Ui ,r,ø St.,..
£nviro,,.r .., Pro ciien
Aq CY
Oflc. of
So u a$Is
Ern.rg.r Rsioos.
&EPA
IiVPP
t)’
1fli P
( QIfl! D
DIREC
TIVE
DIREC
TIVE
/3
DIRECTIVENUMBER. 954 5.00-6A
TITLE: RCRA Program Evaluation Guide
APPROVAL DATE: 08/11/88
EFFECTIVE DATE: 08/11/88
ORIGINATING OFFICE: Office of Solid Waste
FINAL
DRAFT
j A— Pending O? approval
STATUS: [ J B— Pending AA—OSWER approval
[ C— For review &for coent
[ ] D— In development or circulating
REFERENCE (other documents): headqua r g
“RCRA Evaluation Guide” (OSWER Directive 119545.00—6)

-------
United States nvironmen1ai Protection Agency —
EP 1 A Washinglon DC
OSWER Directive Initiation Request
I Directive Number
9545 . 00 - k’
2 Or1ç thator information
Name of Contact Person IM Code I0 e ITelephone Code
Kathy S. Margolis WH—563 OSW I 382—2232
3 Title
RCR Program Evaluation Guide
4 Summary of Directive (include brief statement of purpose)
This revised evaluation guide establishes procedures and guidelines to assist EPA
Regions in conducting State program reviews. This evaluation guide establishes
minimum requirements applicable nationwide in evaluating the quality of State hazard-
ous wast programs.
5 Keyworøs
Program Evaluation I Oversite / RCRA / Program Capability / State Program
6a Does This Directive Superseoe Previous Directive(s)”
No XX Yes What directive (number
title)
# 9545.00—6
b Does It Supplement Previous Directive(s)”
XX No Yes What directive (number
title)
7 Draft Level
A — Signed by AND&A B — Signed by Ofl ce Director C — For Review & Comment
0 — ri Development
8. Document to be distributed to States by Headquarters? Li Yes
No
This Request Meets OSW R Directives System Format Standards
9 Signature of Lead office Difectives oorthnator\J k . U,
10 Name and Title of Approving Official
Date
Date
8/26/88
J. Winston Porter, Assistant A iiinistrator, OSWER
8/11/88
EPA Form 1315-17 (Rev. 5—87) Previous editions are obsolete
Os
VE
WE
DI
R Os
RECTIVE
WER
DI
Os
RECTIVE
WER
DI
0
RECTIVE

-------
OSWER Directive #9545.OO-6A
D Sr 4 ,.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
_____ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4
‘ t p o
AUG I ‘ ic c
OFFICE OF
SOUD WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
MEMOR.AN DUM
SUBJECT: The 1988 Revised RCRA Evaluation Guide
(OSWER Directive #9545.00—GA)
FROM: J. Winston Porter ACLJ ’
Assistant Administra lid aste and
Emergency Response
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I—X
In December 1984, the FY 1985 Edition of the RCRA Evaluation
Guide was released. The guide was developed by a special Task
Force to provide a reference point for implementing national
requirements and to provide protocols for conducting State program
evaluations. Since the guide’s release, the Regions have continued
to develop valuable expertise in State program oversight. This
expertise has been tapped to provide revisions to the FY 1989
edition of the guide.
At the Regions’ request, the RCRA Evaluation Guide has been
modified and restructured to provide a more usable guide to
ensure nationally consistent State program evaluations while
allowing flexibility to address specific areas of concern and
allow for appropriate levels of differential oversight. The
attached Guide is provided in two documents, the revised guide
and Appendices.
I hope that this revised guide proves useful in conducting RCRA
State program performance evaluations and in negotiating annual
State evaluation protocols.
Attachments
cc: Waste Management Division Directors (no attachment)
RCRA Branch Chiefs (no attachment)
State Authorization Section Chiefs (attachment and extra copies)

-------
‘.. ,-. --‘ - :
.4—. ‘ t __ u-
EvaluationGuide.

-------
9545.OO-6A
RCRA PROGRAM EVALUATION GUIDE
T&BLE OF CONT1 NTS
SECTION TITLE PAGE
INTRODUCTION . . . 1
Purpose and Use of Guide . . 1
Relationship to Other Guidance and Policy . . 2
The RCRA Oversight and Evaluation Process . . S
II REVIEW PROCEDURES . . . 9
Conducting Program Reviews . . . . . 9
A. Pre-meeting Preparation/Planning Session(s). . 10
B. On-site Review . 11
1. File Reviews . . . 12
2. Introductory Session 13
3. Discussion of Program Elements 13
4. Exit Briefing 14
C. Written Report 14
D. Follow-up Actions . . 16
Elements Common to a Successful Review . . . . 16
III PROGRAM REVIEWS. . . . . 18
A. Permit Program . 18
B. Compliance Monitoring and Enforcement Program. . . 21
C. Closure Progran 26
D . Corrective Action Program . 28
E. Management Program . 31
IV GUIDELINES FOR EPA RESPONSE TO STATE PERFORMANCE 36

-------
9545 .OO-6A
-1-
SECTION I: INTRODUCTION
In December of 1984, EPA released the FY 1985 edition of the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act Evaluation Guide. This document was developed
as a tool to incorporate the existing Interim National Criteria for a quality
}lazardous Waste Management Program under RCRA into EPA’s oversight activities.
The original guide was a reference point for implementing national
requirements and to provide protocols for conducting State program reviews.
Since this document’s release, the Regions have continued to develop expertise
in overseeing and implementing quality RCRA programs. Although review and
oversight of the RCRA program must be tailored to specific Regional/State
situations, it is clear that a baseline exists for conducting a quality
evaluation. In order to ensure nationally consistent RCRA program evaluations
and in order to allow enough flexibility to address specific circumstances in
those evaluations, the RCRA Evaluation Guide has been modified and simplified.
The revised RCRA Program Evaluation Guide emphasizes the process for
conducting program evaluations.
The Agency has res.tructured this revised guide to make it more usable for the
Regions in evaluating State programs. The discussion of national requirements
(previously Section 2) is now included as part of the discussion of program
goals for each program element in Section III. In addition, the previous
-Section 3 (Incorporating National Requirements into Grant Workplan) is
incorporated into the Introduction. This new guide includes a separate
section (II) that sets forth appropriate procedures for conducting program
reviews. Section III now outlines the review for each RCRA program element
and presents general questions representing the minimum requirements for both
the pre-meeting preparation/planning session and the on-site review.
The revised RCRA Program Evaluation Guide is presented in two volumes. The
first volume includes an Introduction, Review Procedures, Program Reviews, and
Guidelines for EPA response to State performance. This volume is designed to
stand alone when used to develop a State Program Review. The second volume is
a group of five appendices that include more detailed checklists for each
program element. Although this second volume is not required to develop a
program review, it i provided for those who desire a more detailed approach.
PURPOSE AND USE OF GUIDE
This revised evaluation guide establishes procedures and guidelines to assist
EPA Regions in conducting State program reviews. The requirements summarized
in the Guide apply equally to the EPA Regions and States The Guide may be
used both to oversee States with RCRA program grants - - whether authorized or
under cooperative arrangements - - and to evaluate the Regions (where States
are not authorized)

