-, Office of Gene -aL Counsel
Bruce Weddle, Acting Director, Permits and State
Programs Division
Donald Lazarchik, President, Association of State &
Territorial SoLid Waste Management Officials
State Sazardous Waste Mana emeat Directo.rs

-------
JUN 2 6 84
z
MEHORAUDtM
8UWECTz State Capability Asaessi ent Guidance
Isignedl Lee M. Thomas
FR0M Lee M . Thomas
Assistant Adu’iniutrator
TOs Pegienal Administrators, Regions I —
On february 21, I wrote to you explaining the importance
of assessing State program capability as a key component of
the final authorization process. I asked that before you
r.co,’iyend authorization of a State program you work with the
State to evaluate its capabilities and come to an agreement
on whether action is required to strengthen those capabilities.
Several Regions requested guidance on conducting these aesessi ents.
The attached guidance was developed after reviewing several
capability assessments and receiving tomrents fror the Pegions
on a draft guidance docui ent.
In conducting these assessrnents, you should work close1
with the States to identify areas of program inadequacy and
weakness and to devise remedial measures. The basic criteria
to be used In this evaluation are the Criteria for a Quality
PCRA Progr , developed jointly by EPA and the States. These
are the same criteria which will be used as a component of
the Headquarters review of Regional activities where EPA
operates the RCRA prograw.
It should be clearly understood that this review allows
the Region and the State to take a prospective view of the
PCRA progr and mutually establish capability objectives and
supporting strategies for their accomplt ihment. Its purpose
is not to be an impediment to final authorization unless the
Pegional Administrator feels the weaknesses in the State
prograi’ are so severe that additional tim. is needed to
a State’s ability to implement rerredial measures. Throu. t-
this exercise we hr p to avoid gr ntLn j final authorIzation
to a State only to he faced soon after with ccncern about

-------
—2—
inadequate psrforaance and uncertainty about the criteria used
to measure it. Your Action Mei’torandur should affiri that the
rs edtal actions delineated in the capability aeseisi ent are
mutually agreed upon strategies which will result in a qizality
RCRA program.
Support and assistance in completing the reviews will be
provided by the state Programs Branch, P.rri’its and State Prograris
Division, Office of Solid Waste. t r.e nd that a draft of
your capability assesei’ enta be submitted to that Branch before
you aesk State concurrence on corrective Measures. Co ’ ments
will be provided as quickly s possible.
Attachment
cci Regional Hazardous Waste Management
Division Directors
bcc: OSWER Office Directors
Lisa Friedi an, OGC
Tony Montrone, OWPE
Bruce Weddle, OSW
Truett DeGeare, OSW

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, C C. 20460
NO’] 1984
1. u SO iO WASTE ANO EMEPCENC’ RESPONSE
M EMO RAN DU M
SUBJECT: Placement of Capability Assessments in Authorization
F i le
FROM: Bruce R. Weddle
Director, Permits and State
Programs Division (WH —563)
TO: Hazardous Waste Division Directors
Regions t—X
The Capability Assessments which you develop when making
tentative and final decisions on authorizing a State’s hazard-
ous waste management program are an integral part of our
decision—making process. This being the case, the Office of
General Counsel has informed us that the Capability Assessment
and Letter of Intent must be included in the ub3.ic record.
Therefore, when notice of the Region’s decL3.. n is published
in the Federal Register , copies of these doc ents should
be placed in your State Authorization File :‘ - access by the
publ ic.
Several decisions have already been publist-ted. If the
Capability Assessment was not part of the Auhon i zation File
at the time of publication, consult with you Office of
Regional Counsel before adding them to the F e now.
cc: John Skinner
Truett DeGeare
Gail Cooper
ORC Team Leaders

-------