-------
9545 .OO-6A
-2
This evaluation guide establishes minimum requirements applicable nationwide
in evaluating the quality of State hazardous waste programs. This document
incorporates the program goals and key questions that are described in the
National Criteria for a Quality Hazardous Waste Management Program Under RCRA
(1986). In addition to presenting suggested procedures for conducting State
program reviews, this document provides detailed Appendices which provide a
number of useful checklists and questions for use in conducting evaluations.
It is important to note, however, that EPA Headquarters and the Regions are
not required to follow the questions exactly as contained in this evaluation
guide. The questions are intended as guidance for developing a review
tailored to the individual Region/State relationship and the status and
characteristics of the State programs. It is clearly the responsibility of
the Region and the State to develop specific oversight procedures. 40 CFR
§35.150 states, in part, “. . . In consultation with the applicant, the
Regional Administrator will develop a process for evaluating the recipient’s
performance.
This document, however, aims to ensure a nationally consistent framework by
which to evaluate the quality of State hazardous waste programs by:
• Presenting program review procedures each Region should
follow (Section II);
• Illustrating model evaluation questions that incorporate
the quality criteria and related requirements (Section
III); and
• Outlining appropriate EPA response actions to State
performance (Section IV).
RgLATIONSHIP TO Qr I GUIDANCE AND POLICY
The guide will be revised or supplemented as necessary to reflect emerging
program priorities and new policies identified in the Agency Ooerating
Guidance , the RCRA Inmlementation Plan and other operating guidance. It may
also be revised periodically as experience is gained in its use.
The RCRA Program Evaluation Guide is integrally related to a number of
existing Agency guidance and policies. To conduct a fully successful RCRA
program evaluation, the following documents should be used as a part of the
evaluation process.
• AgencY Operating Guidance . This document sets the policy
and planning directions of the Agency in a given fiscal
year. Based on this document, the annual RCRA
Implementation Plan and the goals for the Strategic
Planning Management System are established.

-------
9545 .OO-6A
-3-
• °The RCRA Implementation Plan (RIP) , issued annually. This
document provides a summary of the program priorities,
reporting requirements and forms, and targets for
Region/State grants management. It cross-references
virtually all the related documents affecting fiscal year
planning and oversight.
• The National Criteria for a Oualitv Hazardous Waste
Management Program Under RCRA , issued in revised form in
1986. This document defines the key questions and
performance expectations for managing and evaluating the
RCRA program under existing regulations and policies. It
is multi-year in scope. The quality criteria form the
basis for the grant work agreement, program element
format, program reviews and other oversight tools.
• Strategic Flannina and Management System (SPMSI , conducted
annually. This process defines the RCRA measures,
commitments, and reports that senior Agency management
will use to evaluate progress in overall program
implementation. It establishes quarterly reporting
requirements for EPA program offices and the Regions, and
establishes achievement targets for some of these
requirements.
• National. Permits Strategy , revised August 1984. This
document provided national direction for developing
individual Region and State multi-year strategies for
addressing the permit workload.
• RCR.A Enforcement ResDonse o1icv (ERPI , revised in 1987.
This . document defines a classification scheme for
identifying and reporting violations, describes timely and
appropriate responses for each violation type, and
outlines various levels of program response to bring
violators back into compliance.
• RCRA Ground-Water Monitoring Enforcement Guidance , August
1985. This document includes both the RCRA Ground-Water
Monitoring Compliance Order Guidance and the Draft RCRA
Ground-Water Monitoring Technical Enforcement Guidance
Document . These documents provide comprehensive guidance
on how to identify and rectify ground-water monitoring
violations.

-------
9545 .OO-6A
-4-
Late and Incomnlete Part B Policy. This policy memorandum
outlines appropriate enforcement procedures (e.g., notices
of deficiency, warning letters, compliance orders, etc.)
to deal with facilities submitting late and incomplete
Part B permit applications.
• State/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOkl , for authorized
states. These documents are negotiated agreements between
EPA and authorized States, and set forth the respective
roles and responsibilities of each agency in administering
the RCRA program in that State.
• Azencv Policy Framework for State/Federal Enforcement
Agreement , issued June 26, 1984. This document provides
Agency-wide requirements for developing enforcement
agreements and overseeing authorized enforcement programs.
• Guidance on Developing RCRA Coumliance/Enforcement
Strategy , issued on June 12, 1984. This document provides
national direction for developing individual Region and
State multi-year strategies for compliance monitoring and
enforcement.
• Capability Assessment Guidance , memo andum, signed
April 8, 1987. This memorandum describes the procedures
the Regions should follow in conducting capability
assessments of State programs, prior to approving
applications for state authorization for HSWA provisions.
• Protocol for Evaluating Interim Status Closure/Post-
Closure Plans , issued August 1986. This document provides
detailed checklists and forms for evaluating closure/post-
closure plans for completeness, procedural correctness,
and consistency with regulations.
• RCRA Permit Quality Protocol , issued August 1986. This
document provides detailed checklists for evaluating the
completeness, consistency with regulations, technical
soundness, and enforceability of RCRA permits.
• EPA Policy on Performance-Based Assistance , May, 1985.
This document outlines procedures for releasing funds to a
State in consideration of performing deficiencies.

-------
9545 .OO-6A
-5-
• RCRA State Oversight Inspection Guidance , December, 1987.
This document provides a uniform procedure under which
State oversight inspections should be performed and
promotes a nationally consistent approach to evaluating
State inspection performance.
The interrelationship of these documents and the process for oversight
planning, monitoring and evaluation, and feedback and follow-up is detailed in
Exhibit 1-1, RCRA Oversight Process Flow Chart.
‘filE RCRA OVERSIGHT AND EVALUATION PROCESS
The RCRA oversight and evaluation process relies on the guidance, policies,
and negotiated agreements cited above. The process can be approached through
a three-tiered planning and evaluation structure. Oversight planning;
monitoring and evaluation; and feedback/follow-up response comprise the three
basic stages in the process. Each stage is discussed in more detail below,
and is illustrated in Exhibit I-i.
Oversight PlnTming
The RCRA oversight process begins with the issuance of the “Agency Operating
Guidance,” and its supplement, the “Strategic Planning and Management System”
(SPMS). The operating guidance establishes broad goals and objectives for all
EPA programs, while SPMS details specific accountability neasures. Based on
these documents, the RCRA national program issues the annual “RCRA
Implementation Plan” (RIP), which describes the national program’s strategy
for implementing the Agency’s operating guidance. This is the basis for both
Regional development of its own commitments under SPMS and the guidance it
provides to the State for program grant planning.
In conjunction with the development of Regional commitments, the Region and
State develop the annual State grant work agreement. This document, which
establishes annual State commitments and performance expectations, should
reflect the grant guidance and the MOA, as well as the RCRA Quality Criteria
and RIP.
All RCRA State grant work agreements should be performance-based. This
approach improves the accountability of the State program by expressing
commitments on a quarterly basis, and by explicitly identifying the resources
associated with those commitments The emphasis on funding and commitments
also aids the States in the management of their program by encouraging close
supervision of resources and the tracking of outputs

-------
Exhibit 1.1
RCRA Oversight Process Flow Chart
Oversight
Planning Program Goals Negotiation of Issue Obligate Complete
Established Commitments Performance— Grant Development
Based Grant Funds of Evaluation
• Agency Operating • Regional SPMS Protocol
Guidance Commitments p.,.
• RIP • State Grant
Work Agreement
• SPMS
Monitoring Monthly Monitoring Mid— and End-of-Year Reviews
and Evaluation (HWDMS)
• Program Reviews
— All Elements
• Compliance and
Enforcement
—. •State Grant Work
Logs Agreement Review
• Permit Activities
• File Review
Monthly Status
Report
• MOA Review
-4
_ I
Feedback
and Issue S —l
j Showing • Transfer Good Ideas to Other States and Regions
lZea sPublicize State Program and Accomplishments
Follow-up Program Re- I
view_Re I ri Exemplary •Tectinical and Financial Assistance for State Special or
_______ I rmance Innovative Projects
- Feedback Into
___________ Later Reviews
Response EPA
• Provide Technical Assistance Year Planning
State Response • Suggest Minor Change in State or Regional Procedure and Future
• Increase Reporting Frequency/Level of Oversight
•Ralse Performance Issue to Higher Level Management
For Arees I S Revise Future Work Program
• Explanations
• Corrective
L .I Needing -‘ • Greatly Increase Oversight
Actions
i Improvement I • Negotiate “Corrective Action Plan”
•Feedback Ofl i •Revoke Letter of Credit/Institute Reimbursable Grant
Regional •Postpone Release of Funds, or Deobligate
Performance • Initiate Program Withdrawal
S82065— lb

-------
9545 .OO-6A
-7-
The State grant work agreement summarizes the activities the Region and State
agree should be performed by the State during the fiscal year for which the
grant is awarded. It also indicates the level of grant resources to be
devoted to each of the various activities. As such, it is an excellent tool
for establishing and documenting how a State will incorporate program
priorities and guidance into their operations, and how the Region will support
and oversee such activities. It is also a tool that can serve as the basis
for any grant sanctions that may be imposed as a result of non-performance.
Conditions should be established in the State grant work agreement to address
areas of poor.performance during the preceding year, activities mandated by
the State capability assessment, and procedures for release of grant funds and
adjustments to funding in the event of non-performance.
Monitoring and Evaluation
The RCRA monitoring program and evaluation activities include monthi
monitoring through use of the Hazardous Waste Data Management System (HWDMS)
and other reports, as well as program performance reviews (mid-year, end-of-
year, and quarterly/monthly, if necessary). Throughout the year, oversight
inspections, record reviews, and permit reviews are also conducted to
complement State monitoring and evaluation activities. In addition, less
formal monitoring and evaluation activities, such as routine meetings, monthly
permitting and enforcement conference calls, and telephone conversations with
State personnel, can and should be used to enhance program monitoring and
evaluation.
Feedback and Follow-up Response
The final part of the RCRA oversight and evaluation process involves feedback
on program performance. It is critical that feedback be a two-way street,
with the objective being to improve future performance by both the Region and
the State. The States receive informal feedback from the Regions throughout
the year and formal feedback by means of the program review reports prepared
by the Regions to describe the findings of program evaluations.
When program performance has been exemplary, the Regional response may include
publicity for State accomplishments, and technical or financial assistance for
special State projects as appropriate and available.
A new data system called Resource Conservation and Recovery
Information System (RCRIS) is currently being field tested Over the course
of the next year, HWDMS will be phased-out and RCRIS will take its place
This change will improve our reporting efficiency and enhance our ability to
analyze data

-------
9545.OO-6A
-8-
When program performance shows need for improvement, Regional responses may
range from increasing the level of monitoring and evaluation to providing
technical assistance, changing grant pay-out procedures, negotiating a
“corrective action plan”, or, in the most extreme cases, initiating withdrawal
of program authorization.

-------
9545.0O-6A
-9-
SECTION II: REVIEW PROCEDURES
EPA is required under 40 CFR 35.150 to review the States’ performance toward
completing the outputs agreed to in the State grant work agreement. This
section provides procedures for conducting these required program reviews
followed by a list of elements common to a successful review process. A
detailed description of the recommended format for the program review report
is also provided.
CONDUCTING PROGRAM REVIEWS
The on-site program review provides a forum for a face-to-face detailed review
and discussion of a State’s performance in meeting established goals and
objectives in the State grant work agreement. The RCRA Implementation Plan
(RIP) requires that at least one on-site program review be conducted each
year. Most Regions conduct two reviews: mid-year and end-of-year.
Additional evaluations, usually less formal, should be conducted as the budget
allows, or if a State’s performance warrants increased oversight. For those
States which have Regional offices, these additional reviews are recommended.
Mid- and end-of-year reviews should be conducted as soon after the period
being evaluated as possible. Whereas lags in data entry may necessitate a
delay in an immediate evaluation, they should be conducted as soon as po sib1e
and no later than 45 days from the end of a review period. This will help
expedite the release of the final report and the initiation of steps to
correct and program deficiencies.
Mid- and end-of-year reviews will usually require a minimum of two
working days on-site. The reviews should be comprehensive, detailed
evaluations of all aspects of a State’s performance. Additional time will be
required if file audits are also scheduled.
Whenever possible, State performance commitments should be directly
incorporated into the State grant work agreement. However, there are other
existing mechanisms utilized by Regions and States. In conducting a program
review, all State/Regional commitments should be considered, including the
following:
• State grant work agreement
• Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
• Letter of Intent/ ”Corrective Action Plan” (where
appropriate)
• State-specific implementation strategies
• Other EPA/State agreements

-------
9545 .O0-6A
- 10 -
The National Criteria for a Quality Hazardous Waste Management Program Under
RCRA (revised 1986) serve as the basis for determining the adequacy of a
State’s/Region’s performance. Exhibits in Section 3 of this Guide (revised as
necessary for individual Region/State ituations) should be used for file
reviews, analysis of individual State outputs, etc.
Creating a program review staff with an appropriate skill mix is crucial in
preparing for a successful review. Conducting a comprehensive program review
requires a team approach; that is, input from all program elements is
necessary. A review team should consist of individuals who are familiar with
the State’s performance in each of the following areas: enforcement,
permitting, closure, corrective action, regulatory development, reporting/data
management, and resource utilization/program management. Consideration should
be given to OSW and OWPE participation in on-site reviews, particularly in
States having persistent performance problems and/or in those States for which
a capability assessment is pending or underway. The Grant Project Officer
responsible for the particula State or a suitable supervisor from the
Regional Office should serve as team leader for the review.
The actual evaluation process consists of four major components: preparation/
planning session(s) prior to the on-site review; the actual on-site review; a
written report summarizing the findings and observations of the team with
recommendations for resolving problems; and follow-up actions.
A. Pre -meeting Preparation/P1RI1nI ng Session(s)
In order to minimize the time spent on-site, it is essential to have careful
planning and preparation prior to the actual State program review. If the
Region and the State have established oversight mechanisms, and have routinely
utilized them, the on-site review should hold few, if any, surprises. Regions
already receive a large amount of information from the States in the form of
State monthly reports, permit reviews, oversight inspections, copies of land
disposal facility documents, etc.; therefore, most of the quantitative
information and significant portions of the qualitative information can be
compiled prior to the on-site review. However, since the review draws upon
input from numerous sources and will be time-intensive for many State and
Regional employees, it must be carefully organized.
The entire review team should meet at least once approximately three to four
weeks prior to the on-site review to develop an agenda, define individual
roles or responsibilities, to discuss the State’s progress in performing casks
established in the State grant work agreement and in other mechanisms (MOA,
etc ), to determine the State files to be reviewed, and to discuss preliminary

-------
9545.00-6A
- 11 -
ratings for each program element. 2 Where 05W and/or OWPE personnel plan to
participate in the on-site review, their roles should also be discussed in
advance. The team should review the last written evaluation, in order to
verify that recommendations for correcting previously-identified deficiencies
have been implemented. Individual team members will have completed checklists
and prepared summaries of performance (where possible) for discussion at the
planning session(s). Where specific deficiencies (or potential deficiencies)
are identified, the team should prepare recommendations for correcting these
deficiencies. As far as possible, potential conflicts in performance ratings
should be resolved prior to the on-site review.
It is important that input from the State be sought at this early stage. What
issues would they like to have included on the agenda? Have they identified
specific guidance or technical assistance needs? Do they wish to request the
attendance of specific personnel from the Region or Headquarters, for
clarification or interpretation of a particular policy? Is there an impending
change or ituation of which the Region needs to be aware, and for which
careful planning is needed?
At least two weeks prior to the scheduled review, the Region should send the
State the following: a) an agenda for the review, including items requested -
by t ie State; b) procedures/checklists for conducting the review; c) a list of
specific issues/questions related to each program element or commitment being
evaluated; and d) a roster of EPA participants. A list of files to be
reviewed should be provided to the State at least 10 days prior to the
scheduled review date.
Whenever possible, the Region should also provide the State with completed
checklists and/or summaries of performance prior to the review to allow the
State time to prepare responses.
State personnel familiar with the various aspects of the program and specific
issues should be available to meet with the review team. State personnel
should be prepared to provide the review team with copies of any documents
which the team needs to document accomplishments or clarify issues raised
during the review.
B. On-Site Review
The on-site review will require two to five working days, depending on whether
file reviews are to be conducted, the amount of issue-resolution required, and
other factors. It is important that sufficient time be allowed for detailed
and substantive discussion of issues, deficiencies (if any), and
2 Although not all Regions currently give specific ratings for each
program element, a basic decision on the adequacy of the State’s performance
in each area should be made as a part of the evaluation process.

-------
9545.OO-6A
12 -
recommendations. The Region should also use this opportunity to receive
feedback on its own performance, to identify training and/or guidance
development needs, and to plan for the future.
It is essential that the on-site review team consists of individuals with
expertise in compliance monitoring and enforcement, permitting, closure/post-
closure, corrective action, and program management. File reviews of each of
these program areas should be performed by the member of the review team who
has expertise in that area.
The actual on-site review will generally proceed as follows:
a. File reviews (as necessary)
b. Introductory session
c. Discussion of program elements
d. Exit briefing
In addition, the Region may wish to augment the on-site review by encouraging
the participation of State program personnel in the review process. For
example, the Region could recommend that a State conduct its own evaluation
prior to the on-site review. Oftentimes, an internal State program review
enables State managers to verify EPA’s findings. Alternatively, the Region
could request an experienced State program staff person to accompany the EPA
review team. The State participant would be involved throughout the
information gathering process and would be able, to verify the accuracy of
information collected in addition to the validity of the corresponding program
review’s conclusions. Both these processes may prove effective in
strengthening Regional findings.
1. File reviews . The Region should conduct a review of State files on a
regular basis, and should ensure that file reviews are completed and
summarized prior to program reviews so that their results may be used during
the program review. Many Regions find it necessary to conduct file reviews as
part of the on-site program review, to minimize travel time. In such cases,
the file reviews should be scheduled at the beginning of the visit, to allow
sufficient time to incorporate the results into the review.
File reviews should be conducted for all aspects of the authorized program:
compliance monitoring and enforcement, permitting, closure/post-closure,
corrective action and program management. The percentage of file reviews
conducted and the selection of files should be based on criteria established
during the grant negotiation process. The extent of file review coverage is
based on Regional office needs for effective oversight arid may vary annually
The RCRA Permit quality Protocol (August 1986) and the Protocol for Evaluating
Interim Status Closure/Post-Closure Plans (August 1986) are useful tools for
conducting file reviews Both protocols provide detailed checklists useful
for evaluating permits arid closure/post-closure plans for completeness.
procedural correctness, consistency with regulations, and enforceability

-------
9545.OO-6A
- 13 -
If file reviews are to be performed at the same time as the on-site review,
the first two or three days should be set aside for the file reviews. The
file reviews are primarily the responsibility of the appropriate program staff
(e.g., enforcement, permitting); however, the entire team may participate.
During the file reviews, the Regional review team should interact with State
staff to clear up any minor questions which may arise. A representative
number of each type of file should be reviewed in order for the Region to
evaluate the quality and timeliness of the State’s activities. The State
grant work agreement usually defines the number and type of files to be
reviewed, the number and type of oversight inspections to be conducted, and
the extent of record reviews to be conducted at the State.
Where possible, the Region will already have completed its review of documents
routinely sent from the State to the Region (e.g., all land disposal files)
prior to the on-site visit. It is important that the State receive a list of
files to be audited prior to the review, so that all necessary materials are
r dily available. This is particularly critical when the State has field or
district offices which maintain records. In such a case, the Region might
consider doing an occasional file review or portion of a program review in a
district office.
If the file reviews are conducted as par; of the on-site review, the Regional
review team should meet following the file reviews and prior to meeting with
the State. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss results of the file
reviews, to determine the impact of the preliminary performance rating(s), and
to define roles/responsibilities for communicating the file review results to
the State. The technical specialist or supervisor for that particular area
usually assumes this responsibility.
2. Introductory session . The opening session of the on-site program review
should include introductions, and a general overview of how the review is to
proceed. The ground rules for the process (including roles/format/time
frames) should be understood by all parties, and agreement reached on any last
minute adjustments Co the agenda.
3. Discussion of program e1e ents . Through staff interviews and roundtable
discussions, all program elements and objectives in the State grant work
agreement and other commitments are discussed. The State’s commitments should
be briefly summarized, then progress towards meeting them discussed in detail
in terms of quality, quantity, and timeliness of the outputs. These
discussions should serve to fill in information gaps and to verify information
collected in advance of the review. The Region and State should discuss
successes and deficiencies with emphasis on identifying the reasons for
successes and developing alternatives for correcting problems that exist. The
Region and State should also discuss the work years used to date and, if
required, the need for reprogramming grant funds The Region should seek
feedback on its own performance as each program element is discussed, and
together the Region and the State should identify training and guidance
development needs At the conclusion of the discussion of each major program

-------
9545.OO-6A
- 14 -
element, the team should meet with key State staff and managers to discuss the
team’s findings and observations.
4. Exit briefing . There should be an exit briefing on the last day of the
review. At that time, senior Regional managers or agreed-upon representatives
will meet with senior State agency managers, as well as key State hazardous
waste personnel, to discuss the major findings and observations of the review
team. Any verbal agreements reached between the Region and the State should
be reiterated. It is important that managerial personnel from both the Region
and the State participate in this exit briefing, so that all are aware of the
issues raised and the recommendations discussed. In this way, recommendations
for corrective action can be implemented immediately, rather than waiting for
the issuance of the written report.
C. Written Report
Following the on-site program review, the Region should prepare a written
report which summarizes the findings obtained through all oversight
mechanisms: program reviews, file reviews, State monthly reports, oversight
inspections, document reviews, permit reviews, etc. The Project Officer is
responsible for preparing the draft and final report with input from all
members of the review team and other appropriate personnel. The report should
include findings and observations on all program elements and objectives, an
evaluation of the State’s progress in performing those tasks, and specific
recommendations for improving program performance, where necessary. The
report should summarize major points, and detailed charts, graphs, and
matrices should be included as attachments. Information included in the
attachments should document State accomplishments and deficiencies. Regions
should use standardized attachments to assist EPA in evaluating consistency
among State programs. Exhibit 11-1 provides a suggested format for the
program review report.
The Region should work to finalize the report as expeditiously as possible,
through a schedule previously agreed upon by the Region and State. The Region
should send a draft report to the State, usually within 15 calendar days of
the review, or as otherwise agreed upon. Again, it is critical to finalize
the report as soon as possible so that the overriding goal of the review, the
correction of program deficiencies found, can be efficiently met. The Region
should provide the State with an opportunity to comment on the draft report,
correcting any factual errors and clarifying any issues and recommendations
for follow-up actions. The State should respond within 15 calendar days from
receipt of the draft report, or as otherwise agreed upon. A final report is
then issued, incorporating and responding to the State’s comments, as
appropriate. The final report should be issued within 15 calendar days from
receipt of the State’s comments, or as otherwise agreed upon

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- 15 -
HIBIT 11-1
PROGRAM REVIEW REPORT FORMAT
A. Executive Si ” ry: The first page or two of the report should present a
brief Executive Summary. This summary is the portion of the report most
frequently read by others, including senior managers at both the State
and the Region. It should be concise, emphasizing the major findings an
recommendations of the program review, and highlighting significant
issues and areas of concern. Positive aspects of a State’s performance
should also be highlighted. Information should be presented in “bullet”
format, with reference to the specific page or section of the report
where that particular issue is discussed in more detail.
B. Introduction: The introduction to the review report should be very
brief. It should state the objective of the review, identify the period
being evaluated, and offer a list of the State and Federal participants
in the review.
C. Findings and Observations: A narrative discussion of the State’s
performance under each program element is presented in the body of the
report, and should include the following:
• A brief statement describing the State’s commitment in terms of work
years allocated, type and number of outputs, and timeframes for
submission.
• A summary of State performance to date, including quality of the
work, timeliness, and utilization of work years.
• A discussion of State methodologies, procedures, structures, etc.,
which contribute to successes or deficiencies. This discussion
should serve to substantiate the “Findings and Observations”.
D. Conclusions: This section should contain the following:
• An assessment of State performance, specifically, a brief analysis
of problems, why they occurred, and a discussion of alternative
solutions.
• A summary of any agreements reached between the RegLon and the State
during the on-site review, commitments and/or recommendations made,
and timeframes agreed upon for resolution of issues.
• A discussion of work years earned or reprogrammed, if necessary
• A closing statement which makes a judgment call as to the State’s
performance

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- 16 -
D. Follow-up Actions
In addition to issuing the written report, it is critical that Regions/States
establish tracking systems to ensure that all recommended actions are
completed on schedule. It should also be emphasized that steps to initiate
actions to correct program deficiency can be taken prior to the issuance of
the final report. To track progress on recommended actions, many Regions have
monthly conference calls with the States. The Region should be prepared to
take an escalated response action (according to predetermined guidelines) if
recommendations are not followed.
EL TS CC MON TO A SUCCESSFUL REVIEW
Each Region should tailor the structure of the RCRA program review to its own
operating procedures and unique Region/State relationship. However, certain
elements are coon to a successful process:
• The performance expectations underlying all program review
questions should be clearly defined in the State grant
work agreement, MOA, or other Region/State agreement.
• Since the review is concerned with program performance, it
must consider both State and Regional performance of
responsibilities (i.e., technical support, training,
etc.); follow-up actions should be developed not only for
the State, but for the Region as well.
• The purpose of the review should be to improve future
program performance, with the emphasis on constructive
feedback to identified problems, rather than on sanctions.
However, Regions/States are expected to deal firmly with
persistent problems, taking whatever measures are
necessary and appropriate to remedy performance.
• A major objective of the process is to identify
performance issues early and to take steps to correct
problems that would otherwise prevent implementation of a
quality program.
• The review should also recognize program accomplishments,
with an eye toward the transfer of good ideas, procedures,
etc. to other States/Regions.
• Program review findings should be viewed relative to past
performance and the importance of the review area
Apparent successes or failures should be assessed
according to whether actual improvements or slippage in
performance have occurred.

-------
9545. OO-6A
- 17 -
• All overs ight tools used throughout the year should be
centrally coordinated so that information for evaluation
is collected once and used consistently.
• Evaluation reports for all States should be centrally
coordinated and follow a standardized format to establish
consistency within the Region.

-------
9545.OO-6A
- 18 -
SECTION III: PROGRAM REVIEWS
A. PERMIT PROGRAM
Program Coals
The permit program’ s primary goal is to establish increased regulatory control
over the design and operation of hazardous waste treatment, storage, and
disposal facilities. One of the key objectives is to issue quality,
enforceable permits to land disposal and incineration facilities in accordance
with the statutory deadlines and to environmentally significant treatment and
storage facilities. To achieve this goal, the permit program requires the
aggressive use of enforcement authorities to obtain compliance with all Part B
informat ion requirements.
The permit program also plays a critical role in ensuring future storage,
treatment, and disposal capacity and alternatives to the land disposal of
hazardous waste. The permit program is placing increased emphasis on
processing new facility applications, research, development, and demonstration
permits (RD&D) and permit modifications. Permit modifications are becoming
in creasingly important, since many address schedules of compliance for
corrective action. In addition, the permit program will include increased
requests for changes to existing interim status facilities for the expansion
of storage, treatment and incineration capacity.
Pre -neeting Preparation/P1A T ng
Prior to the on-site review, the Region should organize the appropriate permit
staff to evaluate the status and adequacy of multi-year permit strategies and
MOAs. This preliminary review will assist Regional staff in determining the
need .for .revisions/adjustments to projected accomplishments and changes in the
division of permitting responsibilities. In addition, the appropriate permit
staff should evaluaçe the latest monthly HWDMS reports to determine how the
State is progressing in meeting its quarterly commitments. A review of HWDMS
data should also highlight potential discrepancies or areas for follow-up
during the on-site review. Individual facility management plans, if complete
and up-to-date, may also be used to evaluate State progress on specific permit
actions.
The following questions are for use in the pre-planning stage and address the
issues discussed above A more detailed checklist is found in Appendix A.

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- 19 -
MULTI -YEAR PVJ MTT STRATEGY
• Has the State developed a multi-year permitting
strategy?
• Does the strategy address all environmentally
signific ant facilities?
• Does the strategy require final determinations
for existing facilities in accordance with
national priorities?
• Does the strategy include commitments for
intermediate milestones in the permit process?
• Is the strategy periodically reviewed and/or
updated to address changes in facility status?
HW
• Are the schedules agreed upon in the State grant
work agreement for Part B call ins, permit
processing and final determinations being met?
• For each facility type, what is the progress of
permit issuance to date?
• Is the State issuing Notices of Deficiencies
(NODs) for Part B applications within a timely
manner?
• Is appropriate follow-up action being taken
(i.e., permit denial, enforcement action) if
permit deficiencies are not resolved within
appropriate time frames?
o What is the status of permit modifications? Are
modifications being issued for corrective action
activities?
o Has the time period for processing permits
improved for permits issued this year versus
prior years?

-------
9545. OO-6A
- 20 -
On-site Review
The focus of the on-site visit is on reviewing State permit procedures for
quality and completeness. File reviews and staff interviews are the primary
information sources for the on-site visit.
The field review should evaluate permits for clarity and enforceability and
determine whether all procedural and substantive requirements are being
fulfilled. For example, incorporation of public comments into final decisions
is an important objective of the permit program and should be covered in the
review. The Region should also review the State’s record in winning permit
appeals. The ability of the State to have its final determinations upheld on
technical, legal and procedural grounds may be a measure of permit quality.
The Office of Solid Waste (OSW) developed the RCRA Permit Quality Protocol
(August 1986) to assist the Regions in evaluating a permit for completeness,
procedural correctness, and consistency with regulations. In addition, this
guidance provides for the review of a permit’s technical soundness, and
enforceability. This guidance provides detailed checklists and forms to be
filled out by the reviewer. These forms may be used during the on-site file
review. -
Finally, meetings with appropriate staff shpuld be used to discuss problem
areas and coordination of the permit process with other State program
elements.
The following questions address the primary issues covered during the on-site
review. A more detailed checklist is found in Appendix A.
FILE REVIEW
• Are permit files and administrative records
complete with all necessary correspondence and
documentation?
• Are permit conditions clear, enforceable and
properly documented?
• Do the permits fully describe and define
requirements and frequencies for facility
monitoring, reporting, inspection, and analyses
after permit issuance 9

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- 21 -
FILE REVIEW
(cont’ d)
• Are all regulatory requirements for public
participation being met?
• Do final permit decisions consider all relevant
public comments received on the draft permit?
• What is the status of permit appeals? Are
permit determinations being upheld on technical,
legal, and procedural grounds?
B. COMPLIANCE MONITORING AND FORC (EWT
Program Coals
The goal of the compliance monitoring and enforcement program is to ensure an
improving level of compliance withi ’h the regulated community and to discourage
non-compliant behavior through the use of formal enforcement actions and
penalty assessments. In accordance with the time frames described in the
revised Enforcement Response Policy (ERP), the Regions and States should
initiate appropriate enforcement action and assess penalties against
violators.
The compliance monitoring and enforcement program is shifting its focus from
enforcing pre-HSWA interim status requirements to enforcing requirements in
permits and closure plans. In addition, the program will show increased
emphasis on compelling corrective actions and enforcing against schedules of
compliance to implement corrective measures in accordance with approved plans.
Furthermore, the compliance monitoring and enforcement program will ensure
compliance with all mandatory inspections and HSWA requirements, in
particular, the land disposal ban.
Pre -meeting Preparation/Planning
To minimize the time spent on-site, it is important to compile and analyze all
relevant information before the on-site review The State Compliance
Monitoring and Enforcement Strategy should be reviewed for consistency with
the National Strategies. The strategy should include procedures for
inspections, record reviews, and enforcement actions and should be updated as
necessary Similarly, the Region should review the State/EPA Enforcement
Agreement for appropriate division of responsibilities and oversight

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- 22 -
requirements. Another important information source is the monthly HWDMS
reports. HWDMS data quantitatively describe whether the State has met its
commitments for performing inspections and record reviews, and whether the
State has been successful in bringing the regulated community into compliance
HWDMS data will also help in determining whether enforcement actions have been
timely and appropriate. Any conclusions made from Regional oversight
inspections and oversight record reviews should be summarized during the pre-
planning stage, and used later in the on-site review to support the results of
the file reviews.
Below is a series of questions that should be asked to assess the compliance
monitoring and enforcement program at the pre-planning stage. For a more
detailed checklist which expands on these questions, see Appendix B.
STATE COMPlIANCE MONITORING AND
YORC 1T STRATEGY/ 1YORC T AGRRPX NT
• Dies the State Compliance Monitoring and
Enforcement Strategy include procedures for:
(1) Conducting all mandatory inspections in
accordance with the RIP?
(2) Taking timely and appropriate enforcement
response action?
(3) Completing record reviews of all handlers?
(4) Classifying violations?
(5) Inspecting all TSDFs in conjunction with permit
applications?
(6) Identifying non-notifiers and handlers
operating without permits or manifests?
(7) Verifying that facilities have closed in
accordance with approved closure and post-
closure plans, and that requests for withdrawal
are valid?

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- 23 -
STATE COMPLLANCE MONITORING AND
ENFORC fENT STRATECY/ENYORC cENT A RE ENT
(cont’ d)
• When was the strategy last updated to address
new program priorities?
• Does the State/EPA Enforcement Agreement contain
clear oversight criteria, clear criteria for
direct EPA enforcement in authorized States, and
adequate provisions for state reporting of
enforcement activities?
• Is the State meeting its inspection and record
review commitments in accordance with the RIP
State grant work agreement and statutory
requirements?
• Are enforcement actions timely and appropriate?
Does the State respond to every instance of
known non-compliance and issue penalties to all
high priority violators? Are penalties
commensurate with violations according to the
State’s Penalty Policy or more than de minimus
if there is no State penalty policy?
• What is the compliance rate of various types of
handlers? How have compliance rates changed
over time? Has the State been successful in
bringing handlers into compliance?

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- 24 -
On- site Re’ci.ew
In evaluating the compliance monitoring and enforcement program, file reviews
are the most important source of information during the on-site review. File
reviews should focus on assessing the quality of enforcement files and various
documents including CMEs, GEls, record reviews, and administrative orders.
All enforcement actions should contain clear, specific language, and
documentation should be sufficient to support the type of actions taken.
In addition, particularly in States without administrative order authority, a
visit to the State Attorney General’s (AG) office may be desireable. Whereas
the AG’s performance on taking actions and negotiating settlements will not be
considered a factor in the State’s program performance, it may provide
valuable information on ways to improve upon the State’s overall timely and
appropriate enforcement response.
Below is a series of questions to assess the compliance monitoring and
enforcement program performance during the on-site review. For a more
detailed checklist which expands on these questions, see Appendix B.
Appendix B also includes a form for use in reviewing each document during a
file review. -
QUALITY OF ENFORCEMENT FILES
• Are the files well-organized, complete and up-
to - date?
• Are the respondent’s work products, progress
reports, correspondence included in the file?
• Is there a procedure for checking out and
returning files?
• Do the files indicate the current compliance
status? Are facilities that return to compliance
(RTC) well-documented through field verifications?
correspondence?

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- 25 -
QUALITY OF QIEs
• Did the CME contain a review of the design and
operation of GWM system, a review of the
sampling and analysis plan, and a site map?
• Does the CME adequately evaluate the facility’ s
GWM system?
• Is there a firm basis for all violations cited?
• Does the CME report stand alone as an
enforcement document?
• For contractor-conducted CKEs, was the
inspection adequately critiqued?
• Was the CME checklist used? If not, what was
used to evaluate CMEs?
QUALITY OF CEIs/RECORD REVIEWS
• Did the State accurately identify all Class I
violations at handlers which received either an
inspection or a record review?
• Are inspection checklists and record review
checklists complete and accurate?
• Is there a firm basis for all violations cited?
• Does the inspection report stand alone as an
enforcement document?

-------
9545.OO-6A
- 26 -
QUALITY OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS
• Is there an administrative record to support the
order? Is the administrative record complete?
• Is there a “Findings of Fact” section in the Order
that clearly describes the violations and how they
were discovered? Is there sufficient
documentation?
• Are the actions to be taken clearly described in
the Order with the responsibilities for the
respondent and State clearly defined? Does the
Order specify work products, reporting
requirements, and schedules?
• Is the State’s mechanism for overseeing the
requirements specified in the Order adequate?
• How are modifications to the Order made?
C. CLOSURE PROGRAM
Program Goals
The closure program’s primary goals are to minimize the post-closure release
of hazardous constituents into the environment and to take corrective action
to remedy existing hazards. In order to attain these goals, the Regions and
States must ensure that closing land disposal facilities have adequate ground-
water monitoring systems and that all releases are detected. The Regions and
States should compel corrective action, as necessary, through enforcement or
post-closure permitting authorities. Furthermore, the Regions and States
should ensure, through inspections and review of closure certifications, that
the approved plans are implemented properly.
Pie -meeting Preparation/Planning
The pre-planning stage focuses on review of the State’s multi-year closure
strategy and its progress in meeting schedules and facility priorities State
monthly HWDMS reports and the State grant work agreement are the primary
information sources for this stage of the review

-------
9545.OO-6A
- 27 -
The Region should evaluate the multi-year strategy and HWDMS reports for the
level of commitment devoted to processing closure plans, conducting closure
inspections and integrating corrective action into the closure process. The
following questions are for use in the pre-planning stage and address the
issues discussed above. A more detailed checklist is found in Appendix C.
MULTI -YEAR STRATEGY AND MONfl LY REPORTS
• Is the schedule for completing closure actions
consistent with the State’s multi-year strategy?
• What is the State’s progress in processing
closures?
• Does the strategy include commitments to
conduct inspections at closing or closed land
disposal facilities?
• Does the strategy integrate corrective
action requirements into the closure process?
On-site REview
The on-site review focuses on the quality of the closure plans and adherence
to procedural requirements. Staff interviews and file reviews are the primary
information sources. Files are checked for completeness of information (e.g.,
ground-water and soil monitoring data), consistency with regulatory
requirements and incorporation of public comment. OSW developed the Protocol
for Evaluating Interim Status Closure/Post-Closure Plans (August 1986) to
assist the Regions in evaluating closure/post-closure plans for completeness
and procedural correctness. In addition the guidance provides for the review
of the documentation associated with a closure/post-closure plan and other
substantiation of techical soundness. This guidance provides detailed
checklists and forms which may be filled out by the reviewer during the on-
site file review.
The following questions address the primary issues covered during the on-site
review. A more detailed checklist is found in Appendix C.

-------
9545.OO-6A
- 28 -
FILE REVIEW
• Are the States reviewing closure plans in accordance
with statutory and regulatory requirements?
• Are all statutory requirements for public
participation being met?
• Are closure decisions based on adequate soil and
ground-water monitoring information? How does the
State deal with closing facilities which have
inadequate ground-water monitoring systems?
• Does the closure plan clearly explain and describe
in detail the activities the owner/operator must
conduct to ensure enforceability?
• Do closure plans specify cleanup levels in adequate
detail and provide mechanisms for measuring
achievement of performance standards?
• How is the State overseeing closure actions? Is
this approach adequate to ensure compliance with
closure requirements?
• How do States follow up on facilities that close
by removal to ensure that no soil and ground-
water contamination exists?
D. COfiRECTIVI ACTION PROGRAM
Progra i Goals
The goal of the corrective action program is to ensure remediation of releases
of hazardous waste or hazardous constituents from treatment, storage and
disposal facilities as necessary to protect human health and the environment
To the extent possible, corrective action activities should be integrated with
permitting and closure activities Whenever possible, all releases associated
with a facility should be investigated at one time One objective of the RCRA
corrective action program is to use an approach which is consistent with
CERCLA, while meeting the specific needs and objectives of RCRA Regions and
States should consider the use of CERCLA, TSCA, or other appropriate State
authorities in conjunction with RCRA authorities to secure appropriate action
The corrective action program should focus on identifying and remediating
releases at facilities which pose the greatest threat to human health and the

-------
9545.OO-6A
- 29 -
environment. The Regions and States will use the FMP process and grant
negotiations to identify facilities requiring priority attention.
PROGRAM REVIEW
Pre -meeting PreparationfPbuming
In order to prepare for the on-site review, the Region should review State
priorities to ensure that proper procedures are in place for identifying
releases and potential releases, and for setting priorities for further
corrective action activities. HWDMS data, including monthly reports, should
.be compiled and sujmnRrized. HWDMS data quantitatively describe the progress
of the State’s corrective action program in meeting commitments in its grant
work program.
A recommended series of questions to assess the corrective action program
during the pre-planning stage is listed below. A more detailed checklist is
found in Appendix D.
STATE PRIORITIES
• Is there a process for reviewing all facility-
specific information to identify all potential
releases at RCRA facilities?
• How are facilities prioritized for scheduling RFAs?
What information sources, if any, are used to
prioritize facilities for RFAs?
• What procedures are in place to identify facilities
for priority attention in initiating the corrective
action process?
• What is the State’s progress in meeting RFA, RFI, CMS,
and CMI activities specified in the State grant work
agreement?
On-site Review
In evaluating the corrective action program through the on-site review
process, file reviews and discussions with State staff members are the most
important sources of information Through file reviews, the Region can
determine whether all relevant data were used to detect releases which require
corrective action. The Region can also determine whether RFAs and RFIs are

-------
9545.00-6A
- 30 -
conducted on schedule and in a technically adequate manner. Discussion with
staff members should be used to answer questions which remain after the file
review. This discussion should also be used to determine how well corrective
action activities are being coordinated with other State program elements and
other State and Federal regulatory authorities.
A recommended series of questions to assess corrective action program
performance at the on-site review is listed below. A more detailed checklist
is found in Appendix D.
FILE REVIEW
• What is the quaMty of the RFAs? Are RFAs
prepared according to existing guidance?
Are visual site inspections conducted prior to
completion of RFAs?
• Are all conclusions in the RFA clearly explained
and documented to support specific permit or
compliance order conditions? (e.g., need for
RFI, interim measures, etc.)?
• Do RFAs identify and evaluate all SWMUs and all
known/likely releases at a facility?
• Are schedules of compliance for RFIs clear and
enforceable? Are monitoring mechanisms and milestones
for R.FIs established in the permit or order?
• Does the State oversee approved RFI workplans/
sampling plans?
• Have specific activities and schedules for
public involvement been included in plans for
all sites where an order or permit includes
corrective action?
• Are the schedules of compliance for corrective
measures studies specific in detail and enforceable 2
• Are procedures in place to ensure that the
owner/operator is implementing corrective
measures in accordance with the agreed upon work
plans?

-------
9545.OO-6A
- 31 -
FILE REVIEW
(cont’ d)
• Are there mechanisms available to measure the
effectiveness of the corrective measures?
,
STAFF DISCUSSIONS
• Has the State identified facilities for priority
attention in initiating and implementing the
corrective action process?
• Has the State been able to identify and respond
quickly to situations requiring immediate
corrective measures?
• In making decisions on RCRA corrective action
activities, are other relevant authorities taken
into account (e.g., CERCLA, TSCA, State
authorities, etc.)?
• Are corrective action activities effectively
coordinated between permitting and enforcement?
E. MANAG (ENT PROGRAM
Prograii Objectives
The main objective of the RCRA Management Program is to provide support and
oversight to the other program elements through management of resources,
training, and data management. This support ensures that all of the RCRA
program elements work in concert to provide a high quality RCRA program over
time.
Smooth operation of program management is ensured by effective resource
allocation. The resource allocation for e ich fiscal year is planned and
agreed upon by EPA and the States in the State grant work agreement. This
agreement outlines how many workyears will be expended in the operation of

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- -
each program element. This agreement should also inc .ude a plan for how
federal grant money will be allocated to agencies other than the lead State
agency
A well trained staff is also critical to effective management of the State
RCRA program. Management should develop and implement an annual training plan
that discusses the areas and programs that would benefit from training and how
this training will occur.
A third area of concern for the Management Program is the use of an
appropriate data system. State RCRA programs receive and process vast amounts
of data. The State should establish a data system that provides timely and
accurate information to meet the needs of State program decision makers.
Moreover, the State must report this information to EPA using established
schedules and formats. By implementing and maintaining an adequate data
system and Quality Control Program, managers are able to facilitate this
process.
Finally, in order to ensure a consistent RCRA program nationwide, management
must stay abreast of new Federal requirements. States must also keep EPA
informed of potential changes in State legislation and regulations and strive
to achieve or maintain an authorized RCR.A program under HSWA.
Pre -i.eeting PreparatioufP1 ming
Most of the Management Program review should take place prior to the on-site
review. Through careful review of documents during the pre -meeting
preparation/planning phase, the review team can develop a clear understanding
of the management process in the State. Perhaps the most valuable source of
information for this review is the State Grant Work Agreement. This document
should contain the State’s plans for resource allocation and staff training as
well as schedules for achieving RCRA program goals.
Other important sources that should be reviewed prior to the on-site review
are the State’s HWDMS reports and Data Quality Assurance: Plan. The
information in these sources should be reviewed to determine if the Data
Management System used in the State is adequate.
The following questions should be addressed during the pre-meeting
preparation/planning review. More detailed questions are included in
Appendix E.

-------
9545.OO-6A
STAFF TRAINING
• What training will be conducted this year and
which programs will benefit?
• How are training needs evaluated?
• How will training be conducted and by whom?
INYORMATION MANAG T SYST (
• Have EPA and the State established consistent
definitions for: reporting: data?
• Are quality control. procedures established,
documented, and implemented?
• Are the data in HWDMS up-to-date?
- 33 -
RESOURCE ALLOCATION
• How are work years allocated to each program
element?
• How are adjustments made during the year?
• Are grant funds allocated to other State
agencies? For what purposes?

-------
9545.OO-6A
- 34 -
On-site Reviev
The on-site review of the Management Program is an opportunity for the review
team to follow-up on any discrepancies discovered in the pre-planning review
as well as to discuss State and Regional performance with members of the State
staff. The primary information sources for the on-site review should be file-
reviews and staff discussions. In addition to any issues that may develop as
a result of the pre-meecing preparation/planning review, the following areas
should be examined:
RESOURCE ALlOCATION
• Is the State using work years according to the
RCRA allocation in the State grant work agreement?
Explain deficiencies/deviations from the allocation.
• Is the initial allocation sufficient to achieve
program commitments or are changes required? If
changes are needed, why?
• Are all staff vacancies being filled? Is the
skill mix appropriate for each program or are
particular skills/expertise missing? What plans
are in place to fill these gaps?
• Are grant funds being diverted to other programs
(Superfund, Subtitle D, etc.)? Are procedures
in place to ensure no diversion?
AFF TRAINING
• Are staff trained in accordance with annual
training plan?
• Is the current training plan adequate or have
new needs developed? What changes are necessary?

-------
9545.OO-6A
- 35 -
r
INFORM&TION MANAG 1T SYST (
• Is the State Universe identical to HWDMS?
Explain these discrepancies and how they will
be fixed.
• Does the Data Management System provide up-to-
date activity and exception reports for all
required activities?
• Does program management use the data system to
track and follow-up on key program elements?
AUTHORIZATION
• Is the State meeting its schedule for adopting
regulatory changes for HSWA and non-HSWA clusters?
• Jhat are the causes, if any, for these delays?
• What actions should be taken to expedite HSWA
authorization?

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- 36 -
SECTION IV: GUIDELINES FOR EPA RESPONSE TO STATE PERFORMANCE
This section recommends procedural actions that can be followed to respond
effectively to both positive and negative State performance as identified
during the data collection and program review process described earlier in
this guide.
Part 3 of the National Criteria for a Quality Hazardous Waste Management
Program under RCRA outlines the general principles to use when determining how
EPA and the States should respond to performance against the criteria and
related requirements.
RESPONSE PRINCIPLES
The appropriate response to performance against the criteria will depend on a
number of conditions, including:
• the relative importance of the criteria to program
objectives; -
• the seriousness of the failure or extent of success in
meeting the criteria;
• the frequency of any problems/failures or successes;
• the number of criteria failed; and
• the past response to plans to correct deficiencies.
Certain situations demand a nationally consistent response. However, most
situations require a response based on what will work for the indiv-idual
Region and State, reflecting the general principles outlined here and in the
Agency’s Performance-Based Grant Policy. Therefore, the response action must
be tailored to the needs of the situation, recognizing that the principal goal
is to strengthen the credibility, capability, and performance of the
implementing agency.
The level and severity of the response action should be consistent for similar
performance problems, whether the lead Agency is the EPA or the State
However, the available range of EPA response actions differs depending on
whether the Region or the State is the lead Agency. Oversight in an
authorized State is based on the MOA, the annual State grant work agreement,
or other State-EPA agreements, and response actions are to be in accord with
Agency policies. Response actions where the Region is the lead Agency are
based on performance tracking and evaluations and personnel performance
standards.

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- 37 -
RESPONDING TO 1PLARY P RMANCE
In conducting effective oversight of State programs, it is as important to
recognize and provide incentives for good performance as it is to identify
problems and ensure that corrective actions are taken.
The first response to effective State performance is simply to give credit
where credit is due. Focus management attention on those areas where the
State is operating in an exemplary way, and publicize the State program and
its accomplishments.
Related to this effort is the need to analyze what accounts for a State’ s
exceptional performance in some area. Is it due to a particular State
procedure? If so, could such a procedure (idea, approach, or project) be
effectively employed in other States? These ideas should be transferred to
other States in the form of memos, guidance, or technical notes, and/or
included in training programs.
A third response to positive State performance is to reduce the degree of
oversight levels as appropriate for that State. For example, if the State’s
inspections follow the established procedures and are always thorough and well
documented, the Region may reduce the number of oversight inspections.
Additionally, where performance has been demonstrated to be of consistently
high quality, the Region may reduce the frequency and scope of performance
reviews.
R.ESPONDING TO PER. RMANCE PROBL (S
Where the State fails to meet the performance criteria, the Regional Office
will initiate plans to correct deficiencies. The primary emphasis of these
plans will be on meeting the enforcement, permits, closure, and corrective
action criteria and maintaining an equivalent program. The plans should
clearly identify the corrective actions that are agreed upon as well as which
Agency is responsible for the action (the State or EPA). Actions to correct
deficiencies should be clearly established with real, measureable outputs and
realistic timeframes. Review of progress towards these actions should be
included in the next review. Where a State has problems meeting the actions,
the Region will take a more rigorous look at how the State is handling certain
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 §3008(a)(2) to bring Federal enforcement action if the State action is
not timely or appropriate. The quality criteria 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) If the State fails to
conform to these criteria, EPA involvement may be triggered

-------
9545 .OO-6A
- 38 -
EPA may also take direct action in response to State-prepared permits that are
inconsistent with the authorized State permit 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 permit.
For the remainder of the criteria, the response will depend on the pattern of
performance evaluated through program monitoring and the mid-year and end-of-
year reviews. Where 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. Where a State
consistently fails selected criteria and shows little intent to correct the
situation, the Region will take stronger actions. This should include award
of conditional grants and quarterly or semi-annual release of funds, directly
linked to performance. Listed below in roughly ascending order are examples
of responses to failure to meet the criteria. The 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).
• Provide technical assistance (e.g., provide State permit
writers with training on drafting groundwater corrective
action provisions).
• Slightly increase oversight (e.g., where file reviews
indicate inspection checklists are not being properly
completed, an increased number of oversight inspections
may be appropriate).
• Raise performance issues to a higher level of management,
both at the Region and State offices (e.g., include as
agenda item at routine BA/State Director meetings).
• Revise future work program (e.g., add additional grant
conditions requiring program management changes designed
to correct problems with meeting performance criteria).
• Greatly increase oversight (e g., where State consistently
drafts permits that are not in accord with S€ate
regulations, oversee more permits)

-------
9545.OO-6A
- 39 -
• Negotiate plans to correct deficiencies to address non-
performance (e.g , implementation of plan would be
evaluated at subsequent reviews and/or worked into State
Grant Work Agreement).
• 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 be
tied to improved performance).
• Initiate procedures to deobligate grant funds.
• Initiate program withdrawal.
Consistent with the Policy on Performance-Based Assistance (May 31, 1985), EPA
will award conditional grants and release them on a quarterly or semi-annual
basis where a consistent pattern of problems has developed for an individual
State. Subsequent increments should be released only if the State corrects
performance deficiencies.
Following’ the mid-year review, the Regions should monitor State progress in
addressing any performance problems discovered during the program review. The
Region should know, prior to the next fiscal year’s grant negotiation, if
State performance is improving or if the State still needs to take action to
correct deficiencies. In most instances, during the end-of-year review, the
Region, assesses State follow-up to recommended actions. The end-of-year
review, however, occurs after the Region and State have negotiated the next
fiscal year’s grant workplan. By waiting until the end-of-year to reexamine
State performance, the Region may miss the opportunity to use the grant as a
leverage for improved State program performance.
Where a State consistently fails to follow through on the plans to correct
deficiencies, or the State’s legal. authorities are no longer equivalent, EPA
may initiate withdrawal of the State’s authorization. The criteria for
withdrawal of the program are outlined at 40 CFR Part 271.22.

-------